[LazyMans]

This is a flawed methodology for measuring success.

Solving a case isn't a single correct search. It's a tool, and a single case could have hundreds of searches associated with it.

As more regulation comes in, as it should, we should get much better auditing data that link each and every search to a specific case. This is evolving quickly at the moment, but ultimately it's up to the public to begin to push for requirements like these.

Currently departments do not necessarily require a case number, as many times a case number has not been created yet.

I think a more fair method to measure success is look at how effective each dollar spent on LE accounts for the whole picture. How much more effective did ALPR make each officer/detective on the force? Generally speaking, these are force multipliers and are much more effective than spending on pure body count. Many departments cannot fill seats even if they wanted to.

[lux-lux-lux]

The quote says advancing a case, not ‘solving’ it. So yes, that number is exactly what you’re asking for.

[washadjeffmad]

Extending that, we don't know whether this prevented costlier or more time consuming methods of investigation, led to closing of cases by arrest or not pursuing someone found to be innocent, or otherwise helped increase efficiency by not assigning officers to patrol duties around Flock areas.

I'm 'active threat model' level of anti-surveillance, but it's worthless to try to base anything off such a premature and incomplete picture.

[circuit10]

Setting aside the privacy implications (which are obviously very important), it’s like saying “I searched my filesystem and it went through 1,000,000 files. I found the file but it was 99.999999% ineffective” so yes, that’s not a valid metric

Unless they’re saying every failed search is big problem because of the privacy issues I guess