integrated Law Enforcement Automated Documentation...

integrated Law Enforcement Automated Documentation (iLEAD) 1

ECE 4522/4542: Design II April 25, 2017

Design document for

integrated Law Enforcement Automated Documentation

(iLEAD)

submitted to:

Michael S. Mazzola, Ph.D.

ECE 4522/4542: Senior Design II

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

413 Hardy Road, Box 9571

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762

April 25, 2017

prepared by:

L. King, Z. DiGennaro, D. Reeves

Faculty Advisor: Professor Mehmet Kurum, Ph.D.

Professional Advisor: Jeremy Hamilton

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Mississippi State University

413 Hardy Road, Box 9571

Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762

Tel: 662-325-3154, Fax: 662-325-3670

Email: {ck654, zad4, jdr19}@msstate.edu

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADC – Analog-to-Digital Converter

C – Celsius

COTS – Commercial Off-the-Shelf

g – Gram

GHz – Gigahertz

I2C – Inter-integrated Circuit

iLEAD – integrated Law Enforcement Automated Documentation

IMU – Inertial Measurement Unit

I/O – Input/Output

IP – Ingress Protection

Li-ion – Lithium Ion

Li-po – Lithium Polymer

mA – Milliampere

mAh – Milliampere Hours

ms – Millisecond

mW – Milliwatt

PCB – Printed Circuit Board

SASS – Smart Activation Sensor System

V – Volts

W – Watt

WPA – Wi-Fi Protected Access

WPAN – Wireless Protected Area Network

*Throughout this document the terms “Primary Weapon” and “Secondary Weapon” are used interchangeably with “gun” and “Taser”,

respectively. The term “XBee” is used interchangeably with “XBeeS2C” and “XBeeS6B” where specificity is not required.

**Grey text indicates previous engineering that has been superseded by new design.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PROBLEM .......................................................................................................................... 5

2. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS/CONSTRAINTS ............................................................... 7

2.1. Technical Design Constraints ........................................................................................ 7

2.2. Practical Design Constraints .......................................................................................... 8

3. APPROACH...................................................................................................................... 10

3.1. Hardware ....................................................................................................................... 12

3.2. Software ......................................................................................................................... 21

4. EVALUATION ................................................................................................................. 28

4.1. Test Certification – Event Sensing .............................................................................. 29

4.2. Test Certification – Wireless Signals ........................................................................... 34

4.3. Test Certification – Ergonomic Design ....................................................................... 34

4.4. Test Certification – Battery Life .................................................................................. 35

4.5. Test Certification – Data Encryption .......................................................................... 35

4.6. Test Certification – Complete System Test................................................................. 36

5. SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK ..................................................................................... 37

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... 37

7. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 37

8. APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix A – Product Specification ...................................................................................... 38

Appendix B – TASER/Axon 2016 Pricing ............................................................................. 39



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Throughout the world of law enforcement, civilians and police are demanding the documentation

of all daily encounters to ensure both sides are in accordance with the law. There is no standardized

body camera training available to ensure proper camera activation occurs. The current options for

police departments are proprietary and focused more on vehicular-based systems that are not

automated, and these systems do not work if an officer is biking or walking the beat.

The solution is a multi-sensor body-are network that

will automate the activation of a body camera. The

solution must have a secure wireless network. The

solution must have a mobile power system and it

must work with existing police equipment. The

system must also have a level of durability to be

able to withstand every police situation. The design

must integrate with police issued equipment

allowing full mobility of the officer. The solution

must be secure for daily handling of critical police

information. The solution must have the ability to

detect a primary weapon draw (shown in orange), a

secondary weapon draw (shown in green), a heart

rate increase for high pressure situations (shown in

red), and a change in the acceleration to detect if the

officer begins running down a suspect (shown on-

board in blue). Finally, it will need to cost

significantly less than the proprietary systems to

make it more accessible to lower funded police

departments. iLEAD will cost between $250 –

$350, allowing more departments to outfit their

force.

To address the specific constraints, iLEAD must manage multiple digital and analog inputs, an on-

board accelerometer, and multiple wireless signals and communication protocols. The Arduino

101 microcontroller meets all the constraints while having a low operating power. To detect gun-

draw and Taser-draw, optical reflective sensors were used. The heart rate sensor is highly reputable

monitoring device with tremendous commercial success in the fitness industry. Wireless

transceivers transmit the trigger detections to the control box. Finally, a Wi-Fi transceiver

communicates with the body-worn camera for activation.

iLEAD is a unique and innovative approach solving the ever-growing police documentation issues

by automating the activation of body-worn cameras with a network of sensors. The system will

ensure all necessary encounters are recorded properly and justly. The system will be successful if

used appropriately by law enforcement throughout the country.

Figure 1 – iLEAD System Overview



1. PROBLEM

1.1. Historical Introduction

Police body-worn cameras were first used in 2012 by the Rialto Police Department (California) as

a year-long study that observed 54 street-deployed uniformed patrol officers at any given time

throughout their patrols [1]. The department reported an 87.5% decline in complaints and a 59%

plummet in use-of-force incidents as a result of the presence of body-worn cameras [1].

The debate that began in 2012 and continues today focuses on three primary issues: the cameras’

effectiveness, whether or not the cameras should always be actively recording, and when and to

whom the cameras’ footage should be released [2]. Very little research has been invested in

tackling these questions, mainly due to the lack of police departments that have adopted the use of

body-worn cameras [2]. Recent events in Sanford, Milwaukee, Ferguson, and Baton Rouge have

sparked movements among law enforcement personnel and the public at large, and there is a

growing public opinion in favor of police departments adopting body-worn cameras [2]. With the

advancement of technology, body-worn camera systems have improved greatly, and companies

such as TASER, COBAN, and Digital Ally have developed expensive proprietary systems that

help law enforcement agencies outfit their officers.

There is a growing awareness of police body-worn cameras’ existence and benefits. The high

prices of the existing, yet limited, proprietary systems have created a need for iLEAD. iLEAD

receives sensor inputs based on the heartrate, inertia, gun draw, and/or Taser draw of the officer

and decides to record based on these inputs, removing the burden of camera activation from the

officer. This will eliminate deliberate avoidance of camera activation and common excuses such

as “I forgot to turn it on,” “I was too busy,” or “I had other things to handle” [2].

1.2. Market and Competitive Product Analysis

The market for iLEAD is one that is increasingly large as more complex systems are being

designed for law enforcement officials. The demand for body cameras worn by police officers has

increased steadily, with more of the public, along with law enforcement agencies, wanting

documentation of daily activities.

TASER International currently controls the vast majority of the market share, accounting for three-

quarters of the body camera business in the United States [3]. Because TASER has the only (non-

lethal) weapon-sensor activated camera in production, they will be the focus of competitive

product analysis.

iLEAD technology provides a unique chance for mobility throughout the body-worn camera

market. The system does not require vehicular-based integration and has the ability to be worn by

police officers walking the streets or even riding a bike. In contrast, TASER International’s system

relies heavily on a police vehicle to operate. Also, TASER products are used for specific hardware,

therefore a law enforcement agency must use TASER brand Taser weapons, not other-brand Taser



weaponry. iLEAD’s technology will solve these issues by having the ability to retrofit to existing

hardware so law enforcement agencies may use any equipment they choose.

Finally, price is a major concern for every police department within the nation. TASER cameras

with integrated sensor activation cost between $800-$1000 per unit, while iLEAD will cost

between $250-$350, depending upon user-specified options. The technology of iLEAD will be

cost efficient and provide law enforcement agencies with cutting-edge technology to document

daily activity and provide safety.

1.3. Concise Problem Statement

Scenarios requiring immediate action from law enforcement personnel do not always permit

secondary activities, such as activating a body-worn camera, when tactical and technical

expediency is critical in the protection of property and preservation of human life. When seconds

matter, officers must be able to rely upon automated activation of their body-worn camera without

unnecessarily drawing their focus away from public safety, personal health, and key events.

iLEAD addresses this issue by incorporating a network of sensors positioned on the officer that

communicate via a wireless protected area network (WPAN) with a microcontroller. Sensor inputs

consist of an accelerometer, heart rate sensor, Taser draw optical-interrupt sensor, and pistol draw

optical-interrupt sensor. The microcontroller processes each of these inputs via the Smart

Activation Sensor System (SASS) algorithm, and when sensor(s) input(s) matches an activation

profile, SASS will trigger and wirelessly activate the body-worn camera. All documented events

will be uploaded to the law enforcement department’s media server after completion of the

officer’s shift.

1.4. Implications of Success

If all goals are achieved, iLEAD will be a robust option for automated video recording. Camera

activation will be a function of external inputs and will eliminate any misses during recording

encounters attributed to human error. iLEAD will reduce time spent in a critical situation to

manually activate the recording, thus improving the essential process of video documentation.

Additionally, iLEAD will have an impact on the market in automated-recording systems. It

delivers compatibility of use with a variety of wireless body cameras, making it very flexible. The

current market is dominated by automated-recording systems that are expensive and rigid. These

do not offer compatibility to other cameras. Hence, iLEAD will offer versatility and market options

to law enforcement agencies whose budgets do not justify purchasing costly proprietary camera

systems, allowing law enforcement agencies to allocate resources to other vital areas.

An added advantage of iLEAD is the improvement of law enforcement relations with the public

as there will be documented video evidence of encounters. Proper video documentation is essential

to public relations for law enforcement agencies, and iLEAD will decrease confusion related to

undocumented police encounters and provide clear, factual video evidence of the encounters.



2. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS/CONSTRAINTS

iLEAD is an automated body camera triggering system that utilizes multiple sensors to initiate

recording police officers’ encounters. iLEAD automatically records any time the officer draws

his or her firearm or Taser, when a predetermined threshold for heart rate beats-per-minute and

duration is exceeded, when angular and linear acceleration thresholds are exceeded, or any

combination of the aforementioned events occur. Unlike other products, iLEAD is compatible

with any Wi-Fi enabled body-worn camera, which will allow for use and integration into existing

police department body-worn camera systems. This section lists and provides brief explanations

of iLEAD’s technical and practical design constraints. Section 2.1 contains technical design

constraints, and Section 2.2 focuses on practical design constraints.

2.1. Technical Design Constraints

Table 2.1 contains the five technical design constraints that must be adhered to upon completion

of this system.

Table 2.1 – Technical Design Constraints

Name Description

Event Sensing The device must successfully detect gun draw, Taser draw, elevated

heart rate, and running scenarios.

Wireless Signals The sensor network and system must be able to transmit and receive

wireless signals within a range of 2 meters.

Ergonomic Design The design must not restrict the user’s physical abilities in any way. The

total weight of the sensor system, microcontroller, case, batteries, and

associated circuitry must be less than 3.5 pounds. The case exterior

dimensions must be less 6" long, 4.5" wide, and 2.5" deep.

Battery Life The batteries must provide 8 hours of endurance for constant use.

Data Encryption The data transmitted by transceivers must be encrypted to prevent any

mishandling of important information.



2.1.1. Event Sensing

The iLEAD system has various capabilities including a sensor that detects when a gun or Taser

are drawn from their respective holster. An on-board accelerometer will detect the acceleration

of an officer and a heart rate sensor that constantly monitors the officer’s heart rate.

2.1.2. Wireless Signals

The XBeeS2C and XBeeS6B are used for iLEAD’s wireless communication signals, and the Polar

T-31 coded transmitter/receiver pair is used for the transmission/reception of the heart rate data.

A 2-meter range was set based on the size of the human body.

2.1.3. Ergonomic Design

The ergonomic design of our project will work with the utility belt. The control components will

be placed inside a housing on the utility belt worn by the police officer. Our system must be

compact enough to fit inside the respective area on the officer’s belt.

2.1.4. Battery Life

The battery life for iLEAD is very important for the overall reliability and sustainability of the

system. The control box will contain 7.4V 2200mAh rechargeable lithium-ion battery. With 40mA

of draw from the Arduino and 40mA for each XBeeS2 this will allow for at least 8 hours of

operation, satisfying the design constraint. Each holster sensor will have two 1.5V AAA 600mAh

rechargeable lithium-ion batteries in series to act as a 3V source. With 40mA of draw from the

XBee and 5mA of draw from the sensor, this will allow for at least 8 hours of operation required

by the design constraint.

2.1.5. Data Encryption

The wireless signals used in iLEAD will include WPA2 security to prevent any external

interference and maleficence. The WPA2 security will protect the video footage from any outside

tampering, theft, or deletion.

2.2. Practical Design Constraints

Along with previously described technical design constraints, iLEAD must also adhere to the

five practical constraints listed in Table 2.2.



Table 2.2 – Practical Design Constraints

Type Name Description

Environmental Durability The device must be shock-resistant from a 10-foot drop

(2000 Gs). It must withstand temperatures between -20 to

70 degrees C. It must be water resistant (IP64).

Sustainability Reliability The system must deliver a level of reliance that officers can

trust. Components and software must deliver sustained

accurate activation in every encounter.

Manufacturability Modular

Integration

The device must consist of modular assemblies of sensors,

communication devices, and batteries that are easily

integrated with police officers’ existing equipment.

Economic Cost The device must cost less than the competitor to ensure

lower funded departments can outfit their entire force.

Social Public Trust and

Safety

The device must document all critical significant events

and encounters, thus allowing officers to focus on personal

and public safety instead of manual camera activation.

2.2.1. Environmental

iLEAD must have a high level of durability because it is installed on the utility belt of an actively

engaged police officer. Tactical personal electronic equipment is typically shock-resistant from a

10-foot drop, can withstand temperatures between -20 to 70 degrees C, and is water resistant

(IP64). Officers experience a myriad of events throughout their daily activities, and iLEAD must

be able to operate whether the officer experiences a passing rain shower, is directing traffic, or

engaged in a struggle with an armed suspect. The product cannot be a fragile piece of equipment

and must perform throughout any situation officers experience, and iLEAD must meet these

prescribed durability specifications to ensure total functionality in any engagement scenario.

2.2.2. Sustainability

iLEAD must be a system that always provides accurate and transparent results for police

departments. The software and hardware used throughout the design will prove to be the most

effective products possible to sustain a level of reliability to the officers. Ultimately, the system

must be trusted for electrical and mechanical efficiency. The components must be accurately

calculated, and the algorithms must be efficiently designed. All this combined will give the police

officers full reliability upon the iLEAD system.



2.2.3. Manufacturability

iLEAD must be easily integrated with virtually any standard utility belt in service to facilitate a

diverse collection of law enforcement agencies. The integration of microcontroller, sensors,

transceivers, power supplies, and associated wiring is a key practical component to the

manufacturability of iLEAD. The device must not disrupt the natural profile of the officer to

prevent any intentional, or unintentional, damage to equipment. The streamlined and integrated

design must not interfere with activities to include, but not limited to, entering and exiting a

vehicle, traversing crowded city streets, contact with a hardened surface, or engaging a suspect at

close range.

2.2.4. Economic

iLEAD will be modular allowing for a more cost efficient product. Police departments will be

able to choose sensor configurations that meet their needs and are able to interface with various

existing, and often less expensive, camera systems, thus eliminating the need to purchase

expensive proprietary systems. Appendix B provides explicit details about TASER’s Axon line

2016 product pricing for comparison to iLEAD.

2.2.5. Social

iLEAD will assist in providing definitive evidence of all the officer’s encounters, eliminating

speculation by outsiders of the conflict in question. This will leave no doubt in the public’s eye,

and every entire encounter will be documented in its entirety, thus giving the public peace of mind.

Law enforcement officers must have the utmost trust that the camera will activate via external

sensor inputs, allowing them to focus on performing their duties and ensuring public safety. The

public must also possess the same level of trust and be aware that encounters will be successfully

recorded. This faithful trust should theoretically improve the public’s perception of police officers

and quality of those interactions.

3. APPROACH

iLEAD is designed to aid police officers in activating their body-worn camera by incorporating

optical sensors integrated within the gun and Taser holsters, a chest-worn heart rate sensor, and an

accelerometer within the microcontroller. By automatically activating the body-worn camera,

iLEAD will remove the responsibility of turning on the camera and automate the process making

it more reliable in all situations the officer encounters.

iLEAD is composed of several subsystems in order for it to reliably activate the body-worn camera.

The overall design goal is to create a functional trigger system that can activate a body-worn

camera in four separate instances working together as a continuously monitored, network-style

process.



The system contained within the iLEAD case includes the microcontroller, a battery, a WPAN

transceiver to receive weapon sensor inputs, a development board to receive heart rate inputs, and

a Wi-Fi transceiver to enable the camera. The microcontroller will receive data from the sensors

and then send a signal via Wi-Fi to activate camera recording. Figure 3.1 illustrates the system

components that comprise the iLEAD system.

Figure 3.1 – iLEAD System Overview

Figure 3.2 displays the packaged hardware of the iLEAD System as integrated on a police

officer’s utility belt (covers removed and housing open to display internal componenets).



Figure 3.2 – iLEAD System Packaged Hardware

3.1. Hardware

This section discusses the hardware components required to ensure functionality and durability of

iLEAD.

3.1.1. Microcontroller

iLEAD requires a microcontroller to serve as a central management point-of-control to ensure

independent system functionality and capability of processing multiple sensor inputs, managing

wireless communication, and remotely activating police body cameras. The candidates for the

iLEAD microcontroller were chosen based on physical dimensions, power consumption, and

digital/analog capabilities to ensure the technical design constraints outlined in Section 2.1 (Event

Sensing, Wireless Signals, Ergonomic Design, and Battery Life) were satisfied.

The Arduino 101, ARM mbed, and Raspberry Pi Zero microcontrollers were considered and

evaluated as viable solutions for iLEAD, and a brief description of each is provided in Table 3.1.



Table 3.1. Candidates for iLEAD Microcontroller

Microcontroller Dimensions Input

Voltage

Operating

Voltage

Current

Draw

Arduino 101 2.70" x 2.10" x 0.55" 7–12V 3.3V 70mA

ARM mbed 2.13" x 1.02" x 0.20" 4.5–9V 5V 80mA

Raspberry Pi Zero 2.56" x 1.18" x 0.20" 4.75–5.25V 5V 120mA

The physical dimensions of each candidate are of proper size to fit within the iLEAD housing

(discussed in Section 3.1.6) and satisfy the Ergonomic Design technical constraint. The required

input voltages of each candidate are within similar ranges and could not be a sole reason to accept

or reject any of the candidates. Additional research revealed that the ARM mbed was unable to

satisfy the Event Sensing technical constraint due to an inadequate amount of digital and analog

input pins, and it was discarded from further consideration.

Higher power consumption directly results in a reduction of battery life, and the iLEAD

microcontroller must operate for 8 hours in accordance with the Battery Life technical constraint.

When examining current draw and operating voltage, it became apparent that the Raspberry Pi

Zero would consume much more power than the Arduino 101: 600mW versus 231mW,

respectively. The Raspberry Pi Zero requires additional adapters, and extra components would add

weight to the system and crowd the interior space of the iLEAD housing, possibly resulting in a

violation of the Ergonomic Design technical constraint. The Raspberry Pi Zero utilizes an

operating system, and although advantageous, an operating system is not essential to our design.

The Raspberry Pi Zero was ultimately discarded from consideration due to high power

consumption, additional adapters, and an unnecessary operating system.

The Arduino 101 is able to interface with digital and analog sensors and devices and can respond

to various sensor readings and data inputs. It has 4 digital input-output pins, 4 pulse-width

modulated digital pins, and 6 analog pins allowing for complete processing of external events [4].

The Arduino 101 has an on-board accelerometer (discussed in Section 3.1.3) that is essential to

the detection of officer-perpetrator struggles and running situations necessary to meet the Event

Sensing constraint. Although external add-on sensors are readily available, we decided to

streamline the design process by incorporating built-in sensors wherever possible. Reducing the

number of external components and their associated wiring resulted in more available space in the

housing and lower total weight for the system – characteristics necessary to meet the Ergonomic

Design constraint.

3.1.2. Transceivers

The iLEAD design requires wireless communication from various parts of the system. Table 3.2

provides a brief description of transceiver candidates for the iLEAD system.



Table 3.2 – Candidates for iLEAD Transceiver

Transceiver Communication Password Protection Current Draw

HC-05 Bluetooth No 50mA

NRF24L01 Bluetooth No 12mA

XBeeS2C Wi-Fi Yes 40mA

We eliminated the HC-05 from use in the project because it has no password protection support

and did not satisfy the Data Encryption technical constraint.

At first, our design was to include Bluetooth transceivers that communicated with the Arduino101

using the on-board Bluetooth module, and the Maxstream 1mW XBeeS2C Wi-Fi transceiver was

only intended for communicating with a Wi-Fi enabled camera. The sensors (pistol sensor, Taser

sensor, and heart rate sensor) were initially intended to send data using the nRF24L01 transceiver,

a single-chip 2.4GHz transceiver with an embedded baseband protocol engine (suitable for ultra-

low power wireless applications). However, the nRF24L01 required a microcontroller on each

sensor, which violated our Battery Life and Ergonomic Design technical constrains. To resolve

these issues, we chose the XBeeS2C as iLEAD’s central coordinator. This eliminated the need for

an external microcontroller on each sensor. The XBeeS2C supports WPA password encryption,

and it satisfies the Data Encryption technical constraints [5]. For camera activation, an XBeeS6B

(of similar current draw) will be used to communicate wirelessly with the camera.

3.1.3. Sensors

For iLEAD to maintain a seamless design, the appropriate sensors must be used to satisfy the Event

Sensing technical constraint and Reliability practical constraint. There is limited space within the

holster sections of the system, and our team had to determine a method to sense pistol and Taser

draws without attaching a large module to satisfy the Modular Integration and Ergonomic Design

constraints. There are two primary methods for object detection, contact switch or proximity

sensor. A contact switch is advantageous because it requires no current draw to function, but the

use of a mechanical switch does not support the Reliability practical constraint because it could

possibly result in a degradation of performance or failure of the sensor. Another disadvantage of

a contact switch is that it must make physical contact with the object of detection, and to satisfy

the Modular Integration practical constraint we concluded a non-contact proximity sensor would

be the optimal method for object detection because it would permit easier integration for a broad

variety of pistols and Tasers.

The two leading technologies for proximity detection are Hall effect and optical interrupt sensors.

The sensor chosen must function for both metal pistols and plastic Tasers to ensure the

interchangeability of weapon-sensing modules. A Hall effect sensor cannot detect a plastic object

in the field (i.e. Taser) and was discarded from further consideration due to noncompliance with

the Modular Integration practical constraint.



Various families of optical sensors were considered. A brief description of the optical sensors

evaluated is provided in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 – Candidates for iLEAD Optical Sensor

Sensor Dimensions Sensing Distance Current Draw

EE-SY199 0.13" x 0.07" x 0.04" 0.04" 100mA (at 1.5V, 25°C)

GP2S60B 0.16" x 0.12" x 0.07" 0.03" 100mA (at 1.5V, 25°C)

OPB733TR 0.30" x 0.16" x 0.12" 0.40–1.00" 10mA (at 1.5V, 25°C)

Each sensor satisfies the size constraint and utilizes similar technologies. The optical sensor

candidates employ a non-focused infrared-emitting diode (IRED) paired with a phototransistor to

receive the IR light reflected by an object, and the absence of reflected light indicates an object is

not present. Each candidate is tolerant of sunlight and functions in no-light conditions due to the

IRED/phototransistor pair.

The EE-SY199 and GP2S60B did not satisfy the Reliability practical constraint and were

eliminated from consideration due to their sensing distance being too close to the object of

detection and the range of detection not being broad enough to allow for a margin of error.

The OPB733TR was chosen as the iLEAD optical sensor due to its broad sensing distance and low

current draw (10mA); however initial prototyping revealed the sensor was not durable enough to

satisfy the Reliability practical constraint.

Further research yielded the GP2Y0D805Z0F as a viable candidate to replace the OPB733TR. The

GP2Y0D805Z0F has a package size of 0.53" x 0.28" x 0.31", detects objects to 1.97", accepts an

input voltage range from 2.7–6.2V, and has a current draw of 5mA (typical). The GP2Y0D805Z0F

utilizes similar technology to the OPB733TR and contains an on-board signal processing unit with

digital output. The vendor supplies the GP2Y0D805Z0F with a printed circuit board with all

required discrete components to ensure functionality of the unit and includes a light-emitting diode

(LED) as a visual indicator for object detection. The GP2Y0D805Z0F satisfies all technical and

practical design constraints for optical sensor for iLEAD.

iLEAD will use identical modules for pistol and Taser draw detection. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 illustrate

the hardware diagram for the pistol and Taser sensors, respectively.



Figure 3.3 – Pistol Sensor Hardware Diagram Figure 3.4 – Taser Sensor Hardware Diagram

A pulse-rate sensor is used to detect an elevation in an officer’s pulse to activate the body-worn

camera. Table 3.4 provides a brief description of the pulse-rate sensors considered for the iLEAD

system.

Table 3.4 – Candidates for iLEAD Pulse-Rate Sensor

Sensor Communication

Protocol

Operating

Voltage

Microprocessor

Required

Grove Pulse Sensor I2C 5V Yes

RB-Lin-136 Analog 3.3V No

SEN-11574 Analog 3.3V No

During initial testing, we evaluated the Biometric SEN-11574 Pulse Sensor that is no larger than

the size of a nickel (0.625" in diameter and 0.125" thick), which satisfies the Ergonomic Design

technical constraint. This sensor operates with either a 3V or 5V input and draws 4mA (at 5V),

which helps satisfy the Battery Life technical constraint. This sensor will require us to build a

custom band so that the sensor will be on the officer and looks and feels like a wristband. After

further testing and evaluation, it was determined that this sensor was designed to sense a pulse on

either a finger or ear lobe, which directly contradicted the Ergonomic Design technical constraint

by inhibiting the user’s physical abilities. We then evaluated the RB-Lin-136 sensor that had a

direct output pin of analog data. After further testing, this data was not very accurate with constant

movement, which violated both the Reliability practical constraint and the Event Sensing technical

constraint. We finally decided to use the Grove Pulse Sensor that uses an I2C protocol for data

communication. This sensor required the addition of an Arduino Uno microcontroller to the wrist

of the officer to be able to receive this information. Despite the extra hardware, the Grove Pulse

Sensor directly satisfied the Event Sensing technical constraint due to its increased accuracy of

pulse-rate detection. The Grove Pulse Sensor also satisfies the Reliability practical constraint by

providing accurate pulse-rate readings during extensive movement. The pulse-rate sensor

hardware diagram is provided by Figure 3.5.



Figure 3.5 – Pulse-Rate Sensor Hardware Diagram

iLEAD will activate the camera if a change in pulse rate exceeds a threshold of 10 beats-per-

minute (BPM) over a frequency to be determined during the test and evaluation phase.

ENGINEERING CHANGE: Due to lack of reliability of the Grove Pulse Sensor and difficulty

to affordably package the design in a compact, form fitting fashion, an engineering change was

approved to incorporate a chest-worn heart rate strap with receiver in order to better facilitate the

mobility of the officer in the execution of his or her daily duties. The Polar T-31 coded heart rate

monitor contains a battery capable of 2500 hours of operation and is encoded over a 5kHz AM

signal to provide security from interference from other devices or confusion with other heart rate

sensors in the vicinity.

Figure 3.6 – Polar Heart Rate Sensor Hardware

The iLEAD system will also use an on-board accelerometer module to indicate when a police

officer is running or engaged in a struggle. The Arduino 101 has an on-board accelerometer, which



will be used to validate when an officer is in pursuit. This will be utilized with various algorithms

discussed in Section 3.2 (Software). They will both use designated pins on the Arduino and will

read inputs as analog signals.

3.1.4. Power System

In accordance with the Battery Life technical constraint, the iLEAD batteries must last 8 hours for

constant use. iLEAD system will use rechargeable lithium-ion batteries (of varying voltages and

mAh lifespans) throughout the system. Required battery capacity was determined using Equation

1:

𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 =𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡

The Arduino 101, XBeeS2C coordinator, and XBeeS6B have a combined current draw of 210mA.

To ensure the Battery Life constraint is satisfied for 8 hours of operation, the battery’s life must

be greater than 1680mAh. We will be using a 2200mAh lithium-ion battery, which ensures 10.5

hours of constant operation, exceeding the Battery Life constraint.

The Polar heart rate sensor has a self-contained battery with a lifespan of 2500 hours of operation

and meets the Battery Life constraint.

The GP2Y0D805Z0F and XBeeS2C have a combined current draw of 45mA. To ensure the

Battery Life constraint is satisfied for 8 hours of operation, the battery’s life must be greater than

360mAh. We will be using a 600mAh lithium-ion battery, which ensures 13 hours of constant

operation, exceeding the Battery Life constraint.

The Arduino Uno, Grove Pulse Sensor, and XBeeS2C have a combined current draw of 116.5mA.

To ensure the Battery Life constraint is satisfied for 8 hours of operation, the battery’s life must

be greater than 932mAh. We will be using a 1000mAh lithium-polymer battery, which ensures 8.6

hours of constant operation, exceeding the Battery Life constraint.

3.1.5. Camera

For prototyping purposes, the body-worn camera will be simulated with an on-board computer

camera via Wi-Fi. The iLEAD production model will interface with body-worn police cameras

capable of Wi-Fi activation.

3.1.6. Control Housing

iLEAD must be able to operate in environments where debris, dust, and liquids are present to

guarantee functionality in accordance with the practical design constraint described in Section

2.2.1 (Durability). In addition to ensuring proper operation in diverse environments and tactical

scenarios, iLEAD must not inhibit the officer during the execution of his or her duties in

accordance with the technical design constraint described in Section 2.1.3 (Ergonomic Design).



An ingress protection rating of IP-64 was determined to be the minimum acceptable level,

guaranteeing the unit was dust-tight and protected from splashing water [6].

Our original approach was to 3-D print a housing that satisfied iLEAD design constraints, and we

determined our ideal interior measurements for the housing were 5" x 3" x 2" (length, width, and

height, respectively) based on what would fit on the utility belt and allow for adequate arrangement

of the microcontroller, Wi-Fi transceiver, battery, and associated wiring. As an attempt to simplify

the design process, we researched several commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) cases to determine if

our design constraints could be satisfied by a third-party vendor. Table 3.1 shows the COTS items

that most closely matched our ideal internal measurements.

Table 3.5 – COTS Candidates for iLEAD Housing

Case Interior Dimensions Exterior Dimensions IP Rating

Otter 2000 6.00" x 3.375" x 1.25" 6.50" x 3.875" x 1.625" IP-68

Pelican 1010 4.37" x 2.87" x 1.68" 5.88" x 4.06" x 2.12" IP-67

S3 T1000 3.93" x 2.39" x 0.94" 4.40" x 3.05" x 1.40" IP-68

S3 T2000 6.00" x 3.41" x 1.19" 6.47" x 4.13" x 1.64" IP-68

ENGINEERING EXCEPTION: No IP-64 compliant COTS housings could be obtained that

satisfied the technical constraints for the iLEAD system, and an engineering exception was

approved to exceed the IP-64 constraint.

All candidates exceeded the minimum ingress protection rating (IP-64) and ideal length and width

requirements, but none met the ideal interior height requirement. The S3 T1000 was immediately

excluded from selection due to the smallest interior height. We created cardboard mock-up

housings that matched the interior and exterior dimensions of the remaining COTS items to

visualize hardware placement within each housing, and each remaining candidate offered various

possibilities for hardware configuration. Each mock-up was placed in various orientations and

positions upon the officer utility belt to determine ergonomic fit and comfortability of the officer.

The fit test concluded the Pelican 1010 occupied the least amount of surface area on the utility belt

and presented the greatest number of configurations that did not inhibit the comfort or movement

of the officer. Due to these tests, the Pelican 1010 was chosen as the iLEAD housing.

3.1.7. Printed Circuit Boards

The iLEAD system requires a minimal degree of complexity in printed circuit board (PCB) design

due to the limited number of components and streamlined design of the system. The PCB design

for the iLEAD Control Housing is illustrated by Figure 3.7.



Figure 3.7 – Control Housing PCB

Figure 3.8 illustrates the PCB design for the iLEAD weapon holster sensors.

Figure 3.8 – Control Housing PCB

3.1.8. 3-D Printed Housings

iLEAD requires custom-fabricated housings to contain the components for the weapon sensor

modules. The housings were 3-D printed and contain an interlocking cover with overlapping flaps

to prevent the ingress of dust and liquids in accordance with the IP-64 design constraint. The area

containing the optical sensor is sealed to preserve the IP-64 integrity of the housing. Figure 3.9

depicts the 3-D printed housing.



Figure 3.9 – 3-D Printed Housing for Weapon Sensors

Each housing for the iLEAD system was subjected to water and dust ingress in a laboratory setting.

The 3-D printed housings were sprayed and splashed with water and agitated with a wet cloth. A

water-absorbent material was placed within each housing and observed after the test. Water, in the

form of spraying and splashing did not penetrate the housing and the absorbent material was dry.

Each 3-D printed housing was covered with sand and opened after testing. No particulates were

able to enter the casing. The housings were also subjected to a drop-shock test from 10 feet and

withstood the impact without damage.

3.2. Software

This section focuses on the implementation of software to achieve functionality objectives of

iLEAD.

3.2.1. Implementation Details

The software is divided into multiple functions. These are the Scheduler, Data Fetch, Trigger

Detector, Network Traffic Handler, and Error Handler. The backbone of the software design is

the Scheduler, which keeps every task in order based on outputs of the other functions. The Data

Fetch receives the data from the sensors and stores it temporarily for further analysis. The

Trigger Detector will process the data, analyze it, and respond if the trigger value is detected as

true. The Network Traffic Handler will assign a unique frequency to each sensor transmitter. The

Error Handler will check if the function exits with an error code or not.

Because we used an Arduino 101 as our microcontroller for this project as it fit our constraints,

the programming language we used to program the microcontroller is C++. Arduino has built-in

support for C++, and there is a wide variety of libraries available for the Arduino, which can be

used for any type of project. These libraries are frequently updated and are customizable. The

coding style that we used consists of a combination of function based and imperative



programming. For this project, we are using four sensors, including built-in and external sensors.

The sensor data is analyzed using mathematical and logical comparison statements. After the initial

software design, we used the same template for all sensors and customized it to the sensor itself.

Here, we utilized the functional programming’s advantage of code reusability.

A significant part of the communication protocol for iLEAD is security. To achieve this, we used

encrypted password-protection on the transceivers, preventing outside receptors from accessing

iLEAD data. The encryption is a hashed input value to a hash table, and the output is a complex

output based on the input characters. This is achieved using the XBee WPA2 password protocol.

Figure 3.5 shows a functional overview of the software implementation. The functional overview

is illustrated by Figure 3.10.

ERROR HANDLINGCHECK HARDWARE

AND SOFTWARE ERRORS

NETWORK TRAFFIC HANDLER

SET THE POLLING RATE

TRIGGER DETECTOROUTPUT TRUE IF AN EVENT IS DETECTED

DATA FETCHSTORE DATA

BY ORDER OF DEPENDENCE

TRUE

CAMERA ACTIVATIONBEGIN RECORDING

START

SCHEDULER

iLEAD RESETIF TRUE RESET AND CEASE RECORDING

TRUE

Figure 3.10 – Functional Overview



3.2.2. Subsystems

iLEAD consists of five subsystems to ensure iLEAD performs in accordance with the design

constraints.

3.2.2.1. Scheduler

The Scheduler is a procedural sequence of functions that are ordered by their dependence upon

each other and their place in the algorithm. If a task-function is independent, the ordering of that

particular function is not going to affect the ordering of the other functions. However, if a function

is dependent on other functions, those dependent functions would be ordered by their dependency

and functionality precedence. The Scheduler Overview is illustrated by Figure 3.11.

START

TASK N

TASK 1

TASK 2

TASK 3

IND

EPEN

DEN

T A

ND

DEP

END

ENT

TASK

S

Figure 3.11 – Scheduler Overview



3.2.2.2. Data Fetch

The Data Fetch retrieves the data from the sensors and stores it temporarily for further analysis.

The transfer and storing speeds must be faster than the polling rate and must not be slower than

the polling/sampling rate of the sensors.

As fetching data using a function call is possible but considering a virtual function call’s overhead

cost would be more, iLEAD does this by storing the data in buffers. This acts as the data fetch

module. It is a volatile memory buffer and requires steady power supply on both sensors and the

iLEAD to work correctly. The data packet in the Data Fetch includes Application Programming

Interface (API) frame data and other information about the transceiver. To disambiguate the data

form each sensor, we consider the API identifier byte, which is unique to each XBee. An example

of the XBee Data Packet is provided in Figure 3.12.

Figure 3.12 – XBee Data Packet

3.2.2.3. Trigger Detector

The Trigger Detector works on values sent by the sensors to check if a critical event has taken

place. These include all the scenarios in which iLEAD must activate as discussed in the technical

constraints Event Sensing section. In the case of a digital sensor (pistol draw, Taser draw), the

Trigger Detector will send an activation signal from iLEAD to the camera whenever a change of

value is detected. In the more complex case of analog sensors (heart rate or accelerometer), the

Trigger Detector is activated when there is a significant change in the rate in a small time-interval,

and iLEAD activates the camera using the XBeeS2C Wi-Fi transceiver. The threshold was

determined using Equation 2:

𝑇𝑝 − 𝑇𝑐 ⩾ 𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙d

Where Tp is the analog sensor data at 3000ms, Tc is the analog sensor data at (current time –

overhead), and Threshold is +/-8% of the data.

The Trigger Detector is illustrated by Figure 3.13.



START

IS TRIGGER DETECTED?

NO

PROCESS SENSOR DATA

STORE SENSOR DATA

OUTPUT SIGNAL TRUE

YES

Figure 3.13– Trigger Detector

3.2.2.4. Network Traffic Handler

The Network Traffic Handler is crucial to maintain iLEAD functionality per the wireless

requirements of our technical constraints section. The Network Traffic Handler primarily handles

any network congestion.

Each sensor has a unique Mac Address, PAN Id, and channel address. These are assigned at the

time of the initial setup and help the sensor to detect the coordinator at the Arduino. There is also

a password link between two XBee transceivers so they transmit only to the assigned coordinator.

The coordinator is set in API mode to receive data from sensors without having to use a separate

microcontroller on each of them. The sensors are set to sample the digital/analog input at a specific

rate (Fig 3.9: First Sensor speed. Sensor A at F=100ms) of 100ms, with increments of i=50ms-

100ms (Fig 3.9: Sensor N at F=100ms+N(i)) between each new sensor.



This will resolve any congestion of data and smoothly transmit data in the order of the transmission

speed of the sensor. The Network Traffic Handler is illustrated by Figure 3.14.

START

IF SENSOR 0FREQUENCY = A

SENSOR 1FREQUENCY = A + i

SENSOR 2FREQUENCY = A + 2i

SENSOR NFREQUENCY = A + Ni

Figure 3.14 – Network Traffic Handler

3.2.2.5. Error Handler

The Error Handler subsystem essentially monitors the function’s exit code and checks for

inconsistencies. It accomplishes this by continuously monitoring the outputs of a function, as well

as the exit code. It catches errors when an output is a negative value, out of the normal range, or if

there is an incorrect exit code. It would then restart the function and reset the error code.



3.2.3. Camera Control

The Camera Control subsystem controls the camera based on the input values of the sensors. When

the trigger threshold is detected, the Arduino connects to the camera using XBee ad hoc mode,

then signals the camera to activate. We use functional programming for this task. Arduino connects

to the camera using a secure, password-protected transmission. Then the Arduino sends signals

easily recognized by the camera. The signal is a Boolean value, which changes the state of the

camera to switch on when a trigger is detected.

3.2.4. Use Cases

Assuming the sunny-day, best-case scenario, iLEAD should automatically detect the incoming

sensors’ data. The data should be processed per the trigger threshold. If the threshold is detected,

it should signal and control the camera accordingly.

In addition, the sensors must detect the physical activity of the officer and output the correct data.

The communication must also transmit correctly. The camera must be responsive to the commands

of the Arduino. Figure 3.15 illustrates a sunny-day scenario.

Figure 3.15 – Sunny-Day Scenario for iLEAD Operations



The rainy-day, worst-case scenarios occur when there are singular, or multiple, failures within the

iLEAD system. In the event of a sensor failure, another sensor will likely trigger a camera. For

example, if during a foot-chase the heart rate sensor has failed, then the accelerometer would

trigger and activate the camera. A critical condition occurs if either the central coordinator or

central microprocessor experience failure, and the officer must manually activate the camera.

Figure 3.16 illustrates several possible rainy-day scenarios.

Figure 3.16 – Rainy-Day Scenario for iLEAD Operations

4. EVALUATION

This section explains the testing and evaluation of the hardware and software subsystems of the

iLEAD system. We tested the subsystems during the building phases of our project to ensure that

the modules will work as expected after completing the project. Table 4.1 outlines the technical

constraints required to be met to ensure iLEAD will function effectively.



Table 4.1 – Technical Design Constraints

Name Description

Event Sensing The device must successfully detect gun draw, Taser draw, elevated

heart rate, and running scenarios.

Wireless Signals The sensor network and system must be able to transmit and receive

wireless signals within a range of 2 meters.

Ergonomic Design The design must not restrict the user’s physical abilities in any way. The

total weight of the sensor system, microcontroller, case, batteries, and

associated circuitry must be less than 3.5 pounds. The case exterior

dimensions must be less 6" long, 4.5" wide, and 2.5" deep.

Battery Life The batteries must provide 8 hours of endurance for constant use.

Data Encryption The data transmitted by transceivers must be encrypted to prevent any

mishandling of important information.

4.1. Test Certification – Event Sensing

For event sensing, the device must detect primary and secondary weapon draw, elevated heart rate,

and acceleration due to running.

4.1.1. Gun Draw and Taser Draw Sensing

For this test, we have affixed optical sensors to the primary and secondary weapon holsters. The

test showed the presence and absence of the weapons and sent that change of state as a digital

value to the Arduino 101 using an XBeeS2C.

Figure 4.1 presents the reflective-object proximity sensor detecting the presence of the primary

weapon, visually indicated by the illumination of the light-emitting diode (LED), and Figure 4.2

illustrates successful detection of the gun draw and camera activation.



Figure 4.1 – Primary Weapon Sensor Detection (Gun in Holster)

Figure 4.2 – Primary Weapon Sensor Camera Activation (Gun Out of Holster)

Figure 4.3 presents the reflective-object proximity sensor detecting the presence of the secondary

weapon, visually indicated by the illumination of the LED, and Figure 4.4 illustrates successful

detection of the Taser draw and camera activation.



Figure 4.3 – Secondary Weapon Sensor Detection (Taser in Holster)

Figure 4.4 – Secondary Weapon Sensor Camera Activation (Taser Out of Holster)



4.1.2. Heart Rate Sensing

The iLEAD system was subjected to multiple testing to ensure compatibility and reliability of the

Polar T-31 coded heart rate sensor. For testing purposes, a threshold of 90 beats-per-minute was

used. On every trial, iLEAD successfully triggered when the heart rate exceeded this threshold.

Figure 4.5 depicts an activation triggered by the heart rate exceeding 90 beats-per-minute.

Figure 4.5 – Heart Rate Sensor Camera Activation

4.1.3. Running Sensing

The accelerometer sensor was tested while wearing the iLEAD system in the same manner as an

officer would during his or her daily routine. The magnitudes of acceleration in the X and Y

horizontal plane were sampled while the test subject began running to induce a change in linear

acceleration. An unscaled value of 10000 from the accelerometer analog-to-digital converter

(ADC) was used as the acceleration threshold for testing. When this value was exceeded, the

camera was activated. Figure 4.10 illustrates camera activation via the accelerometer sensor.



Figure 4.6 – Accelerometer Sensor Camera Activation

4.2. Test Certification – Wireless Signals

The iLEAD system handles various wireless signals throughout the entire network. The primary

weapon sensor and the secondary weapon sensor each have an XBeeS2C connected to their

circuitry. These two wireless transceivers each communicate to an XBeeS2C connected directly

to the Arduino 101 microcontroller, acting as the coordinator for the various wireless signals.

For this initial test, we simulated the exact network topology with a coordinator XBee connected

to the microcontroller. After this, we took two independently powered XBees and connected the

appropriate sensors to simulate this star topology. A serial window is opened on the computer to

show real-time values of the byte packet with 2 bits of the last 3 bits representing the state of each

digital optical sensor.

The signal strength was successfully tested at a range of 10 meters, which exceeds the Technical

design constraint of 2 meters. Figure 4.7 depicts the serial output window of the iLEAD XBeeS6

Wi-Fi network signal strength.



Figure 4.7 – Wireless Signal Strength Data

4.3. Test Certification – Ergonomic Design

The ergonomics of the iLEAD system were evaluated by conducting a fit test of the iLEAD utility

belt and the Polar T31 heart rate strap on all team members and 10 additional test subjects. No

complaints were reported pertaining the fit and comfort of the iLEAD system or the Polar heart

rate strap. Because no test subjects reported any obvious complaints, we were satisfied this portion

of the Ergonomic Design constraint was achieved. Figure 4.8 illustrates the appropriate wear of

the Polar heart rate sensor for both male and female officers.

Figure 4.8 – Polar Heart Rate Sensor Fit



The individual components, circuitry, batteries, and associated wiring were weighed and totaled

to ensure the constraint of 3.5 pounds was not exceeded. Table 4.2 provides itemized weights and

total weight of the iLEAD system (separate from the utility belt).

Table 4.2 – iLEAD Component Weights

Primary Weapon Sensor Assembly 47 g

Secondary Weapon Sensor Assembly 47 g

Polar Heart Rate Sensor Assembly 14 g

iLEAD Housing Assembly 329 g

Total Weight 437 g (0.96 pounds)

The total weight of the iLEAD system was 0.96 pounds, and the constraint of 3.5 pounds was not

exceeded.

4.4. Test Certification – Battery Life

To evaluate the Battery Life constraint, the current was measured in each subsystem during an

activation phase. Battery life was determined using Equation 2:

𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 = 𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 × 0.7

The adjustment factor, 0.7, was used to model worse-case external factors that can potentially

degrade battery lifespan. Each system was individually subjected to endurance testing to determine

actual battery lifespan, and every subsystem was combined to evaluate the endurance of the

complete iLEAD system. Table 4.3 provides current draw, estimated battery life, and actual battery

life of each subsystem.

Table 4.3 – Battery Life of iLEAD Subsystems

Subsystem Battery

Capacity

Device

Consumption

Estimated

Battery Life

Actual

Battery Life

Primary Weapon 600mAh 43mA 9.77 hours 10.63 hours

Secondary Weapon 600mAh 43mA 9.77 hours 10.63 hours

iLEAD Control Center 2200mAh 183mA 8.42 hours 11.17 hours

As indicated in Table 4.3, the Battery Life constraint was satisfied by all subsystems.

4.5. Test Certification – Data Encryption

To test the Data Encryption constraint, we consulted a peer with experience in network attacks and

hacking. A highly-specialized Wi-Fi adapter was used in monitor mode with packet injection

enabled. The iLEAD network was targeted, and data packets were captured until a Handshake



occurred. A brute-force approach was used to bombard the network with random passwords until

a correct password was found.

In order for this approach to be successful, the malefactor must possess a lengthy password list

that has many similarities to the actual network password, and the network under attack must be

at very close range or at extremely high signal strength.

In order to quickly gain access an enemy user must use an array of video cards to perform a hash

attack. If the password was approximately 5 characters long, this process could possibly take an

hour. The network can be made exponentially more secure by creating a 10-digit password with

WPA2 encryption.

The iLEAD network utilizes the WPA2 security protocol, and the password contains multiple

variations in case, numbers, and special characters. We concluded the network is secure, thus

satisfying Data Encryption constraint.

4.6. Test Certification – Complete System Test

After completion of independent subsystem tests, the iLEAD unit was configured with both the

primary weapon and secondary weapon holster/sensor assemblies placed on the iLEAD utility

belt, and the test subject donned the belt while wearing the Polar heart rate sensor on his chest.

Each sensor system, iLEAD microcontroller, and communication devices were utilizing battery

voltage sources and were fully functional without attachment via peripheral cables. The order of

testing was as follows: primary weapon, secondary weapon, heart rate, and accelerometer sensors.

To disambiguate activation sources, the heart rate sensor was removed while conducting the

accelerometer test. All sensors operated successfully over multiple trials. Figure 4.9 depicts

camera activation via the primary weapon sensor and the saved output file produced.

Figure 4.9 – Camera Activation and Saved Output File



5. SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK

iLEAD is a multi-sensor network for automated police body camera activation. The system

consists of two optical reflective sensors that are used to detect primary gun-draw and secondary

Taser-draw. The system also has a chest-worn heart rate sensor used to detect increases in the

officer’s heart rate. Finally, there is an on-board accelerometer that is used to detect if the officer

begins running or chasing down a suspect.

The optical reflective sensors are connected directly to XBeeS2C transceivers, and the heart rate

sensor communicates with a receiver on a development board in the control box using a 5kHz AM

signal. The control box contains an Arduino 101 with on-board accelerometer, an XBeeS2C

coordinator, a Polar development board, and an XBeeS6B which is used to communicate with the

body camera via Wi-Fi. Rechargeable AAA 1.5V lithium ion batteries power the weapon sensor

modules, and a rechargeable 7.4V lithium-ion battery is used to power the control box. The control

box housing used for iLEAD is the Pelican 1010 and will continue to be used in further iterations.

For future work an officer down detection algorithm will be researched and added to the product

pending the absence of false-alarms. Also, using the heart rate sensor and accelerometer in tandem

to increase reliability will be incorporated into iLEAD for the production-ready design. Further

research and development are required to eliminate false positives with respect to heart rate, and

we plan to implement iLEAD with field test subjects to gather sufficient data for a period of no

less than 12 months to gather metrics required to determine a proper solution to refine automated

activation with respect to heart rate.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project would not be possible without the support of the Mississippi State University Police

Department. Special thanks to Vance Rice, Chief of Police, and Ken Holbrook, Crime

Prevention/Training and Supply Coordinator, for supplying necessary insight and materials

required to create iLEAD.

7. REFERENCES

[1] D. Demetrius and M. Okwu. (2014, Dec 17). Meet the first U.S. police department to deploy

body cameras [Online]. Available: http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-

tonight/articles/2014/12/17/body-cams-california.html

[2] German Lopez. (2016, Aug 22). Police body cameras, explained [Online]. Available:

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/17/6113045/police-worn-body-cameras-explained

[3] David Gelles. (2016, Jul 12). Taser International Dominates the Police Body Camera Market

[Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/business/taser-international-dominates-

the-police-body-camera-market.html?_r=1



[4] Arduino, "ArduinoBoard101," in https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoard101, 2016.

[Online]. Available: https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoard101. Accessed: Nov. 2, 2016.

[5] R. Purser, "2mm 10pin XBeeS2," in https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10414, 2015.

[Online]. Available: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10414. Accessed: Nov. 2, 2016.

8. APPENDICES

8.1. Appendix A – Product Specification



8.2. Appendix B – TASER/Axon 2016 Pricing

Law Enforcement Agency Pricing – Axon Systems

Axon Body 2 Hardware

Model Product Description Agency Price

74001 Axon Body 2 Camera System (online)

$399.00 ea.

74004 Axon Body 2 Camera System (offline)

$399.00 ea.

Axon Body 2 Accessories *


74006 Axon Body 2 Battery $29.95 ea.

74018 Z-Bracket, Men’s, Axon Body 2 $29.95 ea.

74019 Z-Bracket, Women’s Axon Body 2 $29.95 ea.

74020 Magnet, Flexible, Axon Body 2 $29.95 ea.

74021 Magnet, Outerwear, Axon Body 2 $29.95 ea.

74022 Small Pocket, 4″ (10.1 cm), Axon Body 2

$29.95 ea.

74023 Large Pocket, 6″ (15.2 cm), Axon Body 2

$29.95 ea.

* Two mounts are included (a la carte) for $0; $29.95 for each additional mount.

Axon Flex Hardware


73096 Axon Flex Camera System (Camera, Controller, and product model 73060) ** $599.00 ea. 73097 Axon Flex Camera System, Offline (Camera, Controller, and product model 73060) ** $599.00 ea. 73034 Oakley Flak Jacket Kit, Axon Flex $149.95 ea.

** This is a promotional price currently available for the Axon Flex system.



Axon Signal Hardware & Services


70112 Axon Signal unit (1 per car/motor) $279.00 ea.

70113 Axon Flex Camera System Signal equipped (Signal version of 73096) $688.00 ea.

70114 Axon Flex Camera System Signal equipped, Offline (Signal version of 73097) $688.00 ea.

70115 Axon Flex Controller Signal equipped $239.00 ea.

Service Signal installation and/or training Variable

Axon Fleet Cameras ***


Fleet Single Bundle

Axon Fleet Single Camera Bundle includes:**** $399.00 ea.

74003 One Axon Fleet Camera**** included 74025 One Axon Fleet Mount Assembly included 70112 One Axon Signal Unit included

Fleet Double Bundle

Axon Fleet Double Camera Bundle includes:**** $499.00 ea

74003 Two Axon Fleet Cameras included 74025 Two Axon Fleet Mount Assemblies included 70112 One Axon Signal Unit included

*** Requires a fleet license for the vehicle used with the Axon Fleet product. **** This is a promotional price currently available for the Axon Fleet system.

Axon Fleet Accessories

Model

Product Description Agency Price

74025 Axon Fleet Mount Assembly $79.95 ea.

Axon Dock Hardware


74009 1-bay + Core Axon Dock 2 for Axon Body 2 $249.00 ea. 74008 6-bay + Core Axon Dock 2 for Axon Body 2 $1,495.00 ea. 74011 1-bay for Axon Body 2 $249.00 ea. 74010 6-bay for Axon Body 2 $1,346.00 ea.



70026 6-bay + Core Axon Dock for Axon Flex and Axon Body $1,495.00 ea. 70023 1-bay + Core Axon Dock for Axon Flex and Axon Body $249.00 ea. 70028 Individual bay Axon Dock for Axon Flex and Axon Body $249.00 ea. 70027 Axon Dock Core, compatible with all 1-bays and 6-bays $149.00 ea. 70033 Wall mount, Axon Dock for Axon Flex and Axon Body $35.00 ea. 70040 Desk plate, Axon Dock, 6-bay for Axon Flex and Axon Body $35.00 ea.

Customer Care Extended Warranty


87029 Axon Body 2 cam 2-year extended warranty $199.95 ea. 87030 Axon Dock 2 for Axon Body 2, 2-year extended warranty, single bay + core $129.90 ea. 87031 Axon Dock 2 for Axon Body 2, 2-year extended warranty 6-bay + hub $499.90 ea. 70037 Axon Dock for Axon Body and Axon Flex, 2-year extended warranty, 6-bay $499.90 ea. 70038 Axon Dock for Axon Body and Axon Flex, 2-year extended warranty, single bay $129.90 ea. 73033 Axon Flex kit 2-year extended warranty $299.95 ea. 73074 Axon Body cam 2-year extended warranty $199.95 ea.

Axon Fleet License & Storage Plans (one license per vehicle)*


87010 Fleet Basic: 1 year (100 GB of included storage and Evidence.com basic license features) $300.00 ea 85161 Fleet Unlimited HD: 3 year (unlimited HD storage for Fleet cameras, Pro Evidence.com license

features, extended Axon camera warranty) $1,404.00 ea

85162 Fleet Unlimited HD: 5 year (unlimited HD storage for Fleet cameras, Pro Evidence.com license features, extended Axon camera warranty)

$2,340.00 ea.

85163 Fleet Unlimited HD, annual payment (unlimited HD storage for Fleet cameras, Pro Evidence.com license features, extended Axon camera warranty). Must purchase under a 3- or 5- year term

$468.00 ea.

Evidence.com Services


87001 Basic Evidence.com license: 1 year $180.00 ea. 88001 Standard Evidence.com license: 1 year $300.00 ea. 89001 Pro Evidence.com license: 1 year $468.00 ea. 85100 Evidence.com integration license, annual payment $180.00 ea. 85078 Ultimate Evidence.com annual payment* $660.00 ea. 85123 Evidence.com Unlimited Plan annual payment* $948.00 ea. 85130 Officer Safety Plan annual payment** $1,188.00 ea. 85035 Evidence.com storage (GB): 1 year $0.75 ea. 85054 TASER Assurance Plan Axon Flex annual payment $276.00 ea. 85079 TASER Assurance Plan Axon Dock annual payment (based on the number of cameras purchased) $36.00 ea. 87026 TASER Assurance Plan Axon Dock 2 annual payment (based on the number of Docks purchased) $216.00 ea. 85055 Axon Full Service $15,000 ea. 85144 Axon Starter $2,500 ea. 85146 Axon 1-Day Service $2,000 ea. N.A. Basic remote support Free

73094 Viewer (fees vary based on configuration needs, viewer desired, and market price) Variable



*This license tier is only available for 3-year

or 5-year terms **This license tier is only

available for 5-year terms.

Axon Flex Accessories


73004 USB Sync Cable w/ Wall Charger $14.95 ea. 73008 Oakley Clip $19.95 ea. 73088 Ratchet Collar/Versatile/Cap Mount $29.95 ea. 73062 Ball Cap Mount $29.95 ea. 73010 Low Rider Headband $49.95 ea. 73058 Low Rider Headband, Large $54.95 ea. 73036 Controller Holster, Flex, Belt Clips $29.95 ea. 73011 Epaulette Mount $19.95 ea. 73013 Helmet Mount $19.95 ea. 73020 Universal Magnet Clip $7.95 ea. 73021 Multi-Mounting Kit, Flex (Low Rider headband, Ratchet Collar mount, Epaulette mount, Oakley kit) $199.95 ea. 73059 Ballistic Vest Mount, Rotating $19.95 ea. 73005 Cable, Straight to Right Angle, 36″ $5.95 ea. 73067 Cable, Coiled, Straight to Right Angle, 36″ $12.95 ea. 73060 Cable, Coiled, Straight to Right Angle 48″ $12.95 ea. 73081 TASER CAM HD/Axon Camera Universal Charger w/ U.S. and International Adaptors $14.95 ea. 73099 Helmet Mount, SWAT Kit, Axon Flex $29.95 ea.

Freight Policy Freight is the responsibility of the purchaser. All orders are shipped F.O.B. Scottsdale, AZ via Fed-Ex ground and billed as a separate

line item on invoice. All taxes, duties and customs, where applicable, are the responsibilities of the customer.

Pricing Pricing for Law Enforcement/Correctional Agencies Only. Must be a sworn law enforcement officer to purchase. This is not-to-exceed pricing. Additional discounts may be available. Contact TASER for a quote specific to your agency's needs.

Order Lead Time 4 to 6 weeks ARO. ALL SALES ARE FINAL. For delivery status or information on how to place an order, call our sales department at 800-978-2737, fax: 480-991-0791

TASER International, Inc.’s Sales Terms and Conditions for Direct Sales to End User Purchasers apply to all sales and are available

at http://www.taser.com/sales-terms-and-conditions.

Flak Jacket is a trademark of Oakley, Inc., Motorola is a trademark of Motorola Trademark Holdings, LLC., and VELCRO is a trademark of Velcro Industries B.V. , AXON, Axon, Axon Body 2, Axon Flex, Axon Fleet, Axon Signal, Evidence.com, TASER, TASER CAM, and © are trademarks of TASER International,

Inc., some of which registered in the US and other countries. For more information, visit www.TASER.com/legal. All rights reserved. © 2016 TASER International, Inc.

integrated Law Enforcement Automated Documentation...

Documents

Transcript of integrated Law Enforcement Automated Documentation...