As U.S. law enforcement agencies increasingly integrate predictive policing technologies into their administrative structures, core constitutional questions emerge under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, particularly as interpreted through the doctrines of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. While scholarship has oscillated between tech-optimism and tech-rejection, often focused on public-facing tools like body cameras and facial recognition, less attention has been paid to the back-end administrative systems that predict and prioritize police actions. These technologies are impacting police discretion and constitutional protection. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with police chiefs, this presentation explores how predictive tools shape discretion in ways that risk violating constitutional protections. It also examines whether administrators perceive their systems as constitutionally neutral or recognize the legal exposure they introduce. Moreover, how do they attempt, if at all, to mitigate those risks? This presentation offers two contributions: first, a doctrinal analysis of how predictive policing consequences intersect with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence; and second, it proposes a theoretical framework for ensuring constitutional accountability in digital policing practices. The legal salience of predictive policing technologies calls for proactive judicial and administrative scrutiny to address emerging constitutional challenges.
