It appears that the City of San Diego is getting ready to turn off the automated license plate readers. At a Wednesday, Oct. 21, council budget committee meeting, enough members voted for a proposal to rescind city approval of the use of the controversial technology and end the city’s contract to use ALPR cameras provided by Flock.
Councilmember Kent Lee was joined by Councilmembers Henry Foster III, Sean Elo-Rivera and Vivian Moreno in voting to stop using the readers, reported UT writer Teri Figueroa. Take these four plus Councilmember Stephen Whitburn — who very recently announced that he is withdrawing support for using ALPRs – and you have enough votes for the city to stop using the cameras.
The issue will have to come, of course, before the full council and Figueroa says that any vote could happen before the end of the year. With public opinion heightened on the issue, it’s very likely this being an election year that will happen. Yet, any vote would have to be sufficient to override a possible veto by Mayor Gloria; that’s a 6-3 tally.
Gloria continues to support the cameras. In a statement after Wednesday’s vote, Gloria said the city has “established the strongest privacy protections and public oversight,” including reviews and audits. “Elected leaders shouldn’t be making life easier for criminals. We should be making it easier for our constituents,” he said, urging the full council to support keeping the readers.
Yet, this is all a dramatic shift. Last year, Lee voted in support of the technology. But now he points to fears in San Diego communities that the data the cameras collect could be turned against them. He said:
“I recognize that it is time to act. It’s time for us to prioritize the protection of civil rights and liberties for our residents. It’s time to prioritize our limited public dollars to protect the services and the everyday public safety needs that our communities have shared.”
And now what with Whitburn’s turn — the issue is certain to be causing sparks before New Year’s — if we all get that far.
Figueroa reports that , “Under the city’s 2023 surveillance ordinance, the full City Council reviews its use of such technology annually. That review is expected before the end of the year.”
The city of San Diego has 500 surveillance cameras and ALPR technology attached to streetlights citywide. The cameras record information — including plate number, make, model, color and distinguishing markings such as bumper stickers — on all vehicles in their view, then store it in a searchable database. The police department holds on to the data for 30 days unless it is used in an investigation.
What about all the fears and suspicious — and actual abuse of the surveillance technology that has been reported?
Naturally, the police chief was not happy after the committee vote. Chief Scott Wahl said in a statement that removing the cameras would make it harder for officers to solve crimes.
“We don’t have to guess whether ALPR helps solve crimes. We’ve seen it work in more than 900 cases, from stolen vehicles and kidnappings to murders,” he said.
The chief did not address the abuse.
Figueroa:
Automated license plate readers have become increasingly controversial, locally and nationwide, particularly as the Trump administration has ramped up immigration enforcement. Critics argue it creates a mass surveillance network and tramples civil rights, particularly in marginalized communities. The cameras, they argue, can reveal a person’s travel patterns — where they work, go to school, shop, worship and more. And they point to reports from across the country of abuses of the information by law enforcement.
San Diego has seen so much pushback against surveillance technologies in recent years that in 2023 the city passed an ordinance requiring the City Council to review — with an eye toward civil rights — all surveillance the city uses each year. The city also created the Privacy Advocacy Board to review tech in the same vein.
Foster, who leads the budget committee and brought Wednesday’s item forward, said his conversations with community members “typically end with tears, very emotional, and it truly is from a place of fear.” “If we are talking about public safety, I don’t understand how we are OK with people, humans, being fearful, being scared to leave their house, thinking they are being mass surveilled.”
She also reported that at Wednesday’s meeting roughly four dozen people spoke out during the meeting’s public comment portion, and nearly all railed against ALPRs.
A big issue with the city of late is a budget out of control, and critics have argued the money spent on APLRs could be better used elsewhere.
The UT writer sums it up:
San Diego’s fresh look at Flock and ALPRs comes as the city fights a lawsuit from local civil rights advocacy group Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, which advocates for refugees and displaced people. The lawsuit seeks to end the city’s use of ALPRs, alleging the cameras and the database they create amount to an invasion of privacy rights under the state constitution. The city is also facing a federal lawsuit from a man who alleges he was wrongfully jailed for a month after police using ALPRs targeted the wrong vehicle.
RE: STVR regulations. What happened during the council session on October. 21, where revising the existing STVR regulations was to be discussed.?? I cannot find anything about a meeting on October 21 in the cities website, and have heard nothing about the discussion.. if it took place. If it didn’t take place, has it been postponed? if so, when? very confused on how the city is handling this issue..