SSC San Diego TR 1839, November 2000 SSC San Diego
San Diego, CA 92152--5001
TECHNICAL REPORT 1839
November 2000
Robotics for Law Enforcement:
Beyond Explosive Ordnance
Disposal
H. G. Nguyen
J. P. Bott
Approved for public release;
distribution is unlimited. SSC SAN DIEGO
San Diego, California 92152--5001
Ernest L. Valdes, CAPT, USN
R. C. Kolb
Commanding Officer
Executive Director
SB
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
DISCLAIMER
With respect to information provided in this document, neither the United States Government nor
any of its employees make any warranty, expressed or implied, including but not limited to the war-
ranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Further, neither the United States Gov-
ernment nor any of its employees assume any legal liability for the accuracy, completeness, or useful-
ness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed.
Reference herein to any specific commercial products, processes, or services by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement or
recommendation of the United States Government. iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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 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. 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 (DoD) robotics
projects that can help meet those needs.
To establish law-enforcement needs for non-EOD robots, we conducted a web-based survey over a
period of 8 weeks, hosted on our SSC San Diego Robotics web site. The survey addressed scenarios
and tasks where a robot would be used if available, and the tools, features, and parameters deemed
most important to carry out those tasks. It also solicited respondents experiences with currently
available robots. The survey was publicized by electronic mail to over 200 state and local law
enforcement agencies.
To identify DoD robotics technologies that could contribute to the development of law-
enforcement robots, we conducted face-to-face, telephone, and e-mail interviews with personnel
from the Unmanned Ground Vehicles/Systems Joint Project Office (UGVS/JPO) and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). With leads from these funding and program-
management agencies, we contacted various DoD robotics research and development activities and
their contractors.
We presented results from the two surveys. In particular, we found that the law-enforcement
community placed the most emphasis on having robots perform the functions of small-item delivery,
passive remote communication, and remote surveillance. Features of a robot that were viewed as
most important include stair-climbing ability, a robust communication link, low cost, and longer
battery life. Most of these requirements are being addressed by the DoD activities surveyed.
Solutions for other requirements can be found in the commercial sector or are being sought by the
scientific community for applications outside robotics.
We concluded that there would be no single robot that would meet all the demands of law
enforcement beyond EOD, and recommended the development of two classes of robots, separated by
size. Each robot should be modular, with application-specific mission packages or tool sets that can
be tailored to the needs of a specific user. We also outlined a proven, user-centric, phased, rapid-
prototyping approach for a successful robotics development program. Finally, we recommended that
NIJ personnel continue to maintain close liaison with DARPA and the Joint Robotics Program (JRP),
and obtain input from JRP in the technology assessment, source selection, and development of
robotics assets.
v
CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 1
2. LAW-ENFORCEMENT NEEDS ............................................................................................. 3
2.1 SURVEY PROCEDURE ................................................................................................. 3
2.2 SURVEY RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Specialties............................................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Robotics Experience ............................................................................................... 5
2.2.3 Scenarios ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2.4 Tasks ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.5 Tools ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.6 Features ................................................................................................................ 11
2.2.7 Mobility .................................................................................................................. 16
2.2.8 General Features .................................................................................................. 16
2.2.9 Past Experience .................................................................................................... 20
2.2.10 General Interests................................................................................................. 20
2.3 DIFFERENTIATION BY ROBOTICS EXPERIENCE .................................................... 20
3. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EFFORTS ........................................................................... 23
3.1 JOINT ROBOTICS PROGRAM (JRP).......................................................................... 23
3.2 UGV/S JPO .................................................................................................................. 23
3.2.1 Man-Portable Robotic System (MPRS).................................................................. 23
3.2.2 SPIKE ................................................................................................................... 25
3.2.3 MATILDA............................................................................................................... 26
3.2.4 Other Robot-Mounted Weapons and Tools ........................................................... 27
3.3 DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY (DARPA)....................... 28
3.3.1 Tactical Mobile Robotics (TMR)............................................................................. 28
3.3.2 Distributed Robotics (DR) ...................................................................................... 30
3.3.3 Micro Unattended Mobility System (MUMS II)........................................................ 30
4. CORRELATION BETWEEN LAW-ENFORCEMENT NEEDS and DoD EFFORTS ............ 31
5. RECOMMENDATION ......................................................................................................... 33
6. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 35
APPENDICES
A: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................................... A-1
B: TABULATED RESULTS, ENTIRE DATA SET............................................................ B-1
C: TABULATED RESULTS, RESPONDENTS REPORTING PRIOR ROBOTICS
EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................................. C-1
D: TABULATED RESULTS, RESPONDENTS REPORTING NO ROBOTICS
EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................................. D-1 vi
Figures
1. Geographic orgin of survey responses................................................................................. 4
2. Specialties of respondents ................................................................................................... 4
3. Robotics experience among respondents ............................................................................ 5
4. Frequency of robot use (if available) in various scenarios .................................................... 6
5. Explosive breaching............................................................................................................. 7
6. Shattering windows .............................................................................................................. 7
7. Opening doors ..................................................................................................................... 7
8. Observation/visual surveillance............................................................................................ 8
9. Listening/audio surveillance ....................