Law enforcement agencies throughout Southern California and the state now track everyday Americans with little public oversight using surveillance equipment straight out of a spy thriller, according to a report from the American Civil Liberties Union of California.

The ACLU’s report, released this week, found that while 40 California counties and 50 of its largest cities spent more than $65 million on surveillance in the past decade, few hosted public debates or disclosed the policies they use to prevent misuse.

Devices ranging from automated license plate readers, which record millions of Angelenos’ locations each week, to drones and cell phone interceptors once used to weed out terrorists, are now covertly deployed to solve traditional crimes in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties.

“Law enforcement agencies shouldn’t make decisions about whether or not to use surveillance technologies in secret. The public has a right to know how they’re being policed,” said Peter Bibring, police practices director for the ACLU of California. “High-tech surveillance tools can too easily be abused when the public is kept in the dark, and police transparency is key to maintaining the public’s trust.”

The civil liberties group found that only five out of 90 communities with surveillance hosted public debates for each invasive technology. Only one in five made policies for their equipment publicly available.

“Up and down the state, we’re increasingly getting calls from community members that are upset that invasive technology is showing up in their communities and they hadn’t even heard it was considered,” said Nicole Ozer, ACLU of California’s technology and civil liberties director. “When surveillance equipment is deployed without thoughtful debate, without careful consideration of the cost and benefits and without strong policies, it is not good for anyone.”

Approximately $45 million went to equipment, while the other $20 million paid for infrastructure such as data storage centers, according to the ACLU. The civil rights group released the data along with a guide for communities, law enforcement agencies and residents designed to ensure technologies are evaluated before implementation.

The ACLU combed through years of city council meetings, board of supervisors’ minutes and committee agendas to compile its report. The ACLU’s findings likely underrepresent the amount spent and the technology obtained because they list only the equipment approved in a public meeting, Ozer said. Some agencies use federal grants or money from police foundations which bypass typical budget oversight processes.

“Just the tip of the iceberg goes through the public process,” Ozer said.

In October, ProPublica found that both the LAPD and the NYPD used millions from police foundations — whose coffers were filled by corporations — to buy surveillance equipment.

UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs Professor Jorja Leap works with gangs and high-crime communities in Los Angeles.

“I do think we need to make use of these technologies, however, we do need to be more transparent and have legal safeguards — like the warrants that are required — but I do think there needs to be more active public dialogue about this,” Leap said. “I think we need to recast the argument and not see it in polarized terms, it is not ‘either or,’ it’s ‘and.’ Yes, we should have it, and yes, we should have robust oversight.”

Automated license plate readers and cell phone interceptors let police work quickly, safely and efficiently to crack cases that would take longer using traditional methods, she said. License plate readers cut out the need for an officer to manually run a plate.

“The computer automatically reads it and sends a message to the police officer that this car has been found in the database,” she said. “There is no way you could do that as rapidly with good ol’ fashioned police work.”

Even cell phone interceptors, which locate and pull data from phones within a given area, provide more benefits than intrusions, she said. The important part is making sure community members — particularly those where these technologies are most deployed — are involved in the oversight.

“You don’t need a community member from Bel Air or Pacific Palisades, you need community members from the high-crime ares,” Leap said. “It is these community members in these areas who are very much in favor of these technologies, because they want to live in safe communities, but they also want them utilized in the right ways.”

Southland Surveillance

Roughly $13 million, or 30 percent, of the total state spending for equipment came from Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, according to the ACLU’s data. The three biggest organizations, the LAPD, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, did not respond to requests for comment before publication.

One of the most invasive technologies, a cell phone interceptor called StingRay, is used by all three agencies. The StingRay mimics a cell phone tower and collects identifying data from any device used within its range. It was originally supplied to agencies as a counter-terrorism device, but in 2012, the First Amendment Coalition found it was used 21 times by the LAPD in a four-month period, for crimes ranging from murders and kidnappings to missing persons, burglaries and stalking.

The StingRay is troubling to many because it’s unclear whether such a device requires judicial oversight or if police even bother to obtain warrants, according to the coalition’s executive director, Peter Scheer.

“It certainly has the ability to record the phone numbers of everybody in that vicinity,” Scheer said. “They may be focusing on one person, but they’re gathering information on everybody else.”

A tax filing obtained by ProPublica showed the LAPD used nearly $25,000 from its police foundation to upgrade a cell phone interceptor monitoring drug sales in Skid Row. It’s unclear if the device is permanently located in the area.

The ACLU’s research shows Los Angeles spent at least $6 million to obtain 279 devices ranging from license plate readers to drones and body cameras. Only some went through a public process. Los Angeles is one of three California cities known to have drones. The Los Angeles Police Commission in September grounded the two drones until the department adopts an official policy. Ozer noted the LAPD asked the ACLU for guidance on its drones.

“There are definitely good models that are happening up and down the state, but it’s about making sure those pieces are coming together and that there is a consistent process being used when surveillance equipment is purchased,” she said.

Los Angeles County spent roughly $2.3 million on its technologies, many of which mirrored the LAPD’s requisitions. The ACLU sued both the county and the LAPD earlier this year when the two agencies refused to release data from license plate readers, which scan more than 3 million plates per week. The collected information is shared between state and federal agencies.

Other cities, including Pasadena, Burbank, Inglewood, Glendale and Long Beach, were found to use at least automated plate readers. The report showed that both Long Beach and Pasadena had public debates before implementing that technology. Pasadena began using plate readers roughly five years ago.

Pasadena Police spokeswoman Lt. Tracy Ybarra said the city’s practice for all departments is to present new technology as transparently as possible.

In San Bernardino County, Redlands spent $1.2 million on automated license plate readers and video surveillance equipment. But Redlands’ Public Information officer Carl Baker says the ACLU’s information is incorrect. While the city did not publicly vet its lone automated license plate reader, it did have meetings with citizens about its video surveillance program and even formed a citizen’s committee that met with the chief, he said.

“The chief laid out exactly what was proposed, what was being installed and invited the public to come and see the center where the cameras were monitored,” Baker said. The city paid for the cameras with grant funding and donations, he said.

Redlands fixed its one license plate reader to a police cruiser.

“We’re not doing what another use of those systems is, which is to tell you whether someone has entered or left your city,” he said.