|
Santa Cruz Residents Don't Need or Want To Be Surveiled By Automated License Plate Readers
By PETER GELBLUM, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CHAPTER CHAIR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ACLU
At the Nov. 28 Santa Cruz City Council meeting, Santa Cruz Police Chief Bernie Escalante asked the council to approve a grant to acquire 14 Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), in addition to eight ALPRs he wants to acquire from SCPD's general budget. SCPD wants to install these highly invasive cameras at every entrance to the city and at major intersections. On behalf of the Santa Cruz American Civil Liberties Union, Santa Cruz Chapter, I submitted the email below before the meeting. Thirty-one other residents submitted emails or letters on the matter - all 31 asked the council to deny the Chief's request.
At the meeting, Mayor Fred Keeley and councilmember Sandy Brown questioned Chief Escalante at length about his request. At the end of the discussion, the council approved 7-0 Mayor Keeley's motion to continue the matter to the next council's meeting, on Dec. 12. Without a huge outcry from residents, SCPD's request is likely to be approved at that time. Before Mayor Keeley made his motion, Vice-Mayor Golder had made a motion to approve the request, and Councilmember Watkins had seconded it. At the end of this article are actions you can take to defeat this plan.
What are Automatic License Plate Readers, LPRs?
These high-speed cameras capture license plate numbers of every vehicle that passes the camera, and upload the time, date, and locations of the plates to large, searchable databases owned and operated by private companies that are not transparent or accountable to the public or elected officials.
There is no demonstrated need for these highly invasive cameras
There have been no reports of any member of the public, much less a large number of people, asking Santa Cruz Police Department to install ALPR cameras, and Santa Cruz Police Chief Escalante has not even suggested his desire is motivated by any public clamor. There has been no news of a crime wave in Santa Cruz, much less one that could be addressed by these cameras that track every single person here, 99.9 % of whom are innocent of any wrongdoing. Why then install them, when there are enormous downsides in terms of cost, invasion of privacy, and infringement on Constitutional rights and civil liberties? Apparently, just because SCPD wants a new way to gather more information about our residents, as law enforcement always and predictably wants to do.
There is no demonstrated positive impact on public safety
SCPD is unable to demonstrate that the existing ALPR in Beach Flats - or any other ALPR - has had any positive impact on public safety. I asked the Chief, “Do you have any data regarding the efficacy of the Beach Flats ALPR? I'm thinking of such things as the number of plates read, the number of hits against hot lists, the number of arrests made as a result of those hits, the number and type of charges brought as a result of those hits, the number of convictions obtained as a result of those hits, and the number of incorrect hits.”
The Chief responded that he did not have any of the information I requested, The only relevant information he had was that the ALPR got a “hit” on a car that was wanted in a case from Fremont - apparently there has not been a single case involving a crime in Santa Cruz that was affected in any way by data picked up by the Beach Flats ALPR.
The Chief's submission does not contain a single piece of evidence or data demonstrating that ALPRs make the public safer. Nothing. And it is certainly not obvious in that they would.
Indeed, the City of Menlo Park recently decided to not use ALPRs, in significant part because there was no demonstrated need or positive impact of the system.
“‘I'm also thinking about the cost to civil liberties and privacy that have been expressed by members of our community and the ACLU,’” [Mayor Jen] Wolsoin said. “‘If it's such a needle in a haystack [referring to the fact that 99.9% of the data is never used], how are we then showing the need for this? (How are we showing) the benefit of this, given the cost to privacy, leaving ourselves more vulnerable to data hacking and whatnot.’” The council decided not to consider installing ALPRs unless new data proves their efficacy in deterring crime.
This council should make the same reasonable decision.
Other law enforcement agencies in the County do not use or want ALPRs
Sheriff Hart has told us that he does not want or need ALPRs. Sheriff Hart is a thoughtful and highly respected and experienced law enforcement leader. His decision to not use ALPRs is powerful evidence that SCPD does not need them.
The Sheriff’s Office borrowed two ALPRs for a couple of weeks at one point to help with an investigation of shootings in a particular place, and removed them promptly when the ALPRs did not capture any relevant information. This is extremely different than Chief Esclante’s plan to permanently install 22 cameras throughout the City simply to spy on every single driver, and not to solve or investigate a particular crime.
The cost cannot be justified
According to the article cited above, the Menlo Park PD wanted to install 36 cameras, at an initial cost of $284,900 and ongoing costs of $251,000 per year to rent the cameras. That's an initial cost of almost $8,000 per camera plus almost $7,000 per year. For the 22 cameras SCPD wants, that adds up to about $176,000 in initial costs plus $154,000 per year. Particularly given the city’s weak financial condition, it would be irresponsible for the Council to lock the city into these costs for a product of such unproven and dubious benefit, and with such serious negative impacts on privacy and civil liberties.
Chief Escalante’s submission to the Council says that SCPD would use the $84,000 Homeland Security grant to rent 14 ALPR cameras for two years, or $3,000 per camera per year. It is unclear why there is such a large difference between Menlo Park’s cameras and the ones SCPD wants to rent. In any event, the submission drastically understates the actual cost to the City. It fails to mention (1) that SCPD wants to acquire 22 cameras, including 8 from its own budget; (2) the installation fee referenced in the FAQ of $150-650 per camera, or $3,300-$14,300 for 22 cameras; (3) the rental cost of the 8 additional caneras, or $24,000 per year, and (4) the cost for the 22 cameras after the first two years, after the grant money is used, of $66,000 per year. These costs simply cannot be justified.
Insufficient notice
Chief Escalante sent me an email on Nov. 14, informing me that he wanted to purchase 22 ALPR cameras - eight from his budget and an additional 14 with funds from a Homeland Security grant, and asking me to review a draft ALPR policy. The Chief said he planned to present the proposed acquisition to the City Council on Nov. 28, 14 days later. Those 14 days include four weekend days and two holiday days. I asked him to postpone the request to a later Council meeting, but he refused, saying “I apologize for the tight timeline. We’ve been working hard on the draft policy and we just wrapped it up. Unfortunately I can’t push this item out because the board that selects the recipients of the grant funding needs a commitment from Council so they can move forward on their decision on how to distribute the funds.”
Contrary to the Chief’s statements, the policy itself shows that it was prepared by Lexipol, not SCPD, and Chief /Esclabnte has admitted that in an email to me. Moreover, the Chief acknowledged that there wasn't a lot of work to do on the policy, when he wrote to me. “We already had a policy for the LPR, but we’ve updated our policy which is attached.”
In addition, the Chief’s submission itself says that the next step, transmission of the proposed letter to the OR3 Body of Five does not need to happen until Dec. 31. Even if that timeline is accurate, this matter could be continued at least to the Dec. 12 Council meeting to allow for the fuller, unhurried discussion this important matter deserves and to allow the public more time to weigh in. The Legislature specifically recognized the importance of public input in Civil Code Section 1798.90.55, which prohibits the implementation of any ALPR system before providing the opportunity for public comment at a regularly scheduled meeting of the governing body. It is worth noting that the city attempted to deprive the public of this statutory right by placing Item 15 on the consent calendar.
In any event, it is unclear why SCPD did not begin the process sooner. “Your failure to plan is not my emergency.” This tactic is reminiscent of how SCPD, under a prior administration, rushed this Council into approving the acquisition of the BearCat, telling the Council that it had to act immediately to obtain the grant money. That hasty decision caused a public uproar, which forced the Council to reconsider the matter and hold additional public meetings.
The Council should not let that happen again. More time is needed to consider this purchase and to allow sufficient time for robust public comment and input on this important matter. And, if this grant money truly will disappear if the Council does not act on Nov. 28, that’s OK. The Council should not approve the purchase anyway. But even if the Council decides after thorough public input that it is a good thing to have themselves and every other resident of the city and every tourist tracked and surveilled every time they drive their car, there will certainly be more money available in the future from other military and law enforcement sources.
No public meeting
There has been no public meeting to inform the public and gather input about the grave dangers and invasions of privacy caused by the ALPRs. When the SCPD deployed the only existing ALPR in the City, in Beach Flats, SCPD held at least one public meeting where the Beach Flats residents were given the opportunity to weigh in on the proposed use.
The Council should reject the request because the SCPD Policy 415 has glaring problems and is not ready.
Among other problems:
-
Section 415.3.1 requires an SCPD employee to prepare the “guidelines and procedures” required by Civil Code Section 1798.90.5 et seq. These are crucial steps that must be in place before the Council decides whether to approve the purchase, and before the system is acquired and implemented, covering such topics as training, monitoring the system, ensuring accuracy of the data, and how long the data is kept. I asked Chief Escalante to delay asking the Council to approve a purchase without the necessary guidelines required by law, and he refused, saying they weren't ready yet.
-
Section 415.5 in one place says the data will be kept for at least one year and in another place for 30 days. I have asked the Chief to coarify this apparent contradiction.
-
Section 415.5 also fails to prohibit SCPD with sharing ALPR data with any out-of-state or federal agency, as required by state law. Civil Code Section 1798.90.5(f) and 1798.90.55(b). The Attorney General has confirmed this prohibition.
Even if the Council decides to allow SCPD to install the ALPRs, it should not do so unless and until the policy is fixed and complies with state law.
General objections to ALPRs
As a general matter, we perceive that the Constitutional expectation of privacy in our public actions are being eroded to near nothing. Installing ALPR cameras throughout the City will greatly, unnecessarily, and unjustifiably accelerate that erosion.
American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, opposes the deployment of ALPR systems, period. We have the following concerns about ALPRs in general:
- ALPR systems make our community less, not more, safe because they violate privacy, facilitate dangerous police stops, and risk exposing our immigrant community members to harm.
- ALPR systems are high-speed cameras. They capture not only images of license plates and the precise time and location of the vehicles, but also whatever is in the field of vision of the camera. This can include photos of individuals inside vehicles, children playing in their front yard, etc.
-
The vast majority of ALPR data are collected on law-abiding people going about their daily activities – taking children to school, work, worship, shop, receiving medical care, etc. With this sensitive location information, government agents can closely map and track a person’s movements, habits, and associations over time.
- Equity issues: ALPR cameras are often placed in working class neighborhoods and communities of color, disproportionately impacting their lives. This is true in Santa Cruz, where the only existing ALPR camera is in lower income, heavily Hispanic Beach Flats. In some jurisdictions, police have also used ALPR to target religious minorities and others exercising First Amendment rights. In 2015, the New York Police Department (“NYPD”) recorded and collected pictures of Muslim worshippers’ license plate numbers as they arrived at Mosques to pray and exercise their First Amendment rights.
- ALPR systems facilitate police stops of drivers and police violence against motorists. In San Francisco, blind reliance by police on a flagged ALPR scan led to the wrongful detention of a Black woman at gunpoint, triggering a multi-year civil rights lawsuit. In Colorado, police officers forced four Black children to lie face down on the hot pavement after misidentifying their car as a “stolen” vehicle based on an incorrect reading of an ALPR system.
-
About sharing data with other agencies. Despite the state law barring agencies from sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies, some jurisdictions shared or share ALPR data with non-California agencies. In May 2023, Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU-NorCal, and ACLU-SoCal issued demand letters to 71 California police agencies for such violations. Neighboring city Gilroy has violated this. Sharing data with other California agencies can lead to a state-wide, draconian surveillance network.
-
Data Collection and Retention. A year-long retention period, which is the standard in the current proposed policy, is extremely long. This is a very long period for retaining sensitive location information that the Santa Cruz Police Department has not found relevant to a specific criminal investigation or civil action. Importantly, even if sharing were limited to ensure compliance with state law as discussed above, as long as the City chooses to retain information about the locations of drivers it may be subject to legal demands for that information from agencies outside the state and that do not share the City’s values. Recently Stanford PD & Santa Clara Sheriff had their data hacked and held for ransom. How secure is this data, almost all of which is of innocent people? In Menlo Park, an officer used ALPR data to track his girlfriend's travels. Texas is apparently using ALPR data to track women leaving the state to get abortions. Some companies that provide the service make the information available to private investigators, allowing anti-abortion activists to continue compiling their own license plate data access. An Ohio officer pleaded guilty to stalking an ex through ALPR; a Michigan officer looked up home addresses of women he found attractive; and two Miami-Dade officers ran checks on a journalist after he aired unflattering stories about the department.
To take action, you can call Santa Cruz City Council members at 831-420-5020. You don't need to be a city resident to comment. If you are, please memtion it. The following letter can copied, pasted, signed and sent to the email addresses below. Or, compose your own email:
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members:
I urge you to reject the artificially rushed proposal for the SCPD to acquire and install multiple ALPR cameras "at every entrance to city" that will indiscriminately track the movements of every person driving a vehicle here at great cost and with no demonstrated ability to reduce crime or make residents safer. The burden is on the SCPD to demonstrate why the City should spend money on this technology when there is no evidence that it improves public safety, but will definitely infringe on the public's civil liberties.
At an absolute minimum, the item should be continued until the SCPD holds public meetings around the city to inform the public about the plans and to gather public input, and completes the "guidelines and procedures" regarding key elements of the ALPR system required by statute.
On behalf of the Santa Cruz County Chapter of the ACLU of Northern California, I submit these objections to Item 15 on the Agenda for the 11.28.23 Santa Cruz City Council meeting. This item should not have been placed on the Consent Agenda. It is known to be controversial, and is a matter of great concern to the Santa Cruz residents.
Click on the name to email your letter: Mayor Fred Keeley, City Council, City Manager Matt Huffaker and Chief of Police Bernie Escalante
| 
