Pricey Honolulu police robot dog is out of service
In the throes of the Covid-19 pandemic, flush with federal relief money, the Honolulu Police Department made national headlines for spending $150,000 on a robot dog.
A four-legged machine that can walk and even dance, Spot was ostensibly purchased to take people's temperatures at a city-run homeless encampment, an explanation that attracted so much criticism that HPD leaders were hauled before the Honolulu City Council in 2021.
There, they defended the six-figure purchase by saying Spot would actually be useful for years to come.
'The ideas you can come up with would be endless as far as its future potential use beyond the pandemic,' then-Lt. Mike Lambert told the council.
Four years later, Spot is playing dead.
'The department still has the robotic dog but is not deploying it at this time,' HPD spokesperson Michelle Yu said via email.
In fact, Spot hasn't been used since 2021, she said, and the department apparently doesn't know what to do with it.
'In-house programmers are currently reviewing its software capabilities and assessing how it can be used to assist with possible future tasks, such as searches and surveillance,' Yu said.
The robot was purchased with part of Honolulu's $386 million in federal CARES Act money, of which $40 million was granted to HPD by then-mayor Kirk Caldwell. Besides Spot, HPD spent millions on new trucks, ATVs and overtime used to cite people in closed public parks. Meanwhile, residents were struggling to access financial assistance through a city program meant to help them pay for rent and childcare.
'For us to invest that into a robot instead of people, it's not only disconcerting from a fiduciary point of view, it's concerning from a humanity point of view,' said Camron Hurt, executive director of the government accountability nonprofit Common Cause Hawaii.
'We should've been putting our people first.'
Wookie Kim, legal director at American Civil Liberties Union Hawaiʻi, said the sidelining of Spot validates public concerns from years ago that it was a waste of money. HPD's approach to buying it was 'entirely backwards,' he said.
'It very clearly was a toy,' he said. 'You should have a problem in mind and figure out the tools or strategies you need to address that problem, not buy a tool and figure out what problems to solve with it.'
Lambert, now director of the Hawaii Department of Law Enforcement, did not respond to a message left with his office on Friday afternoon.
In a statement, Assistant Chief Darren Chun of HPD's Special Field Operations Bureau said Spot did serve a purpose.
In 2021, the robot was used more than 100 times for 'contactless temperature checks, client interviews and telemedicine appointments via tablet' at the city's Provisional Outdoor Screening and Triage program. The so-called POST program offered unsheltered homeless people a legal place to camp overnight with police oversight and the promise of referrals to services.
'It's important to remember that there were a lot of unknowns at the outset of the COVID pandemic,' he said. 'Social distancing and contact tracing were in place, and the public was being advised to severely limit person-to-person contact to reduce the spread of the virus.'
Before Spot was purchased, officers and site workers had extended face-to-face contact with clients, some of whom were Covid-positive, he said. After each actual or potential exposure, he said staff had to be tested and quarantined for two weeks or until cleared by a doctor.
'Spot reduced the risk of contracting and spreading COVID at the site for clients, officers and workers,' Chun said.
The ACLU, however, found the use of robots to help with homeless individuals' healthcare to be 'dehumanizing,' Kim said.
Spot was transferred to HPD's Major Events Division in late 2021, and the IT division took it over in May 2024, Yu said.
Following complaints about HPD's CARES Act spending, the U.S. Treasury Office of the Inspector General launched a review. In 2021, the office determined the department's purchases, including the robot dog, were legally permissible.
Spot can be equipped with various add-ons, including cameras, sensors, thermal imaging tools and hazardous substance detectors. Police departments around the country have acquired the robot dogs to help with SWAT missions and other tactical challenges.
Hurt said he sees possible uses for Spot in patrolling city parks at night or monitoring Kakaʻako for 'smash and grabs.'
'If they are capable, why have they not been used for that?' Hurt asked.
However, community members and academics across the country have raised concerns about potential misuse of Spot's surveillance capabilities and the possibility it could be weaponized. Kim said the risk is too great that this powerful technology could be used to harm people.
'It's like the hammer that sees everything as a nail,' he said. 'They should get rid of it, instead of what it sounds like, trying to find some use for it and potentially increase the odds that it violates people's rights.'
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
3 hours ago
- Atlantic
In Minnesota, America's Luck Ran Out
Early this morning, a gunman apparently impersonating a police officer targeted two Democratic Minnesota state lawmakers in their homes. First, he shot State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, who were seriously wounded. Law-enforcement officials believe the same gunman then shot Melissa Hortman, who served as Minnesota's speaker of the House from 2019 to 2024. She was killed, along with her husband, Mark. In September 2023, shortly after Donald Trump yet again encouraged direct political violence against his opponents, I wrote this: 'As a political scientist who studies political violence across the globe, I would chalk up the lack of high-profile assassinations in the United States during the Trump and post-Trump era to dumb luck … Eventually, all luck runs out.' That luck has now run out, in an idyllic Minneapolis suburb. Although details are still emerging, law-enforcement officials are searching for a former appointee of Democratic Governor Tim Walz in connection with the killings, which Walz called 'politically motivated.' The gunman reportedly had a manifesto and a list of targets that included the names of other Minnesota politicians as well as abortion providers in the state. Law-enforcement authorities intercepted but were not able to arrest the shooter shortly after he assassinated Hortman. Had they not, it's possible that he would have made his way to the homes of other Minnesota officials, trying to murder them too. Political violence—and assassinations in particular—are notoriously difficult to predict, precisely because the violence is often carried out by 'lone wolf' attackers. Just one deranged zealot is sufficient to carry out an act of consequential violence. In a country of 340 million people and even more guns, there will always be a small pool of potential killers eager to wreak havoc on the political system. That's why researchers who study political violence, including myself, try to understand what elevates or reduces the risk of violence, even if it can never be fully eradicated. In a context such as the United States, three key factors stand out: easy access to deadly weapons, intense polarization that paints political opponents as treasonous enemies rather than disagreeing compatriots, and incitements to political violence from high-profile public figures. When you combine those three social toxins, the likelihood of political violence increases, even as it remains impossible to predict who will be targeted or when attacks might be carried out. Again, law-enforcement officials still don't know the attacker's precise motivations, and trying to draw conclusions from any single act of political violence is foolish. Because they are rare, randomness plays a role in these instances, and many perpetrators are mentally unwell. But consider this comparison. Although we can't say that climate change caused a specific hurricane, we know that climate change produces stronger hurricanes. Similarly, we may not be able to draw a direct link from rhetoric to a specific act of violence, but we do know that incitements to violence make killings more likely. The United States has repeatedly refused to do anything about easy access to deadly weapons, despite having, by far, the highest rate of mass killings among developed democracies. As a result, the only feasible levers are reducing polarization and stopping high-profile incitements to commit violence. Instead, during the Trump era, polarization has sharply increased. And over the past decade, Trump himself has been the most dangerous political actor in terms of routinely inciting violence against his opponents, including against specific politicians who could become assassination targets. Such incitements matter. When a person with a massive public platform spreads information that encourages violence, attacks become more likely. From the April 2023 issue: Adrienne LaFrance on America's terrifying cycle of extremist violence From the beginning of his first campaign for president, Trump encouraged supporters to beat up hecklers at his rallies, saying he'd cover their legal bills if they ' knock the crap ' out of them. He floated the ideas of shooting looters, shooting shoplifters, and shooting migrants crossing the border. Trump also targeted the press, sharing a variety of violent memes involving specific outlets. He endorsed Greg Gianforte, now the governor of Montana, specifically because he violently attacked a reporter. ('Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type,' Trump said, to cheers.) And, at the end of his first term, Trump's speech on the National Mall on January 6 doused an already incendiary environment, culminating in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol building. Trump's rhetorical incitements to violence extend to politicians, too. He has called his political opponents ' human scum.' Even more worrying are Trump's endorsements of violence against specific Democrats. In 2016, he suggested that maybe there was something that ' Second Amendment people ' could do to deal with Hillary Clinton. In October 2022, when a QAnon disciple who had peddled Trump's lies about the 2020 election attempted to assassinate then–Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi—and fractured her husband's, Paul's, skull with a hammer—Trump made light of the incident. (His son Donald Trump Jr. posted a photo on Instagram of a hammer and a pair of underwear like the ones Paul Pelosi had been wearing during the attempted murder, with the caption: ' Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready.') Less than a year later, Trump openly mused that Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be killed. When such language becomes normalized, deranged individuals may interpret rhetoric as marching orders. In 2018, Cesar Sayoc, a die-hard Trump supporter, mailed 16 pipe bombs to people who frequently appeared as targets in Trump's tweets. (Nobody died, but only because Sayoc wasn't skilled at making bombs.) In 2020, Trump tweeted that people should 'LIBERATE MICHIGAN!' in response to its COVID policies. Thirteen days later, armed protesters entered the state capitol building. A right-wing plot to kidnap the governor, Gretchen Whitmer, was narrowly foiled months later. It also matters that Trump is one of the biggest vectors for spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation in the United States. When a major political figure disseminates lies about shadowy plots and treasonous acts carried out by the 'human scum' on the other side of the aisle, that can increase the likelihood of violence. (Several followers of QAnon, which Trump has repeatedly amplified himself, have carried out political violence based on the conspiracy theory.) Trump often makes a brief show of condemning political violence—as he has with the killings in Minnesota. While trying to play both the arsonist and the firefighter on social media, his actions in power make clear where his true loyalties lie, sending much stronger signals. One of his first official acts at the start of his second term was to pardon or grant clemency to people convicted for their involvement in the January 6 riots, including those who had violently attacked police officers and were targeting lawmakers. In recent weeks, Trump has floated the possibility of pardoning the far-right zealots who sought to kidnap Governor Whitmer in Michigan. The message is unmistakable: Use violence against my political opponents and there may be a pardon waiting. Joe Biden abused his pardon power to protect his son from tax-evasion charges. Donald Trump abused his pardon power to condone those who attacked cops and hoped to murder politicians. Both abuses were bad. But they are not the same. Trump, more than anyone, should be aware of the risks of political violence. After all, he narrowly escaped an assassin's bullet last summer. He would be dead, but for a gust of wind or a slightly different tilt of his head. But when that assassination attempt happened, Biden didn't mock it; Kamala Harris didn't float the idea of pardoning the assassin; and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries hadn't previously mused that Trump should be executed, or that he was human scum, or that Jeffries would pay the bills of people who used violence against Republicans. Neither party has a monopoly on the risks of political violence. Democrats and Republicans in public office are targets who face credible threats in a hyper-polarized political climate. Likewise, supporters of Democrats and supporters of Republicans are both capable of carrying out political violence. (There have also been a small number of statements by Democrats that could be interpreted as incitements to violence, including some by Representatives Maxine Waters of California and Dan Goldman of New York. Goldman apologized for his phrasing the following day.) The difference is that only one party is led by someone who uses his megaphone to routinely normalize and absolve acts of political violence. There is overwhelming evidence of this asymmetric rhetoric between those in party leadership. The United States is a fraying society, torn apart by polarization, intense disagreement, and ratcheting extremism. Cheap weapons of mass murder are readily available. And into that tinder box, Trump adds incendiary rhetoric. We don't know when or where the deadly conflagration will strike next, but more flames will no doubt come. We may still be shocked by tragic acts of political violence like the assassination in Minnesota, but we can no longer feign surprise.
New York Post
8 hours ago
- New York Post
The 21 cases left for the Supreme Court to decide, including transgender care
The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. 7 The Supreme Court has 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May. REUTERS Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. 7 The oldest unresolved case stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law on transgender youth AP 7 The court is weighing the case amid other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, such as which bathrooms they can use, and pushes to keep transgender athletes from playing in girls' sports. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. 7 Protesters confront law enforcement outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Los Angeles. Getty Images These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. 7 A majority of the court last month expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. REUTERS The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. 7 LGBTQ+ veterans hold signs protesting the ban on transgender military members as they march in the World Pride parade in Washington, DC on June 7. Nathan Posner/Shutterstock The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. 7 The case about Louisiana congressional maps involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court. AP Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Council votes to widen surveillance at city parks
A one-year pilot program to install more video monitoring at city-owned parks prone to high crime was recently approved by the Hono lulu City Council. The Council voted unanimously to pass Resolution 128, which seeks to authorize the use of overt video surveillance at Oahu's public parks to deter crime and provide 'a safe environment for city residents, visitors and employees.' Introduced in April by Council member Radiant Cordero, the resolution says the Honolulu Police Department and other city agencies 'are currently utilizing video surveillance cameras and installing additional video surveillance cameras at various locations within the city, including but not limited to Waikiki, downtown Honolulu, East Oahu, and west side city parks.' The legislation also seeks to quell violent crime at city parks. 'There are multiple reports of violent crimes occurring in parks operated by the Department of Parks and Recreation, the most recent being reports of gunfire on April 20, 2025, at Ala Moana Regional Park, which is one of the busiest parks on Oahu and is frequently visited by tourists, ' the legislation states. Resolution 128 underscores HPD's vacancy of over 450 police officer positions as well. HPD 'is currently dealing with a staffing shortage that would impact the department's ability to maintain a physical presence at city parks in order to detect and deter criminal activity, ' the legislation says. To aid policing efforts, the resolution urges the city to implement 'a one-year pilot program, in order to achieve the legitimate public purposes and legitimate law enforcement objectives … including the detection and deterrence of criminal activity and ensuring the safety and security of the general public and its property.' It says the pilot program is authorized for 'at least one city park per Council district, to be identified by the Council member assigned to that Council district based on a pattern of high criminal activity or ongoing public safety concerns for the respective park.' The legislation states 'overt video monitoring devices authorized under this resolution must be overt and clearly visible, with appropriate public signage to inform the public as set forth pursuant to (city laws ).' Cordero—whose Council District 7 spans Kalihi Kai to Waimalu Kai—previously told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that her resolution 'was prompted by a series of break-ins at one of my district parks, highlighting the urgent need for stronger security.' 'The need for video surveillance in Oahu's city parks is driven by growing concerns over public safety and rising violent crimes, ' she said. 'Notable incidents include gunfire at Ala Moana Regional Park, two break-ins in a District 7 city park, and the recent fire at the Wahiawa District Park Playground.' 'By testing this approach through a pilot program, we can assess its effectiveness and make data-driven decisions for future expansion, ' she added. Cordero said the projected cost of her park surveillance program was not determined. Before the Council's vote on June 4, Cordero noted a major amendment to her resolution—that video monitoring devices placed at parks must not face private property. During public testimony, Hawaii Kai resident Natalie Iwasa opposed Resolution 128. 'I think there's a segment of our population that is particularly sensitive to video monitoring, and that is the immigrants and legal nationals here, especially given the ICE actions, ' she told the Council. 'So we need to be cognizant of that.' Iwasa said surveillance cameras may not deter crime either. 'When you put cameras in one location it seems logical to me that crime is going to move right around the corner where the cameras are not visible, ' she asserted. 'So how does the placement of the cameras in certain areas impact crime in the neighboring areas ?' Chandra Kanemaru, an Aliamanu-Salt Lake-Foster Village-Airport Neighborhood Board member, backed the resolution. 'With the alarming increase in damage and break-in reports at our local district parks and the recent arson fire at the Wahiawa District Park, it is clear that our city's public facilities are under threat, ' she said via written testimony. 'We must act swiftly to protect and monitor these facilities and prevent the rising wave of vandalism and destruction affecting our community, particularly our youth.' Kanemaru added 'the destructive actions of these crimes are not just damaging property and costing thousands in funds to repair and replace equipment ; they are penalizing the youths who rely on these parks, pools, and municipal building structures for a safe outlet to exercise and participate in organized team sports activities.' DPR spokesperson Nate Serota confirmed there are currently 165 surveillance cameras installed at 16 city parks on Oahu. 'There have been cameras in city parks for well over a decade under a variety of initiatives, ' he previously told the Star-Advertiser. 'Our most recent batch of surveillance cameras installed included 25 new surveillance cameras within Ala Moana Regional Park.' Cameras are installed and maintained with in-house city staff, while costs depend on the particular cameras used as well as who paid for them, he said. Organizations, like the Hawai 'i Tourism Authority, sponsored 75 cameras, including at Kapiolani Regional Park. He added the 'footage from these cameras is not continuously monitored.' As far as park vandalism is concerned, Serota said the parks department will 'spend between $300, 000 to $400, 000 annually addressing vandalism through in-house maintenance.'
