Committee releases bill to pilot on‑scene ballistic scanners; supporters say speed will aid investigations, one member objects

Assemblyman Danielson’s Assembly Public Safety Preparedness Committee voted to release Assembly bill A‑5561, which would have the attorney general establish a pilot program to field portable ballistic‑scanning devices in selected municipalities.

The bill’s proponents, including witnesses from Evidence IQ and Duane Morris Norman Strategies, told the committee the scanner—referred to in testimony as BallisticsIQ—can triage cartridge casings on scene, estimate the number of unique firearms used, and identify the best samples to enter into the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN). "Time is the enemy when it comes to solving gun crimes," said Don Serrano, a former special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and a witness for Evidence IQ, arguing that "agencies need real time intelligence" rather than waiting days or weeks.

Vendor representatives said Patterson Police Department is piloting the device and Atlantic City plans to join. The witnesses described an Attorney General–supervised 90‑day trial, an appropriation they identified during testimony as $150,000 to support 10 municipalities (about $15,000 per device), and agency ownership of the scan data. "There's an appropriation of a hundred and $50,000 for 10 municipalities. There's $15,000 per machine for a municipality to use it," a vendor representative told the committee.

Committee members pressed witnesses on operational limits, chain of custody and evidentiary use. The vendor said scans are "presumptive" investigative leads—not sole proof for probable cause—and that forensic examiners, not the machine itself, would provide courtroom testimony. On privacy, the vendor said BallisticsIQ does not capture personally identifiable information in its images and metadata and that agencies retain ownership of their scans. "We don't capture any PII in our system at all," the witness stated.

Opposition centered on cost and whether a state‑run pilot would become a de facto mandate. Assemblyman Peterson questioned the need for state involvement if local departments can obtain or pilot the device independently and said he worried small municipalities would eventually be required to buy equipment and certify officers. "I'm voting against it," Peterson said during the meeting.

After discussion, the committee moved and released A‑5561 as amended. The roll call on the motion to amend and release recorded Assemblyman McClellan: Yes; Assemblyman Peterson: No; Assemblyman Singh: Yes; Assemblyman Rodriguez: Yes; Assemblyman Spearman: Yes; Assemblywoman Drulis: Yes; Chairman Danielson: Yes.

The bill now proceeds as a released committee measure. The committee did not adopt additional statutory privacy language during the hearing; the witnesses said the Attorney General's office would oversee and evaluate the pilot and recommend next steps.