Key takeaways
- Holographic negotiation could allow crisis negotiators to project a human presence into volatile scenes while maintaining physical distance and officer safety.
- The technology must support, not replace, the empathy, trust-building and emotional intelligence at the core of effective negotiation.
- AI-enhanced analysis may improve situational awareness, but overreliance risks operational failure and ethical missteps.
- Clear policy, transparency and community engagement will determine whether holographic negotiation preserves public trust or undermines it.
By Captain Charlene Jacquez
For as long as modern policing has existed, negotiation teams have relied on conversation, connection and calm under pressure to resolve some of the most volatile situations imaginable. What began decades ago with little more than a throw phone and a negotiator’s intuition has evolved alongside technology — first with radios, today with drones, robots and digital communication tools.
Now law enforcement stands at the edge of another major transformation: holographic technology supported by artificial intelligence (AI). The question facing public safety isn’t whether this innovation is possible – it’s whether we can deploy it responsibly, ensuring it enhances rather than replaces the qualities that make policing human.
As the police look to the future, the way crisis negotiations are conducted may look drastically different. The same emotional intelligence, adaptability and moral courage that have guided negotiators for decades will still matter, but they’ll be tested and reshaped by technology in ways few might imagine.
The changing face of negotiation
Crisis negotiation has always been about understanding people – how they think, feel and respond under extreme stress. The first hostage negotiation teams in the 1970s were built on a thoughtful and patient approach that focused primarily on containing the situation, de-escalating the tension, opening a dialogue and ultimately presenting the perpetrators with a less confrontational response. [1] The mission was simple: Slow things down, build rapport and bring everyone home safely. In “Stalling for Time,” former FBI negotiator Gary Noesner reflects on the early years of crisis negotiation and how the field developed from instinct and improvisation into a disciplined, psychology-driven practice. [2] Through real-life incidents from his career, Noesner shows negotiation in the early days was less about technology and more about patience, emotional control and the ability to build trust under pressure.
Fast-forward to today, and those same principles still guide those who negotiate with barricaded subjects, hostage-takers and others in crisis. What’s changing is how they’re being applied. The negotiator of the future may not always be standing outside the scene with a radio or throw phone.
Picture this: You arrive at the scene of a high-stakes barricade call. Inside the home, a subject holds family members against their will. Outside stands the negotiator — but not in the traditional sense. Instead of a radio or throw phone in hand, you see a large transparent display shimmering into existence on the living-room floor. A life-size hologram of the negotiator materializes on a human scale, perhaps modeled after a calm, authoritative presence like an experienced lead officer. This is projected by a drone or from outside. The remote negotiator’s body language is projected seamlessly — eye contact, open posture, controlled gestures — exactly as though they walked into the room in person. The suspect sees this hologram, illuminated and three-dimensional, and not just a flat video feed.
As the hologram speaks, you can see subtle nonverbal cues: the negotiator’s eyebrows lift slightly, shoulders remain relaxed, hands sit calmly in view – all designed to mirror real-life human presence and maintain rapport. Technology-driven analysis of voice tone, pause intervals and spatial orientation feeds in real time, fine-tuning the projection to avoid the flat, disconnected feel standard video often creates. [3]
Meanwhile, nearby, a tactical display provides live situational data — showing floor plans, room layouts, camera feeds and any confirmed locations of hostages or suspects. Negotiators and tactical commanders can monitor communication channels, environmental hazards and officer positioning in real time. The holographic system adjusts as new information comes in, allowing the negotiator’s projection to remain in sync with on-scene activity.
Rapport-building and active listening remain the foundation
In this “Star Wars” scene come to life, the hologram negotiator becomes an extension of the team — not a replacement. It allows a lead negotiator (whether they are feet or even miles away) to appear at human scale, adjust to body language, and engage visually and verbally while the on-scene officers maintain physical oversight. If the network fails, the backup is still the human negotiator on a headset; if the hologram is compromised, fallback is plain radio or throw phone. The blend of futuristic visuals with grounded technique captures both the promise and the caution: Technology may change how we see negotiation, but it must never replace the central role of human connection.
The technology isn’t about theatrics or visual effects; it is a communication tool meant to preserve the same trust, empathy and patience that define effective crisis negotiation. Rapport-building and active listening remain the foundation of successful resolutions, no matter how advanced the tools become. A 2023 Police1 article pointed out that holographic technology could significantly improve officer safety, support de-escalation and help rebuild community trust by allowing officers to engage safely while still presenting a humanlike presence. [4] Author Jason Grossini’s research emphasizes that with thoughtful training and collaboration with the community, holographic officers could help close the gap between technological progress and public confidence.
A well-known example of this technology in action occurred in 2012, when Tupac Shakur appeared as a holographic image alongside artists such as Dr. Dre and Eminem during the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival in Indio, California. What made this performance remarkable was that Shakur had been deceased for nearly 20 years, yet the holographic recreation demonstrated the power of projection technology to create an illusion of real-time presence – something that, in the future, could profoundly shape how law enforcement interacts, communicates and connects in critical incidents.
However, as every law enforcement professional knows, tools are only as good as the people behind them. The question is not whether holograms can work – it is whether they’ll work when human emotions and unpredictable behavior take over. But before holographic negotiation can become a standard practice, law enforcement must examine both the opportunities and risks that accompany this technology.
Promise meets reality: Opportunities and risks
There is no doubt technology has elevated the safety and efficiency of crisis response. When any new technology is introduced, there is pushback against the “old ways.” Drones were slowly accepted and are now ubiquitous as they provide tactical teams with real-time aerial views. Robots can deliver throw phones safely, and digital mapping allows commanders to visualize rapidly evolving environments. Holographic negotiation represents the next logical step in that progression. The capabilities are limited only by one’s imagination.
AI-driven analytics could soon give negotiators real-time insight into a subject’s emotional state, detecting subtle behavioral cues that might otherwise go unnoticed. As law enforcement AI expert Philip Lukens notes, emerging AI tools are increasingly capable of interpreting facial expressions, speech patterns and biometric data to support faster, more informed decision-making in high-stakes environments. [5] Language translation can instantly bridge cultural divides. Together, these innovations could create a connected network of negotiators capable of responding to any crisis — anywhere, anytime — bridging gaps in expertise, distance and communication. Voice assistants like Amazon Alexa, Apple’s Siri and Google Assistant already analyze speech tone, word choice and rhythm to understand intent and emotion. Similar AI-driven tools could help negotiators detect stress or agitation through voice patterns.
Yet the more complex a system becomes, the more potential points of failure exist. A power outage, network interruption or cyberattack could instantly sever communication, forcing negotiators to adapt in real time. Just as overreliance on GPS caused some to lose their navigational instincts many years ago, there is a risk that dependence on AI could erode fundamental communication instincts.
Futurist Daniel Burrus distinguishes between “hard” trends — those guaranteed to happen, such as technological acceleration — and “soft” trends, which depend on human decisions. [6] A clear hard trend already shaping the future of policing is the advance of automation and drone technology. We’re already seeing drones being used to deliver medical supplies, provide overwatch during tactical incidents and map large disaster areas — and those capabilities are only going to expand. But overreliance on this kind of technology is a soft trend: avoidable, but only through intentional leadership. Negotiators must stay fluent in both traditional and advanced methods, ready to pivot seamlessly when systems fail. As Burrus reminds us, technology’s trajectory may be inevitable, but how we adapt to it remains a matter of choice.
These advances are exciting, but they also come with a new set of challenges that can’t be ignored. As we move closer to a future where holograms and AI play a central role in crisis response, we have to start asking tougher questions – about accountability, privacy and the boundaries of technology in human decision-making. Innovation should never outpace integrity. The tools themselves aren’t the issue – it is how we choose to use them that will define the future of policing.
And that’s where the next challenge begins: understanding the legal and ethical landscape that will determine just how far we’re willing — and able — to go.
Progress and ethics must evolve side by side
Seasoned negotiators may see holographic systems as a threat to the human side of their work, turning what was once an instinctive, relationship-driven process into something that feels more technical and data-focused. Similar to the early hesitation with body-worn cameras and predictive policing software, some may feel such technology could interfere with their judgment or weaken the personal connection that’s often key to resolving a crisis. Generational differences will also play a role in how this is received; newer negotiators may adapt quickly to holographic tools, while those with years of field experience might see them as chipping away at the traditional principles of negotiation. Over time, though, as agencies introduce this technology carefully and with purpose, negotiators will learn to use it as a supplement — not a replacement — for the human connection, empathy and emotional intelligence that remain at the core of effective communication.
Every major technological leap in policing has brought new legal and ethical challenges, and the same will be true of holographic negotiation. Law enforcement has already experienced this tension with facial recognition, predictive policing and AI-assisted surveillance — tools that promised efficiency but raised difficult questions about privacy, bias and public trust. The NAACP warns that predictive policing algorithms, when built on historically biased data, can unintentionally perpetuate discrimination and erode confidence in law enforcement. [7] Echoing these concerns, the ACLU of Southern California opposed 2020’s Assembly Bill 2261, arguing that facial recognition technology is “inherently authoritarian” and poses serious risks to civil liberties, employment fairness and racial equity due to its well-documented bias and potential for misuse. [8]
Similarly, attorney William Galkin, an expert in technology law, cautions that without transparency, accountability and clear legal frameworks, AI systems risk undermining due process, privacy and the very principles of fairness they are designed to uphold. [9] Together, these perspectives reveal a growing truth in public safety innovation: Progress and ethics must evolve side by side.
Holographic negotiation will likely face similar scrutiny. Legislators and advocacy groups may question whether holograms could psychologically influence suspects or compromise due process. Concerns will also arise about data storage, transparency and the accuracy of AI interpretations during emotionally charged interactions.
Proactive transparency will be key. Agencies that invite policymakers and community representatives into early discussions will be better positioned to shape regulations rather than react to them later. A collaborative, values-driven approach will protect both the integrity of the agency and the legitimacy of the technology.
As holographic technology advances, so too does the potential for misuse. The same visual realism that makes holographic negotiation so promising could also be exploited for deception. Deepfake technology — a close cousin of holographic projection — has already shown how synthetic media can blur the line between truth and fabrication. Police writer Frederick Dauer warns that as deepfakes become more sophisticated, they threaten public trust in video evidence, create new investigative hurdles and could even allow bad actors to fabricate visual “proof” that never occurred.10 The implications for holographic technology are strikingly similar.
If holograms are used to replicate real individuals or convey official authority, their misuse could erode confidence in legitimate operations, just as deepfakes have damaged faith in authentic media. The risk of falsified holographic “appearances” or manipulated projections highlights the urgent need for authentication protocols and strict access controls. Agencies must build systems that digitally watermark holographic transmissions, maintain secure audit trails and verify all holographic communications through independent logging systems. Yet even the most well-designed system will fail if it loses the confidence of those it serves.
Preparing the next generation of negotiators
The U.S. Government Accountability Office reports that immersive technologies across federal agencies — such as virtual and augmented reality — require significant investments in high-bandwidth networks, secure cloud architecture and device standardization. [11] These same infrastructure and interoperability requirements will be essential as law enforcement begins to test holographic communication for negotiation and crisis management. Without these foundational elements, agencies risk delays, limited functionality and inequities in access to lifesaving technology.
Leadership training must evolve as well. Future supervisors will need to understand not only the tactical uses of holographic tools but also their policy implications, fiscal demands and mental health impacts. Negotiating through a digital avatar, especially during life-threatening situations, may carry its own psychological toll. Agencies should anticipate that and invest in officer wellness alongside technical readiness.
Recommendations moving forward
With technology advancing faster than policy, the question is no longer if change will come but how law enforcement will lead it. Agencies must decide whether to react once innovation arrives or to take command of its ethical and operational direction now. Holographic negotiation will challenge current structures, budgets and beliefs, but with foresight and integrity, it can preserve life rather than complicate justice.
Here are recommended actions to ensure holographic negotiation serves justice (adapted from Galkin, [9] and GAO [10]):
- Establish clear oversight and policy frameworks – Develop transparent guidelines for deployment, recording and postincident review. Create independent oversight boards to ensure accountability and equitable access across communities.
- Engage the community as partners, not spectators – Involve local leaders, advocacy groups and the public early in the process. Demonstrations and dialogue can reduce fear and foster shared ownership of innovation.
- Prioritize human-centered design – Train negotiators to use holographic tools as extensions of empathy, not replacements for it. Maintain emphasis on emotional intelligence, adaptability and interpersonal connection.
- Invest in interdisciplinary research – Collaborate with universities and behavioral scientists to study psychological effects, emotional authenticity and public perception of holographic engagement.
- Build cross-sector collaboration – Integrate insights from law enforcement, mental health and technology sectors to ensure ethical and functional balance.
- Implement safeguards against misuse – As Dauer warns, the same realism that makes holography powerful could also enable deception. Agencies must employ encryption, watermarking and authentication systems to prevent falsified holographic “appearances” or deepfake-style manipulation.
Progress in this arena will not be smooth — it will be earned. But by embracing transparency, investing in ethical infrastructure and leading with compassion, law enforcement can ensure holographic negotiation reflects the best of both technology and humanity.
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 not to predict the future; rather, to project a variety of possible scenarios useful for planning and action in anticipation of the emerging landscape facing policing organizations.
References
1. Noesner G. Fifty years of FBI crisis (hostage) negotiation. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 2024.
2. Noesner G. Stalling for Time: My Life as an FBI Hostage Negotiator. New York, NY: Random House; 2010.
3. Jacques P. Transforming policing with holographic computing. Police Professional. 2015.
4. Grossini J. Could holographic officers improve safety and enhance trust?. Police1. 2023.
5. Lukens P. The future of policing: How AI is transforming police operations and digital evidence management. Police1. 2024.
6. Burrus D. The Anticipatory Organization: Turn Disruption and Change into Opportunity and Advantage. Austin, TX: Greenleaf Book Group Press; 2017.
7. NAACP. Artificial intelligence in predictive policing issue brief. Published date not listed.
8. ACLU of Southern California. Prevent expansion of facial recognition tech (Oppose AB 2261). 2020.
9. Galkin W. The double-edged sword: Legal concerns of AI in criminal justice. Galkin Law. 2024.
10. Dauer F. Law enforcement in the era of deepfakes. Police Chief. 2022.
11. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Immersive technologies: Most civilian agencies are using or plan to use augmented reality, virtual reality and more. 2024.
About the author
Captain Charlene Jacquez is a 26-year law enforcement veteran and division commander with the Contra Costa County (California) Office of the Sheriff. Known for her innovative leadership and mentorship of emerging leaders, she has led specialized units in hostage negotiation, the MAMFF (Mutual Aid Mobile Field Force) team, emergency response and community engagement.
Currently completing Command College Class 75, she continues to explore how technology and leadership can shape the future of policing.
