↓ Skip to main content
  1. Industries/

Police Robot Dogs & Liability

2196 words·11 mins
Table of Contents

Police Robot Dogs: Civil Liberties, Surveillance, and Your Rights
#

Police departments across America are deploying four-legged robots that look like mechanical dogs. Over 60 bomb squads and SWAT teams in the United States and Canada now use Boston Dynamics’ Spot robot, a $100,000 machine originally designed for industrial inspection. As these robots become standard equipment, they raise profound questions about surveillance, civil liberties, and police accountability.

The Rise of Police Robot Dogs
#

Boston Dynamics’ Spot robot has rapidly spread through American law enforcement:

Current Deployments
#

  • Massachusetts State Police: 2 units (approximately $250,000 each with add-ons)
  • NYPD: 2 units ($75,000 base price)
  • LAPD: 1 unit ($278,000 donation from LA Police Foundation)
  • Houston Police: 3 units
  • Las Vegas Metro: 1 unit
  • Honolulu Police: 1 unit ($150,000)—though unused for over three years

Approximately 2,000 Spot units are in operation globally, with an increasing percentage deployed to law enforcement.

What These Robots Can Do
#

Police robot dogs are equipped with:

Surveillance Capabilities:

  • High-definition cameras with real-time video streaming
  • Infrared/thermal imaging for low-light operations
  • Two-way audio communication
  • 360-degree environmental scanning
  • Ability to navigate stairs, rough terrain, and enter buildings

Physical Capabilities:

  • Robotic arm that can open doors and grasp objects
  • Weapon detection scanning
  • Ability to drag objects (including firearms) away from suspects
  • Operation in hazardous environments (chemical spills, explosives)

Stated Uses by Police
#

Departments claim robot dogs are used for:

  • Active shooter assessment
  • Hostage situation reconnaissance
  • Bomb threat evaluation
  • Barricaded suspect standoffs
  • Hazardous material incidents
  • Search and rescue operations

The Controversies: NYC, LA, and San Francisco
#

New York City: Suspension and Return
#

The NYPD’s experience with “Digidog” illustrates the public backlash these robots generate.

The 2021 Controversy: In February 2021, NYPD deployed Digidog at a Bronx public housing building during a home invasion response. Video of the robot went viral, drawing comparisons to the dystopian “Black Mirror” television series. Critics called it a symbol of aggressive policing in minority neighborhoods.

Public Backlash: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized the deployment. City Council members introduced legislation to prohibit arming autonomous police devices. The NYPD canceled its $94,000 lease amid calls to cut police budgets.

The 2023 Return: Under Mayor Eric Adams, the NYPD reintroduced robot dogs at a Times Square press conference. Adams dismissed critics as “a few loud people,” while the Legal Aid Society condemned the move as enabling “new, dystopian surveillance technologies without meaningfully engaging New Yorkers.”

Los Angeles: Community Opposition
#

In May 2023, the LA City Council voted 8-4 to accept a donated $278,000 robot dog despite intense community opposition.

Public Comment: Most speakers urged the council to decline the donation. Resident Camile Lewis, wearing a Black Lives Matter jacket, stated: “We know exactly who this new tech is going to be targeting.” She was arrested for disrupting the meeting.

Dissenting Voices: Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez called accepting the donation “highly disturbing” and said it “sets a dangerous precedent.” Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez noted communities across the country are “fighting back against bringing this kind of depersonalized, military-style technology to municipal police forces.”

Deployments: The LAPD has since used Spot in at least two standoff situations, including using its arm to drag a rifle away from a barricaded suspect.

San Francisco: The Killer Robot Debate
#

San Francisco’s experience shows how close police came to authorizing lethal robot force.

November 2022: The Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 to let police use robots to deliver deadly force in “extreme” cases—six years after Dallas police killed a sniper with a bomb-disposal robot in 2016.

Public Outcry: Within one week, supervisors reversed themselves after community backlash, banning “killer robots” for police.

Ongoing Oversight: Under California’s AB 481, SFPD must seek Board approval before acquiring military equipment, submit public use policies, and demonstrate necessity. The city’s Community Control of Police Surveillance ordinance adds further restrictions.

Civil Liberties Concerns
#

Surveillance and Fourth Amendment Issues
#

The ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation have identified multiple constitutional concerns:

Warrantless Surveillance: Robot dogs equipped with cameras can conduct surveillance operations that might otherwise require a warrant. The question of whether deploying a robot dog constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment remains unresolved.

Privacy Violations: These robots can peer into windows, record conversations, and document individuals in public spaces—all without judicial oversight.

Inadequate Policies: The NYPD’s robot dog policy under the POST Act has been criticized as “vague about when the technology can be used” and lacking “deployment oversight and documentation requirements.”

Algorithmic Bias and Accountability
#

Autonomous Decision-Making: As these robots evolve from remote-controlled tools toward semi-autonomous systems, concerns grow about AI decision-making in high-stakes police encounters.

Bias Risk: If robots incorporate facial recognition or threat detection AI, they may inherit the documented racial bias of those systems—with error rates up to 34.7% for dark-skinned women compared to 0.8% for light-skinned men.

Accountability Gaps: When a robot malfunctions or makes an error, the chain of responsibility becomes unclear. Is the manufacturer liable? The officer operating it? The department that deployed it?

Community Trust and Policing
#

Dehumanization: Law professor Ryan Calo has warned that robot overuse could “dehumanize police to the public and break down community ties.”

Normalization of Military Technology: EFF’s Beryl Lipton cautions against the “affectionate framing” of robot dogs (giving them names like “Spot” or “Digidog”) that obscures their true military-grade surveillance nature.

Disproportionate Impact: Civil rights advocates consistently note that surveillance technology is disproportionately deployed in Black and Latino communities.

The Weaponization Question
#

Dallas 2016: The First Lethal Robot
#

In July 2016, Dallas police became the first U.S. law enforcement agency to intentionally kill someone with a robot. During a standoff with sniper Micah Johnson, who had killed five officers, police attached about a pound of C-4 explosive to a bomb-disposal robot and detonated it near Johnson, killing him.

A county grand jury declined to indict the officers. The incident established precedent—however legally uncertain—for using robots to deliver lethal force.

Boston Dynamics’ Anti-Weaponization Policy
#

Boston Dynamics has taken a firm public stance against weaponizing its robots:

2022 Pledge: Along with five other robotics companies, Boston Dynamics signed an open letter pledging not to weaponize general-purpose robots or support others doing so.

Contractual Enforcement: The company includes clauses in lease agreements prohibiting weaponization and says it will revoke licenses of customers who arm their robots.

Legislative Support: Boston Dynamics has backed Massachusetts legislation that would make it illegal to “manufacture, modify, sell, transfer, or operate a robotic device or an uncrewed aircraft equipped or mounted with a weapon.”

But Others Will Arm Robots
#

Ghost Robotics: This competing manufacturer has already built rifle-equipped robot dogs marketed to military customers.

Regulatory Gaps: Without comprehensive legislation, nothing prevents police departments from purchasing weaponizable robots from manufacturers without Boston Dynamics’ restrictions.

California’s Attempt: AB 481 requires police to inventory and seek approval for “military equipment,” potentially including weaponized robots. SB 93 (2025) attempted to further limit when weapon-equipped robots could be used.

Legal Framework for Police Robot Claims#

Constitutional Claims (Section 1983)
#

When police robot deployments violate rights:

Fourth Amendment:

  • Unreasonable search through robot surveillance
  • Seizure based on robot-gathered evidence without warrant
  • Robot intrusion into constitutionally protected spaces

Fourteenth Amendment:

  • Due process violations from automated systems
  • Equal protection when robots deployed disproportionately in minority communities

First Amendment:

  • Chilling effect on assembly and protest
  • Surveillance deterring lawful activity

Product Liability
#

Claims against robot manufacturers:

Design Defect: Robots designed without adequate safety features or human oversight requirements

Failure to Warn: Inadequate disclosure of surveillance capabilities or risks to civil liberties

Breach of Policy: If a manufacturer like Boston Dynamics fails to enforce its anti-weaponization policy

Municipal Liability
#

Claims against police departments:

Negligent Deployment: Using robots in contexts beyond their capabilities or without proper training

Policy Failures: Inadequate policies governing when and how robots can be deployed

Constitutional Violations: Departmental customs or policies that lead to rights violations

State Law Claims
#

Privacy Torts: Intrusion upon seclusion, particularly for robot surveillance

Biometric Privacy Laws: In states like Illinois, Texas, and Washington, collection of biometric data without consent

State Civil Rights Laws: Many states provide broader protections than federal law

What To Do If You’re Affected
#

If a Police Robot Was Deployed Against You
#

Document Everything:

  • Note the date, time, and location
  • Identify the agency involved
  • Record any identifying numbers on the robot
  • Note what surveillance or actions the robot performed
  • Gather witness contact information

Preserve Evidence:

  • Request body camera footage under FOIA/public records laws
  • Request robot camera footage and logs
  • Photograph any injuries or property damage

Understand Your Rights:

  • You generally cannot interfere with police operations, including robot deployments
  • You can record police robots from a safe distance
  • You can refuse consent to searches, though robots may not “ask”

If Your Rights Were Violated
#

Consult an Attorney: Police robot cases involve intersection of:

  • Civil rights law
  • Technology and privacy law
  • Product liability
  • Police misconduct

File Complaints:

  • Internal affairs complaint with the department
  • Civilian review board complaint if available
  • State attorney general complaint
  • ACLU or other civil liberties organizations

Consider Legal Action: Depending on the violation, you may have claims for:

  • Civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  • State constitutional violations
  • Privacy torts
  • Injunctive relief to change policies

Advocacy and Policy Reform
#

Community Control of Police Surveillance (CCOPS)
#

The ACLU’s model legislation requires:

  • Public transparency about surveillance technology
  • Community input before acquisition
  • Regular reporting on deployment
  • Consideration of less invasive alternatives

Several cities have adopted versions of this framework.

What You Can Do
#

Attend Public Meetings: When police seek approval for robot acquisitions, public comment matters—as LA and SF controversies demonstrate.

Support Oversight Legislation: Push for local and state laws requiring transparency, community approval, and deployment restrictions.

Document and Report: Track robot deployments in your community and share concerns with civil liberties organizations.

Stay Informed: Technology evolves rapidly; understanding capabilities helps you assess risks and advocate effectively.

Frequently Asked Questions
#

Related Resources#

This information is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Police robot law is evolving rapidly, and outcomes depend heavily on jurisdiction and specific facts. Consult with qualified legal professionals to understand your rights.

Related