STORYLINE Police/Public Safety

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Civil liberties advocates protest city's plans to install surveillance system

by Kathleen Haley, published on May 26, 2009 at 11:09PM

No high resolution image exists...

Loading images

Civil liberties lawyers and advocates are objecting to the city of Sacramento’s plans to install new security cameras and related surveillance equipment at several locations in the city.

Jim Updegraff, the chair of the Sacramento County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told the City Council Tuesday that the planned surveillance system would be “an affront to the privacy and civil liberties of the citizens of the City of Sacramento.”

Mayor Kevin Johnson and Police Chief Rick Braziel last month publicized the city’s plan to use a pot of $615, 500 in Federal Homeland Security grant funds to fund a new surveillance system with 32 cameras, four mobile surveillance trailers and other related equipment. Johnson said the surveillance system was important because Sacramento has ranked second to Oakland in violent crime statistics over the past seven to eight years.

But Sacramento County’s ACLU chapter and ACLU attorneys in San Francisco are challenging Johnson and Braziel’s views.

Outside the meeting, Updegraff told The Sacramento Press that the ACLU’s opposition does not mean the group plans to sue the city. The group always tries to work with issues, he said.

But the group’s firm opposition is clear. Updegraff told the City Council that the surveillance system will invade citizens’ privacy and will not fight crime. The group is also calling on the City Council to hold a public hearing about the planned surveillance system.

“Study after study, from San Francisco to London, have demonstrated video cameras are ineffective in reducing crime,” Updegraff said.

The Sacramento County ACLU chapter and ACLU attorneys in San Francisco together are directly challenging statements Johnson made last month about the surveillance system.

“The new system will create a powerful deterrent for would-be criminals,” Johnson said last month. “Similar systems have been used in other cities around the country and played a major role in reducing crime.”

Updegraff questioned the accuracy of Johnson’s comments, noting that ACLU attorneys had studied Johnson’s remarks. “Our attorneys in San Francisco are not aware of any studies in the country that support the comments of the mayor,” Updegraff said.

The local ACLU chapter is also challenging one of Braziel’s statements.

Braziel said at a press conference last month: “The cameras we put up will only be in places that are in open view of the public, so it is no different than somebody walking down the street with their videophone and taking pictures.”

The Sacramento County ACLU chapter “disagrees” with and “deplores” Braziel’s comment, Updegraff said.

Images from innocent people’s videophones “do not end up in police files,” Updegraff said, and are not shared with other law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the Sacramento Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center.

Sacramento Police Department spokesman Konrad VonSchoech said last month that the city will hold a procurement process for the cameras and other surveillance equipment.
 

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.

May 26, 2009 | 11:56 PM
Unless you are a total hermit, your image is captured on CCTV cameras at least once a day. The difference here is that private businesses own the cameras, not the government. I'd support the city using CCTV cameras as long as a) the video footage was streamed live on the internet for all to see and b) went immediately into the public domain.
2 0
REPLY
edited on  May 28, 2009 | 07:26 AM
I do appreciate the ACLU's protection of our privacy rights and I wouldn't have predicted any other stand than opposition to cameras in the public space. But, the mayor and police are taking a reasonable approach to use technology for safety in public areas. I foresee the benefits of video monitoring outweighing any perceived intrusion of privacy. I can't envision a group of sinister government agents pouring over hours of footage to invade my privacy. If public cameras can offer some crime deterrence and investigative tools in the city center then it would be a worthwhile use of Homeland Security dollars.
4 0
REPLY
May 27, 2009 | 09:59 AM
Both great points. But i don't see what cameras are going to do to deter unemployed desperate and/or loser people from committing crime. Just yesterday i was propositioned by 4 people for money or to use my phone at gas stations, and my car got broken into last week. The Police department & Sheriff are stretched so thin even before layoffs and downsizing that most of downtown and nice neighborhoods go unpatrolled because they are called away to deal with in progress crimes & bad neighborhoods. Think about how many cops you see patrolling in your own neighborhood. Then if you have to call the police you're looking at an extended hold time because they downsized 9-1-1 centers too. But cameras are going to save us?
1 1
REPLY
May 27, 2009 | 01:48 PM
To me, this issue is less about deterring crime, and more about solving crimes that have occurred. Video evidence can be difficult to refute in many cases, and has been instrumental in solving countless crimes of all types - all around the world. I believe that the concerns expressed by the ACLU are grossly exaggerated. People in public are going to be seen. Creating a record of that serves the greater good in many ways, each of which far outweigh any potential privacy concerns that may arise. Perhaps the ACLU can enlighten us as to what evil will befall us if these cameras are installed? I must be missing something - At worst, we'll be seen. In public...
0 0
REPLY
May 28, 2009 | 09:46 AM
Questions for ACLU: Between calls for service in many cities, police sit in cars stationed in high crime areas to observe individuals and activities. When the police see individuals, some of whom are recognized as having past criminal history, engage in illegal activities, they investigate and sometimes arrest those they find are engaging in an illegal activity.

I've often wondered if ACLU considers this police surveillance a breach of civil liberties too. If so, why? If not, why not?
1 0
REPLY
May 28, 2009 | 02:30 PM
Jim Updegraff is an affront to common sense. Anyone with a video camera and the time can do the same thing on any street corner. He probably thinks using turn signals when driving is a violation of his privacy.
1 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
TYPE YOUR COMMENT IN THE BOX BELOW
EDIT YOUR COMMENT IN THE BOX BELOW cancel edit

Type tags into the box below.
Use commas to separate your tags.

Cancel Submit

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Forgot Password?
New Users Create an Account Here
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com