Tag Archives: urban policing

Chicago

Chicago Immigration Blitz Under Fire: Former DHS Chief Calls Out Border Patrol Tactics

Chicago’s immigration enforcement campaign by federal authorities has drawn sharp criticism from a former top U.S. Department of Homeland Security official. Gil Kerlikowske, who served as Customs and Border Protection commissioner from 2014 to 2017, is closely monitoring the situation and has voiced serious concerns about the methods used by Border Patrol agents in the city.

Kerlikowske, who previously spent eight years as Seattle police chief overseeing large-scale protests, provided a sworn statement for a lawsuit filed by the state of Illinois. The lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s plan to deploy National Guard troops as part of an intensified immigration enforcement campaign in Chicago. In a detailed interview with WBEZ, Kerlikowske shared his observations and evaluations of how federal agents are conducting operations in urban environments.

Story Highlights:

  • Former DHS commissioner Gil Kerlikowske critiques Chicago immigration enforcement by Border Patrol.

  • Experts question the suitability of Border Patrol agents for city-based law enforcement.

  • Allegations of indiscriminate use of pepper balls and tear gas against protesters in Broadview.

  • Border Patrol leadership described as unorganized compared to Illinois State Police.

  • Concerns raised about urban deployment of federal agents and public safety.

Kerlikowske stressed the stark difference between urban policing and federal border operations.

“If you’re a local police officer, such as a Chicago police officer, you go through months and months of training at an academy,” he said. “Afterward, you are paired with senior officers and evaluated on how you deal with the public, your response to calls, and overall situational judgment. It is vastly different from the training Border Patrol agents receive.”

He added, “Border Patrol training, such as at the academy in Artesia, New Mexico, focuses on detecting people smuggling and illegal crossings in rugged terrain—rocks, canyons, deserts—not managing crowds in a city.”

Kerlikowske has watched video footage of clashes at a federal immigration enforcement facility in Broadview, a suburb west of Chicago, and described the scene as concerning.

“I didn’t hear any orders to disperse,” he explained. “Neither did the people protesting. What I saw was Border Patrol agents and other federal officers coming out of a fenced area and using what is called less lethal force, indiscriminately.”

When asked about the type of force used, Kerlikowske detailed,

“The majority of what I observed was the use of pepper balls. These are very hard plastic projectiles filled with oleoresin capsicum powder. When the plastic breaks, the powder disperses, causing eyes to water, coughing, and choking. Pepper balls are supposed to be fired at the ground, near walls, or at individuals trying to enter illegally. In Broadview, however, they were targeted directly at people—a completely unnecessary use of force.”

Kerlikowske also criticized the deployment of tear gas.

“Tear gas canisters don’t disperse people effectively. They can even be thrown back. There didn’t seem to be any strategic reason for their use. This is not how professional law enforcement, like the Illinois State Police, would operate,” he said.

The Border Patrol operation in Chicago is led by Commander Gregory Bovino, recently transferred from a district near California’s border with Mexico. Kerlikowske described the operation under Bovino’s leadership as uncoordinated.

“The agents move in a rag-tag, ambling fashion,” he said. “Orders such as ‘Light them up’ were given, allowing agents to strike people with pepper balls. I also saw instances where people were picked up and body-slammed to the concrete and then left unattended. In local police operations, this level of force would require arrests and formal use-of-force reporting.”

In comparison, Kerlikowske noted that Illinois State Police officers, deployed weeks later, demonstrated clear professionalism.

“They are disciplined, carry long batons for crowd control, and operate without masks,” he said. “Their presence communicates authority. People understand the boundaries and respect them. That’s how effective, professional law enforcement should look in urban environments.”

Kerlikowske’s observations have raised questions about the suitability of federal Border Patrol agents for urban immigration enforcement. Critics argue that deploying personnel trained for border operations to cities like Chicago risks unnecessary confrontations with residents and protesters.

As the lawsuit by the state of Illinois progresses, Kerlikowske’s testimony could play a key role in shaping public perception and policy regarding urban immigration enforcement. The debate continues over whether federal forces are adequately prepared for complex city policing.

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

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.