By Captain Jennifer Delarosa
Consider an event such as a music festival or stadium gathering, where undercover officers blend into the crowd to monitor illegal activity. These environments are crowded, noisy and often chaotic — exactly the kind of setting where blue-on-blue shootings — officers mistakenly targeting one another — are most likely to occur.
Imagine two officers from different law enforcement agencies working at the event: Officer A is embedded in the crowd wearing civilian clothes, equipped with a discreet GPS transponder. Officer B, also undercover, notices Officer A with a firearm drawn while responding to a perceived threat. Without GPS-optic integration, Officer B might mistake Officer A for a suspect.
Accidental shootings of officers are a preventable problem that can occur in a variety of settings. In a 2001 incident, Oakland police officer William Wilkins was dressed in plainclothes and investigating a crime that had just occurred, firearm in hand. [1] Fellow officers mistook Wilkins as a threat and fired on him. In 2014 Dublin, California police sergeant Tommy Smith was killed by a subordinate who simply did not recognize him due to his plainclothes status. [2]
These catastrophic mistakes — often caused by misidentification or communication breakdowns during high-stress operations – have taken lives, undermined public trust and placed agencies in legal jeopardy. Yet the solution is within reach. Smart GPS-enabled optics and wearable identifiers can provide real-time officer identification, enhance coordination and dramatically improve safety. The challenge is not whether the technology will arrive, but whether law enforcement leaders will prepare for its adoption responsibly, equitably and transparently.
Statistics that matter
Reliable national statistics on blue-on-blue shootings remain limited, as most federal datasets, including the FBI’s Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) program, track officer deaths and assaults without distinguishing friendly-fire cases. [3] While LEOKA is the most comprehensive national database available, its lack of a consistent tag for incidents involving officers shooting other officers means the true scope of the problem is likely underreported. However, a New York state task force documented 26 officer fatalities from police-on-police shootings between 1981 and 2009, underscoring the reality of this risk. [4]
Anecdotal reports in recent years suggest near-misses and mistaken-identity shootings continue to occur, particularly in undercover or plainclothes operations. For context, a national survey by the Police Executive Research Forum and NORC at the University of Chicago (formerly the National Opinion Research Center) estimates U.S. law enforcement officers are involved in approximately 3,671 firearm discharge incidents annually, meaning even a small percentage of blue-on-blue cases can have significant consequences for officer safety and public trust. [5]
This, however, can change today using technology already on the shelf.
GPS devices with gun-mounted optics can identify officers
One of the most promising applications of GPS technology is its pairing with gun-mounted optics to create a real-time officer identification safeguard. By integrating wearable GPS devices with firearm optics, officers can instantly confirm whether the individual in their line of sight is a fellow officer or a suspect. This approach mirrors the Identification Friend-or-Foe (IFF) systems long used by the military, which defense analysts describe as “indispensable to distinguish friend from foe under chaotic conditions.” [6]
In policing, the stakes are similar: Undercover and plainclothes officers often operate in fast-moving, high-risk environments where split-second misidentifications can prove fatal. The National Institute of Justice has emphasized that “technologies that enhance officer identification and situational awareness are among the most pressing needs of modern policing,” underscoring the relevance of adapting IFF principles for civilian law enforcement. [7]
Moreover, scholars studying officer safety technology note that low-cost beacons and GPS trackers have already proven effective in tracking officers during pursuits, especially when paired with aerial or sensor systems. [8] Integrating such beacons into firearm optics represents a logical next step. As technology providers argue, every added layer of information — whether GPS, sensors or connected optics — offers “greater clarity in moments where decisions are made in seconds,” and preventing even one mistaken shooting can justify the investment. [9] By adopting GPS-enabled optics, law enforcement can address one of its most persistent threats — blue-on-blue incidents — while also strengthening public trust by demonstrating a proactive commitment to accountability, precision and officer safety.
Technology comes with risk
Emerging technologies such as GPS-enabled pistol-mounted optics hold enormous promise. Such tools not only improve coordination but also increase public confidence by reducing tragic errors. [10] However, every solution carries risks. The same reliance that enhances safety could also erode core policing skills.
Officers who depend exclusively on digital systems may lose the ability to navigate, assess and decide independently when technology fails. A 2020 study found habitual GPS use diminishes spatial memory, a cautionary example of how overreliance can weaken human capability. [11] Worse, adversaries can exploit vulnerabilities. Military history has shown how GPS jamming and spoofing can cripple operations. [12] In civilian policing, the stakes are just as high; a hacked or disrupted system during a critical incident could prove catastrophic.
In spite of the potential drawbacks, though, tech-enabled means to enhance safety are coming to market soon. A 2008 NIJ-funded study found infrared beacons are a cost-effective, reliable tool for tracking officers during operations, especially when paired with aerial surveillance, enhancing safety and evidence recovery capabilities. [8] This usage is a direct “IFF-style” antecedent for plainclothes/undercover identification, but it does not link GPS devices to a sight picture. There are, however, a litany of options leading to a future where GPS joins other technologies to improve gun safety for the police.
While no law enforcement agencies have confirmed use of fully realized GPS-optic friend-or-foe systems as of now, some are partway there — using optics on pistols and exploring tracking or weapon telemetry [13] — but the “optic confirms via GPS that this is a fellow officer” configuration hasn’t been documented. [14] Many departments have adopted pistol optics and augmentations (red-dot sights, red LED sights, combined weapon lights) to improve accuracy and speed. These are valuable and bring benefits (better aim and visibility) but do not yet reach IFF-type capabilities. [13] Firearm tracking tech is another area under development — devices that track a gun’s location, report use or presence, etc. These are closer to the GPS pairing idea but do not yet appear to integrate optics and real-time identity confirmation via device pairing.
The need for collaboration
Perhaps the most critical implication of preventing blue-on-blue incidents is the importance of interagency collaboration. Policing does not happen in silos. Multiagency operations — from active shooter responses to large-scale events — require seamless coordination. Without national standards for interoperability, agencies risk fragmentation, where one department’s identifiers don’t communicate with another’s. In the heat of crisis, such gaps could prove fatal. Conversely, consistent national standardization could foster trust across jurisdictions, reduce redundancy and institutionalize collaboration.
A best-practice example can be found in the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and Incident Command System (ICS), which provide common terminology, communication protocols and unified command structures during emergencies. [15] These frameworks ensure fire, EMS and police can operate cohesively under one structure regardless of jurisdiction. Applying a similar model to technology such as GPS-enabled identifiers and firearm optics would mean an officer’s device from one department could be instantly recognized by another’s equipment, whether in a neighboring city or during a federal task force operation. By embedding interoperability standards into both training and technology procurement, agencies can build a culture of trust and coordination that mirrors the successes already achieved in disaster response management. [15]
The equity challenge
In the transition to IFF systems, there is the danger of unequal adoption. Larger, better-funded agencies may deploy advanced optics and identifiers while smaller departments struggle to keep up. This two-tier system would create inequities not only among officers but also among communities. Citizens in wealthier jurisdictions would benefit from safer, more precise policing, while those in underfunded areas could remain exposed to greater risks of error. Bridging this gap will require creative solutions.
Through interagency agreements or memoranda of understanding, agencies can establish shared command structures, standardized communication protocols and coordinated training to ensure seamless collaboration during high-pressure situations. [16] This collective approach allows smaller departments to contribute specialized skills — such as undercover operations — while gaining access to resources they might not possess individually, like emerging firearms technology. [17]
Large or small, identifying funding sources will be instrumental. The Justice Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) offers grants specifically to help law enforcement adopt new technologies and equipment. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program provides flexible funding local and state agencies can use for equipment, technology upgrades, forensic tools or software needed for investigations. [18] The Department of Homeland Security, DOJ and other federal agencies periodically run notices of funding opportunities for equipment, technical assistance or innovation in public safety and law enforcement technology use. These are examples of ways that federal and state grants, along with carefully structured public-private partnerships, could provide smaller agencies access to the same lifesaving tools as larger departments. Leaders must communicate these investments not as optional upgrades but as essential to officer and community safety.
Training, wellness and leadership
Technology integration also carries profound implications for training, wellness and leadership. Officers must learn not only to use new systems but also retain core skills in case of failure. Training must emphasize balance, with technology as an enhancement, not a replacement, for judgment and adaptability.
Leadership itself must also evolve. Future leaders must be fluent not only in tactics but also in the ethical, legal and cultural implications of emerging technologies. Leadership academies and promotional pathways should embed these competencies so the next generation of leaders is prepared to guide policing through this transformation.
Conclusion: A road map for the future
Friendly-fire incidents among law enforcement can be virtually eliminated through precision-driven technology, standardized coordination and cultural transformation. The integration of GPS devices with gun-mounted optics could fundamentally change how law enforcement manages high-risk scenarios. It can enhance officer safety, reduce liability and build public trust by showing agencies are proactively working to prevent tragic mistakes. Success will depend on foresight, leadership and commitment to building systems that are equitable, transparent and resilient. This advancement requires careful implementation: standardized interagency protocols, robust training and policies that protect officer privacy while ensuring operational effectiveness.
The path forward is not easy. Resistance, cost and public perception will all pose obstacles. Yet the stakes are too high to delay. Blue-on-blue incidents are preventable tragedies. Every lost officer and every shaken community are a reminder of the urgent need for change.
References
1. Lee HK. Friendly fire fells Oakland officer: Two rookies accidentally kill undercover cop arresting suspected car thief. SFGate. 2001.
2. Fallen BART sergeant killed by single shot to chest. Pleasanton Weekly. 2014.
3. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Law enforcement officers killed and assaulted (LEOKA) program.
4. Blake D. 8 ways to prevent blue-on-blue shootings. Police1. 2018.
5. NORC at the University of Chicago. National survey of force used during police encounters.
6. Keller J. Army reaches out to industry for identification-friend-or-foe (IFF) sensors to help infantry fight at night. Military & Aerospace Electronics. 2020.
7. National Institute of Justice. Law enforcement equipment and technology priorities: A national survey of criminal justice practitioners. 2020.
8. Mesloh C, Henych M, Wolf R, Gallatin K. Infrared beacon evaluation: Applications for law enforcement. US DOJ Office of Justice Programs. 2008.
9. Axon. Axon Signal.
10. Koper CS, Lum C, Willis JJ, et al. Realizing the potential of technology in policing: A multisite study of the social, organizational, and behavioral aspects of implementing policing technologies. National Institute of Justice. 2015.
11. Dahmani L, Bohbot VD. Habitual use of GPS negatively impacts spatial memory during self-guided navigation. Scientific Reports. 2020.
12. Murray C, Tauschinski J, Bhandari A, et al. How GPS warfare is playing havoc with civilian life. Financial Times. 2024.
13. Kraemer M. An agency’s experience transitioning to new duty weapons and miniaturized red dot sights. Police1. 2024.
14. US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Technology and Equipment Program (TEP).
15. Federal Emergency Management Agency. National incident management system.
16. US Department of Justice. Interagency collaboration: Effective task forces, partnerships, and coordination strategies. 2020.
17. Carter DL, Carter JG. Intelligence fusion process for state, local, and tribal law enforcement. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2009.
18. Magnet Forensics. Modernizing police departments with the help of grant programs. Police1. 2025.
About the author
Jennifer Delarosa is a Supervising Agent in Charge (Captain) with the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Special Operations Unit. She has 24 years of law enforcement experience. In addition to her position supervising the undercover enforcement of ABC-licensed premises throughout Southern California, Jennifer also serves as an instructor for the Orange County Sheriff Department Regular Basic Course.
This article is based on research conducted as a part of the CA POST Command College. It is a futures study of a particular emerging issue of relevance to law enforcement. Its purpose is to project a variety of possible scenarios useful for planning and action in anticipation of the emerging landscape facing policing organizations.
