Tag Archives: police technology

Seattle Police

Drone Drama: Seattle Police Call for Help Amid Tech Lockdown

Leave a reply

A dramatic police standoff in Seattle’s Madison Park has reignited urgent debate over Seattle Police surveillance technology and its real-time limits during deadly emergencies. When a domestic violence call turned into a shootout with armed ex-convict Daniel Jolliffe, Seattle officers were forced to seek help from outside agencies—just to use basic drone support. As bullets flew and lives hung by a thread, city rules stood firm, sparking quiet outrage and fresh questions: When safety is at stake, should policy clip the wings of protection?

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Domestic violence call escalates into shootout

  • 53-year-old Daniel Jolliffe opens fire at officers

  • SPD faces tech limitations due to city ordinance

  • Six neighboring agencies provide drone support

  • Drone footage helps SWAT safely approach suspect

  • Jolliffe found dead from self-inflicted wound

  • City Council and Mayor’s Office decline to comment

A violent confrontation between Seattle Police and a 53-year-old armed suspect last Friday has drawn renewed focus to a longstanding and controversial issue in the city: the limitations placed on law enforcement’s ability to use surveillance technology, even in moments when lives hang in the balance.

The tense standoff took place at the Broadmoor Manor apartment complex, nestled near the city’s Madison Park neighborhood. The initial emergency call came in as a domestic violence situation. What unfolded, however, was far more dangerous than what responding officers likely anticipated.

From Routine Response to Armed Ambush

Body-worn camera footage later confirmed the chaotic start to the incident. Three Seattle Police Department officers arrived at the scene and encountered a woman who had been shot in the back and was screaming for help. As they began to assist her, the situation took a terrifying turn. The suspect, later identified as Daniel Jolliffe, fled upstairs and began shooting at the officers from a second-floor window.

The officers returned fire and, prioritizing the safety of the injured woman, retreated to cover while calling for backup. What began as a domestic violence call now evolved into a full-blown standoff with a gunman actively firing from within a barricaded apartment.

A City Policy Put to the Test

As the hours-long standoff unfolded, Seattle Police were confronted not only with a dangerous suspect but also with a significant operational limitation: access to surveillance technology. Seattle’s city ordinance restricts SPD from using or acquiring most surveillance tools—including drones and robots—without prior approval from the City Council. While there is a limited exemption during imminent life-threatening situations, police say the restrictions make it difficult to act quickly when time is critical.

SPD Chief Shon Barnes, who was at the scene during the standoff, acknowledged that the department had to rely on external support.

“Some of our partnering agencies had a drone trying to determine whether we could see or communicate with him,” Barnes said, referring to the moment when police sought eyes inside the building without sending officers into direct danger.

Despite repeated requests, Seattle Police declined to provide further details to local media, citing the ongoing investigation.

“With an ongoing investigation with an incident like this, we don’t release information,” SPD Detective Brian Pritchard told KIRO Newsradio.

Expert Weighs In: Balance of Safety and Oversight

To understand the larger implications of the tech restrictions, KIRO Newsradio turned to former King County Sheriff John Urquhart, who has overseen similar standoffs during his law enforcement career.

“I think being able to use technology to keep people safe—even to keep the suspects safe—is extremely important,” Urquhart said. “But it should only be used in situations where the public approves of it.”

Urquhart acknowledged that public concerns over misuse of surveillance tech are valid, but he also emphasized the need for balanced legislation.

“There are people that don’t want us to have any technology at all because they think we’re going to misuse it, and that’s always a possibility,” he said. “There should be regulations—legislation really—around how the police use technology.”

He also maintained that decisions about surveillance use should stay in the hands of Seattle’s elected officials.

“It’s really not up to us or even the press to second-guess what people want,” Urquhart added. “It’s up to the City Council to reflect those wishes.”

Neighboring Agencies Step In With Critical Support

As SPD scrambled for assistance, neighboring police departments responded quickly—bringing with them the kind of equipment SPD couldn’t deploy on its own. In total, six agencies provided support, including drones, SWAT teams, and trained personnel.

The Clyde Hill Police Department confirmed they sent an officer who deployed a drone to observe a possible escape route. Mountlake Terrace Police also contributed a drone and pilot. The King County Sheriff’s Office, via its SeaTac Police division, sent two drones with trained operators. Edmonds Police did the same.

“Drones are becoming more commonplace in law enforcement,” said Edmonds Police Commander Shane Hawley. “They’re a good tool to look for barricaded suspects because the only thing in danger is a small piece of equipment.”

Bellevue Police confirmed they sent a SWAT team and other technology resources to support the effort.

Technology Turns the Tide

Toward the final stage of the standoff, officers from a partner agency flew a drone inside the apartment unit. According to a police source, the images transmitted by the drone helped SWAT officers navigate the space safely—particularly as they approached a closed door inside the apartment.

Based on the drone intelligence, SWAT made a tactical decision to breach the door using an explosive device. The aim was two-fold: to create an entry point and to elicit a response from Jolliffe if he was still alive.

When officers entered, they found Jolliffe dead. The King County Medical Examiner later confirmed he had died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

Jolliffe’s criminal history includes a 1993 conviction for fatally shooting two men during a fight in Pioneer Square. Though originally sentenced to 27 years in prison, he served just 14 years before being released.

Silence from City Leadership

While multiple police agencies responded to media requests, Seattle’s City Council members did not comment. Mayor Bruce Harrell’s office also declined to answer questions regarding SPD’s surveillance limitations and the response to the standoff.

The incident raises broader concerns over how city policies may delay or restrict effective emergency response, especially in scenarios involving public safety and officer risk.

Though the ordinance was designed to protect civil liberties, critics argue it may now be hampering the ability of law enforcement to prevent further loss of life during active, violent incidents. The standoff at Broadmoor Manor may be just one example of the difficult balance Seattle must strike between technology, safety, and public trust.

The Broadmoor Manor standoff has drawn back the curtain on a growing dilemma facing Seattle Police—how to protect lives swiftly when surveillance tools are kept under strict lock and key. While city laws aim to protect civil liberties, the standoff showed how those very rules can hinder real-time response in life-or-death moments. As partner agencies filled the technological void, Seattle was left questioning whether its current approach to surveillance is truly serving the public—or simply leaving its protectors blind when danger strikes.

Appreciating your time:

We appreciate you taking the time to read our most recent article! We appreciate your opinions and would be delighted to hear them. We value your opinions as we work hard to make improvements and deliver material that you find interesting.

Post a Comment:

In the space provided for comments below, please share your ideas, opinions, and suggestions. We can better understand your interests thanks to your input, which also guarantees that the material we offer will appeal to you. Get in Direct Contact with Us: Please use our “Contact Us” form if you would like to speak with us or if you have any special questions. We are open to questions, collaborations, and, of course, criticism. To fill out our contact form, click this link.

Stay Connected:

Don’t miss out on future updates and articles

Gun Detection Tech Faces Heat for Failing D.C. and Focusing on Black Communities

Leave a reply

A teenager was gunned down outside Roosevelt High School in Washington, D.C.—but the city’s multi-million-dollar ShotSpotter system failed to detect the fatal gunfire. Once praised as a smart weapon against street violence, the system’s silence in this tragic moment has reignited fierce debate. With no alert sent, no fast response followed. As spending soars past $5 million, questions now swirl around missed shootings, vague oversight, and vanishing sensor data. Is this high-priced promise of safety merely an illusion? The city’s trust in its digital ear is hanging by a thread.

🔹 STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Fatal Flaw: ShotSpotter failed to detect gunfire that killed a teenager outside Roosevelt High

  • Multi-Million Dollar Spend: D.C. has paid over $5.16 million to ShotSpotter’s parent company since 2016

  • No Alert, No Rush: Police treat unconfirmed ShotSpotter alerts like traffic complaints

  • Missing Data: MPD admits it doesn’t track sensor locations or match alerts with confirmed shootings

  • Wider Controversy: Other U.S. cities have dropped ShotSpotter over accuracy and civil rights concerns

On a quiet afternoon in May 2023, the sound of gunfire shattered the calm near Roosevelt High School in Petworth, a neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Seventeen-year-old Jefferson Luna-Perez lay fatally wounded in the parking lot. It was a crime that should have activated an alert from the city’s high-tech ShotSpotter gun detection system—designed precisely for moments like this. But the system registered nothing.

Just a few hundred feet away, one of ShotSpotter’s acoustic sensors stood silent, despite being well within its 1,200-foot detection range. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) later confirmed the technology failed to detect the gunfire. By the time officers arrived, Luna-Perez was unconscious and unresponsive. He was transported to a nearby hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.

This tragic oversight has thrown a spotlight once again on a system that has long promised quick detection and faster responses to gun violence—but has yet to prove it consistently delivers. The D.C. government has spent millions of dollars on ShotSpotter over two decades, but mounting evidence suggests the return on that investment remains unclear, both in terms of lives saved and crimes solved.

The idea behind ShotSpotter is deceptively simple. Sensors mounted on rooftops across the city listen continuously for the distinct acoustic fingerprint of gunfire. When detected, the system should send an alert to local police within seconds. In theory, this allows officers to respond even if no 911 call comes in—potentially reaching victims sooner, securing crime scenes faster, and recovering evidence before it disappears.

But the death of Luna-Perez—and the silence of the system designed to protect residents like him—raises uncomfortable questions: What good is a gunshot detection network if it can’t detect actual gunshots? And how many more incidents might it be missing?

Investigative reporters from City Paper and the Investigative Reporting Workshop examined MPD’s internal crime data alongside ShotSpotter alert records spanning over a decade, from January 2014 through January 2025. They discovered at least three confirmed shooting incidents in ShotSpotter-covered areas that the system failed to register. It’s a sobering reminder that what’s being detected may only be part of the story.

The larger concern is the systemic gap in oversight. MPD does maintain an archive of audio data captured by ShotSpotter sensors, but it does not keep a log matching these alerts to confirmed shootings. That means officials have no reliable way to distinguish between real gunfire and similar sounds like fireworks or car backfires. Despite public assurances, the precision of the system remains in question.

Even more concerning is that the police department no longer seems to know where all the sensors are located. In a response to a 2023 Freedom of Information Act request, MPD revealed that SoundThinking Inc.—the California-based company that licenses the ShotSpotter technology—had stopped providing exact sensor placement information to the District. “MPD contracts for a coverage area, but MPD does not have sensor placement information,” the agency wrote. It is unclear when this critical data sharing stopped or why.

ShotSpotter was first installed in D.C. in 2005, with backing from the FBI as part of a broader “Building a Safer DC” initiative. Its early deployment focused on the Seventh District, which includes many parts of Wards 7 and 8—areas long grappling with high crime rates and systemic inequality. Over time, the network expanded to cover roughly 17 square miles across six of the city’s seven police districts.

Since 2016 alone, city records show D.C. has paid more than $5.16 million to SoundThinking. In 2019, the city even upgraded and widened the system’s footprint. Then, in 2021, ShotSpotter opened its East Coast headquarters in Washington. Mayor Muriel Bowser attended the opening and praised the system as a tool for enhancing public safety. “ShotSpotter allows us to make the best use of our police resources,” she said at the time.

Still, critics have not been quiet. Nationally, the technology has faced growing scrutiny over its accuracy and implications for civil rights. Several cities—including Chicago and San Diego—have terminated or reconsidered their contracts with ShotSpotter following independent audits and community pushback. The system has been accused of disproportionately targeting communities of color due to the location of its sensors and its role in facilitating aggressive policing tactics.

When a reporter asked Mayor Bowser in 2021 whether she was concerned ShotSpotter might contribute to overpolicing in Wards 7 and 8, she responded with a curt, “No.”

Yet, the incident involving Luna-Perez suggests that D.C.’s continued reliance on this system may require more than just a political defense. It may demand a thorough re-evaluation of whether the technology is achieving its core promise—to save lives.

The question remains: If a young man can be shot in broad daylight near a school and the multi-million-dollar detection system doesn’t notice, what exactly is it doing?

As concerns grow and the data gap widens, D.C. residents are left wondering whether the tools meant to protect them are truly up to the task—or simply giving the illusion of safety.

Appreciating your time:

We appreciate you taking the time to read our most recent article! We appreciate your opinions and would be delighted to hear them. We value your opinions as we work hard to make improvements and deliver material that you find interesting.

Post a Comment:

In the space provided for comments below, please share your ideas, opinions, and suggestions. We can better understand your interests thanks to your input, which also guarantees that the material we offer will appeal to you. Get in Direct Contact with Us: Please use our “Contact Us” form if you would like to speak with us or if you have any special questions. We are open to questions, collaborations, and, of course, criticism. To fill out our contact form, click this link.

Stay Connected:

Don’t miss out on future updates and articles.