San Jose is tightening controls over its automated license plate reader program, as the city faces mounting public pressure over surveillance concerns and a lawsuit.<\/p>\n
The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to adopt a range of new safeguards<\/a> for San Jose\u2019s network of 474 cameras, including limits on where the devices may be installed and how long license plate data may be stored. However, the measure still falls short of demands from some residents, who are calling on San Jose to follow suit with other South Bay jurisdictions<\/a> and cut ties entirely with the technology\u2019s vendor, Atlanta-based firm Flock Safety.<\/p>\n The issue has pitted critics of the surveillance technology \u2014 who warn it can be used to track law-abiding residents and target immigrants \u2014 against its supporters, who argue the cameras, first introduced in San Jose in 2022, have become an invaluable investigative tool for the city\u2019s chronically short-staffed police force<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cI personally believe \u2014 from everything I have read, seen, studied, discussed with folks in the city and outside the city \u2014 that we\u2019ve struck the right balance here,\u201d Mayor Matt Mahan said during the meeting.<\/p>\n Among the approved changes, the measure will reduce the default retention period of license plate reader data from one year to 30 days. It will also prohibit the placement of cameras outside abortion clinics, health care facilities offering gender affirming care, consulate offices and places of worship.<\/p>\n In addition, the new rules place firmer controls on access to the data. That includes a requirement that law enforcement agencies wishing to search the database provide additional compliance documentation indicating the type of crime under investigation, as well as the case number related to the request. Another rule will mean that any request from a law enforcement agency that does not have a data access agreement with SJPD will require approval from a command-level officer.<\/p>\n Even before Tuesday\u2019s vote, partner agencies<\/a> requesting data access have had to provide a \u201clegitimate law enforcement purpose,\u201d though they don\u2019t need a warrant. San Jose already prohibits use of the database for investigating a person\u2019s immigration status or for monitoring legally protected activities like protests or rallies.<\/p>\n The surveillance technology has come under increasing scrutiny in recent months. In November, a coalition of local advocacy groups sued San Jose<\/a>, alleging the city\u2019s practice of allowing warrantless searches of its license plate data violates drivers\u2019 privacy rights.<\/p>\n Nick Hidalgo, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, one of the groups involved in the lawsuit, said he is \u201cencouraged\u201d by the new safeguards, though he contends they still fall short.<\/p>\n Hidalgo argues the city must only allow searches of its database when the requesting agency provides a judicial warrant.<\/p>\n \u201cOtherwise, it\u2019s a violation of our California constitutional right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,\u201d he told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight. \u201cThese (cameras) are ripe for abuse.\u201d<\/p>\n Earlier this year, three South Bay jurisdictions \u2014 Santa Clara County, Los Altos Hills and Mountain View \u2014 terminated their contracts with Flock Safety, amid concerns<\/a> the company has allowed transfers of license plate reader data to out-of-state law enforcement agencies, a practice that is barred by state law.<\/p>\n Flock Safety spokesperson Paris Lewbel said the company\u2019s customers are able to control who accesses their data.<\/p>\n \u201cFlock provides transparent tools, compliant with California law, that help solve serious crimes and find missing people while protecting civil liberties, and we welcome continued discussion with city leaders,\u201d Lewbel told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight.<\/p>\n SJPD officials maintain that audits conducted by the agency confirm the city\u2019s database has not been accessed for any purpose that violates city policy or California law.<\/p>\n During his testimony before councilmembers, Police Chief Paul Joseph laid out the investigative merits of the city\u2019s automated license plate readers.<\/p>\n \u201cI have never seen a technology advance so impactful to our ability to keep the community safe as I have with these license plate reader cameras,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s assisting us in locating at-risk persons. It enhances the coordination \u2026 and it\u2019s also increased the solvability rate for our cases for our detectives.\u201d<\/p>\n Critics of the technology \u2014 including dozens of residents who spoke out during a marathon public comment section and a City Hall rally held prior to the vote \u2014 have been pushing back against such claims of the cameras\u2019 public safety benefits.<\/p>\n \u201cWe put up these camera networks all over the place, and they track every single person that falls within their view, regardless of whether they\u2019re suspected of a crime or not,\u201d Huy Tran, executive director of the advocacy group Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network, said during the rally. \u201cAnd so we\u2019re not talking about fighting crime in that instance, right? We\u2019re talking about tracking and monitoring what everyone does.\u201d<\/p>\n Meanwhile, many other residents spoke in support of the cameras, warning that jettisoning the technology entirely would amount to a major setback for public safety in San Jose.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m here to say that we want the Flock cameras to remain as is,\u201d South San Jose resident Lorrie Landis said during the meeting. \u201cThey make our families and our neighborhoods safer\u2026. I want the criminals found.\u201d<\/p>\n As they prepared to cast their votes in favor of the new safeguards, several councilmembers acknowledged the decision would leave many residents dissatisfied.<\/p>\n \u201cI understand our community\u2019s concerns, and that\u2019s why I believe in codifying these safeguards,\u201d District 8 Councilmember Domingo Candelas said. \u201cWhile I know that community advocates wanted more, know that we as a council are paying attention and that we will have oversight, and it will continue.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n While San Jose\u2019s contract with Flock Safety appears secure for now, Tuesday\u2019s measure does instruct the City Manager\u2019s Office to \u201cexplore alternative vendors\u201d for providing automated license plate reader services.<\/p>\n \u201cMy concern is not with (automated license plate reader) technology itself,\u201d District 5 Councilmember Peter Ortiz, who pushed for the inclusion of the directive, said. \u201cMy concern is with Flock Safety as a vendor, and honestly, I believe we should end our contract with Flock today. But unfortunately, I don\u2019t know if we have the votes for that.\u201d<\/p>\n During Tuesday\u2019s meeting, some residents questioned Mahan\u2019s participation in the vote, noting that a number of major contributors to his gubernatorial campaign<\/a> have invested in Flock Safety<\/a>. However, City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood said the vote does not fall under California\u2019s campaign finance laws because it didn\u2019t involve any decision about a contract with the city.<\/p>\n ___<\/p>\n