tools, features
and parameters deemed most important to carry out those tasks. We present in this paper the results of the survey and
summarize current robotics research and development efforts by various segments of the Department of Defense that could
potentially help meet those law enforcement needs. We also provide a recommended course of action to the Department of
Justice for the development of these robotics capabilities.
Keywords:

Robotics, mobile tele-operated robots, law enforcement, military, survey.
1.

BACKGROUND
The field of mobile robotics has matured quickly in the past decade, with more and more robots entering practical field
service. The two most active application areas for mobile robots so far have been military and law enforcement. For law
enforcement, most robotic activities to date have been in the area of explosive ordnance disposal (EOD), where robots are
used to keep the human bomb disposal expert out of harms way. In 1999, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the
Battelle Memorial Institute to perform a survey on the desired attributes of an EOD robot.
1
In addition, NIJ funded the Space
and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego (SSC San Diego), to assess law enforcement needs for robots beyond EOD
and identify technologies from Department of Defense robotics projects that can help meet those needs. This paper
summarizes the results of that effort. A more detailed report is available from SSC San Diego.
2
2.

LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS
2.1

Survey Procedure
To establish law enforcement needs for non-EOD robots, we developed a questionnaire in early May 2000. We then met with
members of the Los Angeles Sheriff Departments Special Enforcement Bureau (LASD-SEB) to discuss this questionnaire.
From the feedback we received, we decided to convert this questionnaire into a web-based survey, with most questions
answerable in the form of radio buttons and check boxes, facilitating the response process.
We let the web-based survey run for 8 weeks, hosted on our SSC San Diego Robotics web site.
3
The survey was publicized
by electronic mail to over 200 state and local law enforcement agencies whose e-mail addresses were found at various law-
enforcement web sites.
4-7
The National Tactical Officers Association also posted a link to our survey on their web site.
8
____________________
* E-mail: nguyenh@spawar.navy.mil Responses coming in were converted by a Perl-script program residing on the web server to text messages and forwarded to
another computer for storage. When the survey was completed, a C program combed through the stored messages, tallied up
the responses to each question and generated summary tables. These tables were then entered into an Excel spreadsheet,
which generated the charts included in this report. The individual messages were also printed out and examined by hand to
extract manually entered information (from the other information or notes and comments fields), and to gain insight
into unusual answers or unexpected groupings.
The survey has five parts. Part 1 establishes the respondents background. We were interested in knowing how a
respondents familiarity with law-enforcement robots correlates with the actual responses. This hopefully will help us
separate long-term desires and goals from more practical, short-term needs as would be reflected in the responses from those
with more experience with robots. Part 2 delves into the scenarios where robots would be used, the tasks they would be
asked to perform, and the tools required to accomplish those tasks. Part 3 deals with the features and parameters deemed
important on the corresponding robots, and part 4 solicits experiences with currently available robots. Part 5 is a short
question to establish the law-enforcement communitys interests in various types of mobile robots. A copy of the actual
survey questionnaire and tabulated answers is available in our more comprehensive technical report.
2
2.2 Survey Results
We received a total of 65 responses from our web survey, from various localities across the United States, as shown in
Figure 1, superimposed on a US population density map.
Figure 1. Geographic origin of survey responses.
Below is a summary of selected survey answers presented in chart form to facilitate visualization of comparative
significance.
Specialties:
Almost half of the respondents were members of the tactical community. Figure 2 shows the specialties indicated on the
survey returns. Figure 2. Specialties of respondents.
Robotics experience:
Figure 3 summarizes the respondents experience with robots. Over 50% of the respondents have no experience with
robotics. No respondent reported currently having a non-EOD robot only.
Figure 3. Robotics experience among respondents.
Scenarios:
Inspection of hazardous areas and dealing with barricaded suspects ranked highest on the list of scenarios where a robot
would be used if available. Serving high-risk warrants, identified during the initial meeting with LASD-SEB, was not
deemed appropriate for robotics by most. Figure 4 gives the rating of the four scenarios given in the survey questionnaire.
The horizontal axis compartmentalizes the percentages of the missions when a robot would be used if available, and the
vertical axis represents the number of survey responses picking those percentages.
Other scenarios that were mentioned include (each by one respondent):
Reconnaissance in tunnels and storm drains (at US ports of entry)
Searching for criminals and lost persons
Acting as hilltop repeater
Site security
Public reception and information dispenser
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Number of responses
No experience
Have looked into obtaining a robot
Have used a robot in the past
Currently have an EOD robot, looking for another robot
Currently have a non-EOD robot, looking for another robot
Currently have both types, looking for another robot
Robotics needs are currently met
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Number of responses
SWAT
Bomb disposal
K-9
Narcotic/Gang
Negotiator
Technology evaluator
Administrator
Other

Remote supervision
Acting as hostile element in training
Dealing with suicidal subjects
Figure 4. Frequency of robot use (if available) in various scenarios
.
Tasks:
We listed a number of tasks and questioned the percentage of the times that each task is performed when a robot, if available,
would perform the task. Figures 5a and 5b summarize the results. For each task, a peak to the right of the graph would
indicate that more respondents picked that task as being more important.
We can see from these graphs that the tasks most demanded by respondents for robotics support are delivery of small items
(wireless telephones, food, etc) and passive remote communication (where the target person is not required to cooperate by
using a telephone). These are followed by video, audio surveillance and retrieval of small objects.
Other tasks mentioned (by one respondent each) include:
Creating a diversion
Providing zone defenses, alerting units when suspects are moving
Identification of subjects and weapons
Valve manipulation
Retrieving injured officer or hostage from hostile environment
Tools:
Figures 6 and 7 depict the perceived usefulness of various robot-mounted tools. The frequency that each tool would be used,
if available, is listed on the horizontal axis. The vertical axis represents the respondents selections. The respondents placed
emphasis on sensors and effectors, while robot-mounted weapons were deemed not as important. Less-lethal weapons scored
somewhat higher than shotguns and grenade launchers. Types of less-lethal weapons mentioned include: beanbag rounds,
sage rounds, pepper spray, sting balls, nets, TASER and pulse lighting.
0-20%
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
80-100%
Hostage rescue
Barricaded suspects
Inspection of harzardous areas
High-risk warrants
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
N
u
mber of responses
Percentage of missions One or more respondents also indicated that law-enforcement robots could use the following tools:
Tire deflating strips
Chemical/biological agent sensors
GPS/dead reckoning locating
Laser range finder
Window punch for automobiles
Figure 5a. Percentage of times a robot would perform certain tasks.
Figure 5b. Percentage of times a robot would perform certain tasks.
0-20%
20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%
Delivering chem. agents
Retrieving objects
Passive communication
Delivery of small items
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
u
mber of responses
Percentage of times
0-20%
20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%
Explosive breaching
Shattering windows
Opening doors
Observation
Listening
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
u
mber of responses
Percentage of times Figure 6. Robot-mounted weapons.
Figure 7. Sensors and effectors.
Features:
Figures 8 to 14 summarize the responses giving the most reasonable or appropriate values for various features of a robot that
would best meet the respondents needs. While most respondents chose a maximum speed of 2 to 4 miles per hour, the most
useful speed was pegged at around 2 miles per hour. The composite most appropriate size for a robot was picked to be 24 to
36 long, 12 to 24 wide, 24 to 36 high (stowed), and weighing 50 to 75 lbs. There is demand for robots smaller than this,
but almost no demand for robots larger than 4 feet on each side.
0-20%
20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%
Daylight video camera
Infrared/low-light video camera
Remote speaker and microphone
Articulated arm and grip
0
5
10
15
20
25
N
u
mber of responses
Frequency of use
0-20%
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
80-100%
Shotgun
Grenade launcher
Less lethal weapons
0
5
10
1