Strategic Intelligence Research
Collection / Research

Technology · Institutions & society

Police technology,
privacy &
public trust.

What does this Florida study reveal about police technology, privacy, and public trust?

Research by Trei McMullen, D.G.S.

2025 dissertation · Florida case study

Explore the findings Read the explainer

01 The overview

Start with
the question.

How do unconscious bias and the adoption and use of emerging police technologies affect citizen security and privacy in Florida?

Research question, paraphrased from the published explainer

A Florida case study using anonymous civilian and officer surveys and analysis of executive statements after planned officer interviews did not proceed; the small purposive sample limits generalization.

In brief

In small civilian and officer surveys, opinions on privacy intrusion were evenly split. Most respondents in each group believed that having a voice in laws makes compliance more likely.

Keep in mind The questions differed between groups. These self-reports do not establish statewide opinion or changes in actual behavior.

02 The findings

What participants reported.

Start with privacy and public voice, then explore the other reported results. Keep each finding’s limits in view.

01Study findings

Reported opinions on privacy intrusion

On whether police technology intrudes too much on privacy and security, ten of twenty civilians answered yes and ten answered no. The dissertation reports an even split among officers on a differently worded question: five yes and five no.

Limits of this finding

The questions were worded differently, and these are self-reported opinions from small volunteer samples. They do not measure the prevalence of privacy harms or statewide public opinion.

02Study findings

Beliefs about having a voice and following laws

The surveys measured beliefs, not changes in behavior. Fourteen of twenty civilians said that having a voice in laws would make them more likely to follow them. Seven of ten officers said citizens are more likely to follow laws when they feel heard.

Limits of this finding

The groups answered different questions. The officer question concerned citizens, although the results chapter describes it as concerning officers themselves. These responses do not establish that participation caused greater compliance.

More findings: equipment, identification and executive statements

Reported results

Equipment, data and training

Six of ten officers reported an experience where their own or a fellow officer’s technology, such as body cameras, failed. Eight of ten reported an experience where an officer’s technology assisted in a situation. Five of ten said they knew what happens to the data captured by the software and hardware officers use.

Of those who answered the training item, 44 percent rated their training mediocre, 22 percent described it as a crash course, and 33 percent rated it good or great.

Limits of this finding These are self-reported experiences from a voluntary sample. The dissertation does not state how many officers answered the training item; its percentages cannot safely be converted to counts out of ten.

Reported results

Reported mistaken identification

Seven of the twenty civilians reported having been wrongly identified by police technology or an identification system.

Limits of this finding The printed survey item asked only whether the experience had happened. It did not ask what happened. The study does not establish what those seven experiences were.

Reported results

A separate reading of executive statements

The study analyzed twenty published statements by law-enforcement executives, drawn from trade magazines and reports. It coded acknowledgment of bias, the kinds of bias named, proposed solutions and the impact on public trust.

The dissertation’s narrative reports that most of the executives reviewed acknowledged bias and that about a third of the reports provided no concrete solutions.

Limits of this finding These are published statements, not twenty additional survey respondents. The narrative at pp. 89–90 and the summary table at pp. 82–83 disagree. This summary retains the narrative account without reconciling the discrepancy.

03 The methods

Who took part.
How to read it.

Research year: 2025. Fieldwork dates are a separate question.

Participants and sampling

Twenty civilians and ten current or former Florida officers answered anonymous online surveys. Fifteen civilians lived in Florida and five lived elsewhere. Participants volunteered; they were not selected randomly.

Sampling limit These small volunteer samples cannot be treated as representative of all Florida residents or police officers.

Anonymous surveys

20Civilian respondents15 in Florida · 5 elsewhere

10Officer respondentsCurrent or past Florida officers

↓ Survey responses and group comparisons

Separate content analysis

20Published executive statementsReports, speeches and interviews

↓ Themes in published material

Two survey groups and a separate body of published statements. The statements are not additional survey participants. Source: pp. 44, 46, 49–53, 63, 75, 82–84.
Study design
Qualitative case study · purposive anonymous survey · qualitative coding · content analysis
Geographic scope
Florida policing; the civilian sample also included five respondents living outside Florida.
Data collection dates
Not reported in the published explainer.
Follow the methods and source notes
The designA Florida case, examined through people’s perspectives.

The dissertation describes a qualitative case study: an examination of how unconscious bias may affect the adoption and use of emerging law-enforcement technologies, and what that could mean for citizens’ security and privacy. Florida supplies the setting. Although the research sought perspectives from different parts of the state, it did not set out to compare geographic regions.

The design combines surveys and thematic analysis. Chapter Six also uses descriptive statistics to compare the civilian and officer responses. Counts show how these respondents answered; the sampling approach limits how far those patterns can be generalized.

Recruitment and participationA voluntary sample with eligibility checks.

The study used purposive sampling: it sought people whose roles or experiences were relevant to the research. The survey link was publicly available, with opening questions that screened for eligibility. The civilian recruitment description includes distribution through social media and excludes people directly affiliated with law enforcement. Participation was voluntary, rather than randomly assigned.

The civilian and officer surveys were administered through Qualtrics. The dissertation says the survey did not collect names or other identifying information. Its results chapters report the groups below; the executive material was a separate content analysis of published reports, speeches and interviews.

The change in approachInterviews were planned. Surveys became the way in.

The research initially called for in-person interviews. The dissertation reports that officers were reluctant to take part because of confidentiality and data-security concerns, including fears of professional consequences if their identities were exposed. The researcher shifted to an online survey format.

According to the dissertation, this improved participation but reduced the depth of insight that direct interviews might have provided. The format change is part of the study’s limitations, as well as part of its story.

The analysisFrom responses to codes, then themes.

Chapter Three describes a three-stage coding process. Coding means assigning labels to material so that patterns can be examined. The stages below summarize the process the dissertation reports.

  1. Initial coding

    Read civilian responses for emerging patterns, then compare them with officer responses to identify themes around the use of technology.

  2. Focused coding

    Narrow attention to material concerning unconscious bias and its possible influence on decisions about adopting and using technology.

  3. Thematic analysis

    Bring the codes together into broader themes, connect those themes to the research questions, and interpret the community implications.

Chapter Six compares the two survey groups using descriptive statistics and comparative measures. Chapter Seven separately examines published executive material, organizing it around acknowledgment of bias, types of bias, proposed solutions, public trust and perceptions of technology.

A qualification in the source. The methods account is not fully consistent about the survey format. Page 44 describes multiple-choice questions and open-ended prompts; page 51 describes the civilian survey as exclusively multiple choice. This summary preserves that difference. The coding stages above describe the dissertation’s stated method; they do not establish that every reported finding came from an open-ended answer.

The theoretical framesTechnology acceptance and public legitimacy.

Technology Acceptance Model 2

TAM2 helps frame why officers might accept a tool. The dissertation discusses perceived usefulness alongside social expectations, voluntariness and professional image. These factors help organize its account of technology adoption.

Procedural Justice Theory

This frame concerns community trust, citizen rights and participation in decisions. The dissertation uses it to connect choices about technology with the public’s view of whether those choices are legitimate.

Reading the limitsWho answered shapes what can be concluded.

The civilian sample was capped at twenty. Voluntary, purposive recruitment may leave out people who are unfamiliar with the technologies or hesitant to discuss them. Self-reported answers can also reflect what seems socially acceptable, or a person’s limited awareness of their own biases.

The dissertation acknowledges that its small sample and difficulty recruiting officers restrict generalization across agencies. It also identifies the loss of interview depth, rapidly changing technologies, limited literature, and some participants’ reluctance to engage because they associated predictive-policing research with disputes over diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

These limits matter when reading both agreement and disagreement between the groups. The dissertation calls for larger, more diverse samples and approaches that make participation feel more secure.

04 The limitations

What the evidence
leaves open.

Explainer author’s interpretation

Which research questions remain unanswered?

The explainer author concludes that the printed survey directly reaches only the second of the dissertation’s four research questions, through perceptions. It does not directly address questions such as how agencies choose technologies or detect bias during hiring, training, and service.

This is the article author’s comparison, not a conclusion attributed to the dissertation. The assessment is limited to the printed instrument; the article notes inconsistent descriptions of the survey format. Planned interviews did not proceed, limiting the study’s depth.

This profile summarizes the published explainer and its source notes. It is not an independent review of the dissertation. Publication metadata is supplied separately by the maintained Zotero record.

What the dissertation recommends

These are the dissertation’s recommendations. They are proposals, not outcomes tested by this study.

  • Routine independent audits of predictive tools, involving independent oversight bodies.
  • Public transparency reports detailing the deployment, outcomes and limitations of these tools.
  • Open-source or independently audited algorithms for tools such as COMPAS.
  • Training that covers ethical considerations and data security, not only technical proficiency, with consistent maintenance protocols.
  • Civilian advisory boards and community forums with a real part in technology policy.
  • Feedback gathered from officers and from residents.
  • Publicly accessible policies on data retention and usage, limits on retention periods, and robust cybersecurity protocols.

05 Keep exploring

One study.
Several ways in.

Read the narrative explainer, revisit the earlier presentation, or return to the original research.

02 / Earlier presentation

The slide-by-slide version.

The earlier presentation remains available, including its technology examples, commentary and method page.

34 slides · Methods and source notes Open the earlier presentation

06 Cite the research

Keep the source
with the finding.

This section identifies the original dissertation by Trei McMullen. The explainer is a separate work by Scott W. Waddell, D.S.I..

Full citation record

Choose a bibliography format. Chicago notes and bibliography is shown as a bibliography entry; add the relevant page number when citing a specific passage in a note.

APA 7
McMullen, T. (2025). Unconscious bias on the implementation and utilization of emerging technologies by law enforcement agencies, and effects on the security and privacy of citizens in Florida: A case study of Florida [Doctoral dissertation (Doctor of Global Security), American Public University System]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3192204026
MLA 9
McMullen, Trei. Unconscious Bias on the Implementation and Utilization of Emerging Technologies by Law Enforcement Agencies, and Effects on the Security and Privacy of Citizens in Florida: A Case Study of Florida. 2025, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. American Public University System, Doctoral dissertation (Doctor of Global Security). ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/docview/3192204026.
Chicago 18 · bibliography
McMullen, Trei. “Unconscious Bias on the Implementation and Utilization of Emerging Technologies by Law Enforcement Agencies, and Effects on the Security and Privacy of Citizens in Florida: A Case Study of Florida.” Doctoral dissertation (Doctor of Global Security), American Public University System, 2025. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3192204026.
Chicago 18 · author-date
McMullen, Trei. 2025. “Unconscious Bias on the Implementation and Utilization of Emerging Technologies by Law Enforcement Agencies, and Effects on the Security and Privacy of Citizens in Florida: A Case Study of Florida.” Doctoral dissertation (Doctor of Global Security), American Public University System. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3192204026.

Download for Zotero / EndNote (.ris) BibTeX (.bib) CSL JSON (.json)

Import the RIS file into Zotero to use another citation style. Bibliographic metadata and formatted references come from the maintained Zotero record.