|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
For decades, police radio communications were one of the few ways the public and the press could independently understand what was happening in their communities in real time. Journalists relied on scanners to get to breaking news scenes. Residents used them to stay aware during emergencies. Community groups used them to monitor patterns of response and ensure accountability. That system is now disappearing, quietly and rapidly, across California.
In Santa Clara County, nearly all routine police radio communications are fully encrypted. Even basic dispatch traffic is inaccessible. This change did not come with a public vote, a robust community discussion, or clear evidence that such sweeping secrecy was necessary. Instead, it followed a broad interpretation of a California Department of Justice bulletin that many agencies treated as a mandate for full encryption, even though it was not.
The Department of Justice guidance focused on protecting sensitive, personally identifiable information. It did not require departments to encrypt everything. Agencies were given options. Some chose targeted, limited encryption. Others chose the most restrictive possible approach, eliminating public access entirely.
That distinction matters.
There is no documented evidence that public access to routine police radio traffic has caused harm to officers or compromised legitimate operations. Across the country, public records requests have repeatedly returned the same answer: No responsive records exist. Even Broadcastify, the largest scanner streaming platform, has stated publicly that it has never been presented with evidence of scanner access leading to officer injury.
What has been documented, however, is the harm caused when transparency disappears.
When radios go silent, journalists can no longer independently verify official statements. Breaking news coverage is delayed or never happens at all. Communities lose situational awareness during emergencies. Patterns of response, resource allocation and language used by officers vanish from public view. Oversight becomes reactive rather than real time.
This is not theoretical. It is already happening.
San Francisco offers a partial workaround by allowing credentialed media access to encrypted radios. While this is better than a full blackout, it still leaves the public excluded and places control of access entirely in the hands of the department being monitored. It also shuts out freelancers, independent journalists, community watchdogs and researchers who do not fit neatly into traditional media categories.
Other cities have demonstrated that a better balance is possible. The Palo Alto Police Department chose not to encrypt routine dispatch traffic. California Highway Patrol continues to operate with open dispatch while protecting sensitive data through procedures, phone communication and tactical channels. These agencies comply with privacy requirements without sacrificing transparency.
Fire and emergency medical services raise even more serious concerns. Fire dispatch information does not involve criminal investigations. It involves accidents, structure fires, medical calls and hazardous conditions that directly affect public safety. In some counties, fire and emergency medical services radio traffic has also been encrypted, preventing trained civilians, volunteer responders, journalists and even nearby agencies from knowing what is happening in real time. That is not just a transparency issue. It is a safety issue.
I recently experienced this firsthand while flying locally as a student pilot. A miscommunication led authorities to believe an aircraft had crashed near the SLAC campus in Menlo Park. I became aware of the active search only because I could hear radio traffic. I was able to immediately clarify the situation, preventing a prolonged and unnecessary deployment of emergency resources. If those communications had been encrypted, that search could have continued for hours, wasting time, money and attention that could have been needed elsewhere.
This is why scanner access has historically mattered. It is not about voyeurism or interference. It is about information moving faster than press releases and official updates. It is about redundancy, situational awareness and independent verification.
Encryption also comes at a significant public cost. Large agencies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on encrypted radio systems. The New York Police Department alone spent approximately $390 million. There is no evidence that this investment has improved officer safety outcomes or crime clearance rates. What it has unquestionably done is reduce transparency.
Police departments are public institutions performing public duties with public money. When routine communications are hidden from public view, trust erodes. In communities already struggling with confidence in law enforcement, secrecy sends the wrong signal.
This is not an argument against encryption entirely. Sensitive operations should be protected. Undercover work, tactical coordination, and personal data should never be broadcast openly. But blanket encryption of routine dispatch traffic goes far beyond what is necessary and far beyond what the law requires.
Local officials and residents should be asking simple questions. What evidence supports full encryption. Why are less restrictive models being ignored? Who benefits from secrecy and who bears the cost.
The answers deserve public discussion, not quiet implementation.
California has long prided itself on open government and press freedom. Police radio encryption, as currently practiced, runs counter to both. Restoring access to routine dispatch communications would not make our communities less safe. It would make them more informed, more accountable, and ultimately more resilient.
Woodside resident Orlando Nell is a high school student and scanner hobbyist.
