Use of 3D scans and digital models
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.026859
I note you seek access to the following information:
Redefined response:
I’m not sure when the various police forces adopted this tech as part of their procedures and so I don’t have a firm time bracket as to when the data set would start.
When I initially submitted the request I put ‘across all time’ to try and collect whatever data you have for this but I ran into an automated reply that wanted a specific date, and so I updated my request to include the range from when the met was formed to the current date to try and bypass this automated filter.
If you have a firm start date (i.e the first use of this tech) then that’s great, otherwise if it makes your data collection process simpler we can start from 2000, I can’t imagine this would have been much in use last century?
Original FOI request:
1. I would like any information you have on the use of 3D scans and digital models used as part of evidence i.e a 3D model of a home where a murder has taken place.
2. I would to know how many of these scans / models the police force has purchased, at what cost, and for which types of crimes.
3. Additionally I would like to know if there are criteria used to determine whether or not to order a scan / 3D model, and if you require 3rd party scanning companies to have any specific credentials before hiring them.
4. Any additional information you have in this area that I haven't specifically requested would also be gratefully received.
I have received the below asking for specific time scales, so I would like the amend my request (attached below) to the following
Start date 01/01/1829
End date 19/10/2022
Decision
I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
In addition, and irrespective of what other information may or may not be held relating to any possible use of 3D scanning technology, this request also requires the MPS to Neither Confirm nor Deny whether it holds any further information. This is because the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions;
Section 24(2) National Security
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Reason for decision
Please note this response should not be taken as an indication of whether or not the further information is held, other than what the MPS have confirmed is held within this response for your questions.
Confirming or denying whether any other information is held in relation, for example to any possible Counter Terrorism use of 3D scanning technology would potentially show individuals what the capacity, tactical abilities and capabilities of the MPS are. Disclosure under FOIA would allow individuals to target specific areas of the UK to conduct possibly criminal/terrorist activities or activities that undermine the role of the police.
Please note this response should not be taken as an indication of whether or not information in relation to Counter Terrorism’s use of 3D scanning technology is held or not.
Section 24(2) (National Security) and Section 31(3)(Law Enforcement) NCND - Any disclosure under FOI is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives behind this specific request, confirming or denying that any information relating to any possible Counter Terrorism use of 3D scanning technology would show criminals what the capacity, tactical abilities and capabilities of the MPS are, allowing them to target specific areas of the UK to conduct/undertake their criminal/terrorist activities.
Confirming or denying the specific circumstances in which the Police Service may or may not deploy the use of 3D scanning technology would be likely to lead to an increase of harm to Counter Terrorism investigations and compromise law enforcement. This would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.
The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored. It is generally recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. Since 2006, the UK Government has published the threat level, the UK continues to face a sustained threat from violent extremists and terrorists and the current threat level is set at ‘substantial’.
Confirming or denying whether any information is or isn’t held relating to any possible Counter Terrorism use of 3D scanning technology would limit operational capabilities as criminals/terrorist would gain a greater understanding of the police’s methods and techniques, enabling offenders to take steps to counter them. It may also suggest the limitations of police capabilities in this area, which may further encourage criminal/terrorist activity by exposing potential vulnerabilities.
This detrimental effect is increased if the request is made to several different law enforcement bodies. In addition to the local criminal fraternity now being better informed, those intent on organised crime throughout the UK will be able to ‘map’ where the use of certain tactics may or may not be deployed. This can be useful information to those committing (or those intent on committing or planning) crime. It would have the likelihood of identifying location-specific operations which would ultimately compromise police tactics, operations and future prosecutions as criminals
could counteract the measures used against them.
Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both National Security and Law Enforcement.
Please note this response should therefore not be taken to as an indication of whether or not the further information is held, other than what the MPS have confirmed is held within this response for your questions.
The MPS is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. The security of the country is of paramount importance and the MPS will not divulge whether any other information is or is not held if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine National Security.
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing, providing assurance that the MPS is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat from criminals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both National Security and the integrity of the police in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of National Security. This will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.
To confirm or deny whether the MPS hold any additional information would allow inferences to be made about the nature and extent of national security related activities which may or may not take place. This could enable terrorist groups to take steps to avoid detection, and as such, confirmation or denial would be damaging to national security. By confirming or denying any policing arrangements of this nature would render national security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure on the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.
The strongest reason favouring confirming or denying if information is held is taking into account there is a public interest in any possible use of this equipment.
The strongest reason favouring nether confirming nor denying whether additional information is held is to ensure law enforcement capabilities to protect national security are not undermined in any way whether additional information in this case is held or not.
On weighing up the competing interests, the MPS finds that the public interest favours neither confirming nor denying whether any additional information is held by virtue of this exemption.
By confirming or denying whether any further information is held would mean that law enforcement tactics would be compromised which would hinder the prevention and detection of crime.
Security arrangements and law enforcement tactics are often reused and have been monitored by criminal groups, fixated individuals and terrorists. These security arrangements and tactics would need to be reviewed which would require more resources and would add to the cost to the public purse if an adverse FOIA disclosure undermined any possible operational methodology/work.
The MPS is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. The ability to protect uphold and protect law enforcement capabilities within the country is of paramount importance and the MPS will not divulge whether any other information is or is not held if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine law enforcement capabilities due to adverse disclosure.
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing, providing assurance that the MPS is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat from criminals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding law enforcement methodology and capabilities, as well as the integrity of the police in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced.
Confirming or denying whether any other information is held in relation, for example to any possible Counter Terrorism use of 3D scanning technology would potentially show criminals what the capacity, tactical abilities and capabilities of the MPS are, allowing them to target specific areas of the UK to conduct their criminal/terrorist activities.
Please note this response should not be taken as an indication of whether or not information in relation to the covert use of facial recognition is held or not.
Disclosure
Q1 - I would like any information you have on the use of 3D scans and digital models used as part of evidence i.e a 3D model of a home where a murder has taken place.
Several of our departments use this technology, for example the Road Transport Policing Command (RTPC) scan every collision scene that the Forensic Collision Investigation Unit are called to.
This technology is also used to capture 3-D geospatial information to produce “2-D floor plan” schematics of buildings (where plans do not exist or have been heavily changed), or for areas where no mapping exists (open area search). These schematics are used to create documentation to accurately record areas searched / not searched. Sometimes this capability could be used to support Serious Crime operations (for example complex murder inquiries).
Q2 - I would to know how many of these scans / models the police force has purchased, at what cost, and for which types of crimes.
How many purchased?
The MPS began utilising 3D modelling around 24 years ago and started to utilise laser scanning technology at least 17 years ago. We do not have information available on the specific number of scans or models we have procured from external companies over that period.
What cost?
The cost of laser scan surveys, CAD and/or any 3D modelling services procured for an individual job will vary depending on a range of factors that will be specific and depend on the requirements involved (such as size of the area or object, level of detail, type of equipment or expertise required, number of locations, sites, items/artefacts involved, and the level of complexity and duration of the work being undertaken etc.).
We have a surveying services contract with a third party supplier that includes provision of laser scanning and 3D modelling services when required. MOPAC/MPS invoice costs are published as part of the publication scheme on the Met Police website:
Which types of crime?
Laser scanning and/or 3D modelling may be carried out for a variety of crime types depending on the specific case needs, including serious violent types of crime.
Q3 - Additionally I would like to know if there are criteria used to determine whether or not to order a scan / 3D model, and if you require 3rd party scanning companies to have any specific credentials before hiring them.
Requirement criteria:
Whether a laser scan survey or 3D model is required and appropriate will depend on the nature and specific circumstances of a case, but generally would be when a 2D or 3D spatial understanding of the scene or surroundings is relevant and assists with the investigation and/or where spatial information relevant to the case needs to be clearly presented to the court.
The criteria and appropriateness or otherwise for scanning or 3D modelling by a 3rd party provider will be considered according to the individual circumstances involved and any input from relevant parties such as the investigating officer/team, forensic expert and/or CPS etc. as required. Factors might include the nature and/or complexity of the task, specific expertise, experience or equipment required, resource capacity and availability, as well as timescales and urgency etc.
3rd Party credentials:
A range of professional, business, financial and technical credentials are assessed as part of a competitive tender process before the successful external company is awarded the contract to supply surveying services. The process includes the evaluation of tender responses in relation to the specification of requirements for the contract.
Pricing forms part of the evaluation but other commercial, professional and technical responses are evaluated (e.g. includes proposed personnel, equipment provision, response times, relevant range of expertise and experience, resource capacity, processes etc.). Premises, facilities and systems will also need to be considered.
Q4 - Any additional information you have in this area that I haven't specifically requested would also be gratefully received.
Any additional information has been included in the above.