Matt Polega is a cofounder and president at Mark43, a leading cloud-native public safety software company.
What if collecting critical intelligence for a gun investigation that once took two weeks could happen in six hours?
Technology alone won’t solve gun violence. Experienced investigators, strong partnerships between law enforcement agencies and community-based strategies will always be essential. However, giving investigators faster access to critical information can allow them to spend less time moving data between systems and more time acting on intelligence.
My company worked with the Louisville Metro Police Department, and automating the submission of data from firearms used during criminal activity—commonly referred to as “crime guns”—reduced processing time by an average of 95%, cutting turnaround from 10 to 14 days to as little as six hours while saving an estimated 3,500 staff hours annually. Faster access to crime gun intelligence gives investigators more time to follow leads, connect cases and build stronger investigations instead of manually moving information between systems.
Crime gun investigations depend on timely, accurate information. Much of that intelligence comes from collaboration with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), whose systems help investigators trace firearms and identify connections that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Powerful investigative tools exist.
ATF’s program eTrace traces crime guns to their original purchaser. The National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) and the NIBIN Enforcement Support System (NESS) help identify ballistic and intelligence links between shootings and provides investigators with valuable intelligence that can connect cases, identify suspects and uncover patterns across jurisdictions.
Consider a firearm recovered during a traffic stop or at the scene of a shooting. A trace can identify where the firearm was first sold, while ballistic information may link it to other shootings, even across jurisdictional boundaries. When investigators receive that information quickly and in the context of the case they’re already working, they can build a more complete picture of what happened.
That makes it easier to identify links between firearms, incidents and suspects, particularly when investigations cross jurisdictions. A firearm recovered in one community may be connected to a shooting hundreds of miles away. The sooner investigators receive that information, the sooner they can follow new leads, coordinate with partner agencies and build stronger cases.
Technology can help, but accuracy depends on people, not just tech.
While these systems are powerful investigative tools, many agencies still rely on manual processes to submit information and retrieve results. Firearm details are often manually entered into a records management system and then re-entered into ATF systems later by another person. When trace results come back, someone has to retrieve them, match them to the correct case and enter them into the records management system again. Every handoff can risk introducing delays and errors.
Modern technology can help with that administrative work. Agencies can automate the transfer of crime gun information between their records management systems and ATF systems, so investigators can receive trace and ballistic information sooner. Reducing duplicate data entry can also help ensure investigators are working from complete, accurate information.
However, automating data transfer only helps if the data going in is accurate and comprehensive. Leaders need to train investigators and records staff on what a clean submission looks like, not just how to use the software. A typo in a serial number or a wrong make and model can send an investigator down the wrong path just as easily as a slow manual process can.
Strong partnerships are also integral to the success of technology. Ensuring there are point people on both sides—so that when a result looks unusual, you have someone to call instead of a ticket to file—is the difference between confirming a lead rapidly and waiting.
What should leaders ask before adopting new technology?
When selecting a new technology tool to support faster gun crime investigations, leaders should ask possible vendors a few specific questions. How does the system validate data before submission, and what happens when something fails validation? Does the platform return results directly to the case file with context attached, or does an analyst still have to piece that picture together by hand?
It’s also worth asking how a vendor keeps pace when ATF updates its own systems. A tool that can’t adapt will recreate the same bottlenecks it was meant to solve. It is also important to make sure an agency’s own records system is up to date. If case data is inconsistent, or different units enter information differently, no amount of automation will fix that. Leaders should audit their own data practices before or alongside any new rollout.
What I said in the beginning bears repeating: Technology alone won’t solve gun violence. Experienced investigators and strong partnerships will always be essential. However, the faster investigators can access crime gun intelligence, the faster they can connect cases, follow leads and help bring offenders to justice.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
