Introduction
The impact of technological development is present in every bit of our lives – from mobile phones, laptops and TVs to smart fridges, vacuum cleaners and more. Of particular interest for this article is the way technology impacts law enforcement and their operations – for better or for worse. They have been a variety of legislative changes in the field – the introduction of the Law Enforcement Directive (2016) dealing with collection of data, the Digital Evidence Act (2023), the Cybercrime Convention (2001), etc. Currently the EU is working on the AI act, which will, without a doubt, have an effect on police work around the European Union. All of these legislative instruments have the aim to catch up with the rapid development of technology.

Therefore, this article aims to illustrate how police work has changes thanks to technology, the advantages and disadvantages.

Section I: Importance of scientific evidence and use of technology
Scientific evidence is evidence that is the product of tests, aiming to disprove or prove a scientific theory. Its importance is tied to objectivity and truth and investigators can rely on it anytime as an established fact [1] . The use of science or the ‘scientification’ [2] of police work had started from the 19th century to the 20th century with increased use of facts and knowledge rather than on intuition. That start is marked by the use of fingerprinting, DNA testing and, nowadays, continuing with the use of AI, big data and digital evidence. Additionally, a whole new playing field was introduced with the creation of the Internet – investigating crimes in the cyberspace or also called ‘cyber crimes’.

The role of these technologies cannot be argued since it creates the objectivity needed for a sound and lawful conviction and prosecution of individuals. It transports us into a new era of investigation, while the traditional one – the inspector, the magnifying glass and the torch [3] ends.

Section II: Advantages of technological innovation
Technological innovation in police work and investigation is pretty much inevitable since it aims to correspond to the new ways criminals themselves use technology for the commission of crimes. A clear example is the use of online platforms and spaces to commit crimes like identity theft and fraud. Therefore, we cannot speak of whether we need technological innovation in investigation work, but rather what advantages it provides and what disadvantages.

To start off with the positive, technology creates the possibility of establishing a digital pool of information for various databases – recorded offenders, convictions, DNA samples and fingerprints, etc. Such databases can also be easily accessed by law enforcement personnel from all over the world, if needed. Solving crimes would, consequently, also be faster since the processing of data is quicker. For example, in the past fingerprints were manually analyzed by a
human eye, while now an automated system sorts, stores and compares those fingerprints. [4]

Since criminal acts nowadays can be committed across borders and therefore create jurisdictional issues, international cross-border cooperation agencies like Europol and Interpol were established. Without a doubt the digital databases, the Internet and even simple technology facilitates better global police cooperation and crime prevention.

In general, technology has expedited the process of investigation and solving crimes, as well as the accessibility of information that can be used for solving future cases. Adding to that is the element of cross-border police cooperation that is still being perfected with new means like specific legislation for acquiring digital evidence. [5]

Section III: Issues with technological innovation
Despite its positive uses, technology in police work can cause issues with regards to people’s privacy, legitimacy and legality. Firstly, at the moment new technology emerges, lawmakers call for regulation. Such a phenomenon is explained by the ‘pacing problem’. [6] Therefore, lawmakers and various actors are entrenched with debates of whether regulation is needed, how much of it is needed and so forth.

Secondly, the use of technology could pose privacy concerns for the general public, for example with the use of big data. Big data is defined as the use of large data sets to find correlations in a specific setting and is characterized by its ability to predict. Machine learning, algorithms and such are examples.

Currently, in the EU, the clash between law enforcement needs and privacy protection is somewhat balanced with the Law Enforcement Directive, which restricts data collection only to competent authorities, it should be based in law and for specific purposes [7] . However, it is uncertain how the balance will be preserved since AI usage is growing and we are yet to see the introduction of the AI Act and its application within the police forces across the EU.

Another growing concern is the type of data law enforcement is using to investigate. As a case from Connecticut, USA showed, even Fitbit data can be used in court. Richard Dabate was convicted of the murder of his wife in 2022. Richard claimed that a man broke into their home and shot his wife, Connie. However, the Fitbit she wore showed activity for up to an hour after Richard said the man broke-in. With additional evidence, Dabate was convicted of the murder. [8]

Of course this is just one example of such devices being used in court cases and showcases how easily devices can be used against people in court. Another case features a pacemaker used to convict a man of arson and fraud [9] . This is not necessary an issue per se, but it still raises questions about privacy and data protection in criminal investigations.

Section IV: New legislation
Currently we are witnessing innovation in the law with regards to specific technology. The newly proposed AI Act aims to establish comprehensive rules for trustworthy AI by posing: safeguards on general purposes, limitations for biometric data use by law enforcement and rights for the customers to launch complaints.

Additionally, the EU ratified the Electronic evidence package on the 13th June, 2023. The new law establishes better access to electronic evidence for cross-border access. Juridical authorities would be able to request electronic evidence from service providers in another member state. The service providers now have ten days to respond – a measure intending to curb the usually lengthy process of obtaining such electronic evidence, which is used in over 50% of all criminal
investigations. [10]

Conclusion
Overall, technological innovation and its use for criminal investigations go hand-in-hand. New legislation keeps getting enacted, in order to regulate these technologies and put boundaries on their use in certain fields.

The increased use of technology certainly has its advantages – more accessible data, easier way to establish objective truth, solving cases that have gone ‘cold’, etc. However, such use can lead to reliance on technology, issues with data privacy and the use of big data algorithms, which are just going to become more sophisticated, as well as the treat of ‘surveillance capitalism’. [11]

The opinions of investigators from the Portuguese law enforcement are divided. One investigators believes that despite the new technology introduced in law enforcement, criminal investigation would stay similar. Another investigator, however, believes that the end of the traditional investigative ways is over [12]

The evolution of law and technology in criminal investigations is an interesting case study because of the rapid changes – criminals are becoming more sophisticated in the way the commit crimes, especially since the creation of the ‘cyberspace’, which poses the possibility that criminal acts could, at some point, take place exclusively there. Such developments require legal changes, which in the EU are certainly happening. It just remains to be seen what happens from then on.

 

1. Miranda D, 'Criminal Investigation Through the Eye of the Detective: Technological Innovation and Tradition' (2015) 13 Surveillance and Society 425.
2. ibid 423.
3. ibid 433.
4. ibid 430.
5. Eurojust, 'SIRIUS EU ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE SITUATION REPORT 2023' (2023) European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit, Netherlands https://policycommons.net/artifacts/10916335/sirius-eu-electronic-evidence-situation- report-2023/11795004/ CID: 20.500.12592/7m0ckwr.
6. Marchant G, Allenby B, Herkert J, 'The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight: The Pacing Problem' (2011) DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7, xxi.
7. Law Enforcement Directive, OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, Article 1(2).
8. AP News, ‘Husband sentenced to 65 years in Fitbit murder case,’ (August 18, 2022), < https://apnews.com/article/shootings-597c5b876c1f7de77fcde24621ec5e94 > Accessed 7 th February 2024.
9. CBS News, ‘Man’s pacemaker data used against him in arson case’ (February 11, 2017), < https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mans-cardiac-pacemaker-data-led-to-arson-charges/ > Accessed on 7 th February 2024.
10. European Council, ‘Council adopts EU laws on better access to electronic evidence’ (June 27, 2023) < https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/06/27/council-adopts-eu-laws-on-better-access-to-electronic-evidence/ > Accessed 7 th February 2024.
11. Shoshana Zuboff, 'You Are the Object of a Secret Extraction Operation' (16 November 2021) International New York Times p. NA. Gale Academic, 1.
12. Miranda (n 1) 432.