Police and some federal agencies in the United States have quietly tested and deployed vehicles and devices that can see through cars and even building walls, raising hard questions about privacy, health, and constitutional rights. A new platform called GoVia: Highlight A Hero pitches itself as a way to rebalance that power, by surrounding police encounters with real‑time legal, mental‑health, and documentation support for both citizens and officers.[theatlantic]
What “X‑ray vans” really are
So‑called “xraycamera” vans are typically military‑grade “backscatter” X‑ray systems, such as the Z Backscatter Van, originally sold to the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies to scan vehicles and cargo for bombs, drugs, or hidden people. These vans project a narrow X‑ray beam and analyze the radiation that scatters back, which can reveal dense objects, organic material, or human bodies inside cars, trucks, and containers as the van drives past.[forbes]
Homeland Security officials have described the technology as a critical non‑intrusive inspection tool at ports, border crossings, and large events, where it can scan a vehicle in under 15 seconds and be operated remotely from up to roughly 1,500 feet away. The units are expensive—often reported in the range of roughly 700,000 to more than 800,000 dollars per van—and hundreds have been sold worldwide, with the manufacturer acknowledging over 500 roving vans in use more than a decade ago.[foxnews]
From war zones to U.S. city streets
What began as battlefield and border technology has migrated into domestic policing. In New York City, police obtained an undisclosed number of mobile X‑ray vans capable of looking through building walls and vehicle sides, imported from military use in Afghanistan. Civil‑liberties advocates spent years litigating to force disclosure on how and where the vans were used, but the department refused to share basic details, arguing that transparency would reveal investigative tactics and aid terrorists.[aclu]
Separately, more than 50 U.S. law‑enforcement agencies have acquired through‑wall radar devices, such as the Range‑R, that use radio waves to detect breathing or movement inside homes—effectively letting officers “see” whether someone is present behind a wall or closed door. Unlike the vans, these devices are handheld and look like stud‑finders, but they raise similar questions: they can tell officers that a person is inside a private residence, even when the person never opens the door.[police1][youtube]
Privacy, health, and constitutional concerns
Civil‑rights groups, including the ACLU, warn that drive‑by X‑ray scanning can amount to a secret, suspicion‑less search, potentially violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Legal scholars point out that if airport body scanners are typically reserved for secondary screening with clear notice, using similar or even more powerful scanners on public streets—without consent or warrants—is much harder to justify constitutionally.[aclu-wi]
There are also unresolved health questions. Independent physicists and privacy advocates argue that even low‑dose, repeated X‑ray exposure from roving vans—especially if used near homes, apartments, or crowds—could increase radiation risk, and that the government has not been transparent about safety testing or operational limits such as standoff distance and scan frequency. Community groups in places like Wisconsin have also begun to track the spread of through‑wall sensors, warning that local residents are rarely told when such technologies are deployed in their neighborhoods.[homelandsecuritynewswire]
How GoVia: Highlight A Hero works
GoVia: Highlight A Hero is designed for the other side of the encounter—the moment when a patrol car’s lights flash behind a driver or an officer walks up to a citizen. The system centers on a mobile app and supporting infrastructure that can, at the tap of a button, bring licensed attorneys and mental‑health professionals into the encounter via live video, while simultaneously recording and archiving what happens.
When a user activates the app during a traffic stop or street interaction, GoVia initiates a secure, recorded Zoom session that connects the citizen with a lawyer and a mental‑health specialist, both of whom can observe the encounter in real time and provide guidance. The platform stores video, audio, and user affidavits as legal‑grade evidence and uses an officer‑rating and affidavit system to highlight exemplary “hero” officers or flag patterns of alleged misconduct.
The company reports more than 31,000 users worldwide and holds two granted U.S. patents and one pending, covering its crisis‑streaming system, officer‑rating platform, and workflow for preserving and cross‑checking evidence. GoVia also uses non‑digital signals, such as a vehicle bumper sticker declaring that the car is protected by live attorney and mental‑health support, to warn officers before they reach the window that the interaction will be documented and professionally supervised.
How this could change high‑tech policing
The rise of opaque surveillance tools like X‑ray vans and through‑wall radar shifts power toward the state, allowing authorities to gather information about people and their homes without their knowledge. By contrast, platforms like GoVia attempt to shift some power back to citizens by surrounding encounters with transparent, third‑party witnesses, legal guidance, and secure records that can be used in court or internal reviews.
In a future where police may be equipped with devices that can peer through walls or vehicles, citizens equipped with tools that can instantly summon attorneys, mental‑health experts, and verifiable documentation could help de‑escalate encounters, deter abuse, and also protect officers from false accusations. For communities worried about secret X‑ray or through‑wall surveillance, the combination of public oversight, clear legal standards, and citizen‑centered safety technology may be the only way to ensure that advanced policing tools serve public safety without eroding the privacy and dignity of the people they are supposed to protect.[theatlantic]
