ACLU: Police surveillance grows without public input



less Denise Green looks out the window of her car while parked near Mission St. and Highland Ave. on Thursday, May 29, 2014, in San Francisco. At the same location in 2009, a license plate scanner mistakenly identified Green's Lexus as stolen leading police officers to hold Green at gunpoint until they realized the scanner's error. Denise Green looks out the window of her car while parked near Mission St. and Highland Ave. on Thursday, May 29, 2014, in San Francisco. At the same location in 2009, a license plate scanner mistakenly ... more Photo: Noah Berger Photo: Noah Berger Image 1 of / 5 Caption Close ACLU: Police surveillance grows without public input 1 / 5 Back to Gallery

At least 90 police agencies in California use surveillance tools such as cameras, license plate scanners and facial recognition software. But in launching new technologies, government agencies have sought public input just 14 percent of the time, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a report released Wednesday.

The report, based on public records and news reports, provides a look at gadgets that are changing policing in fundamental ways, including cell phone trackers, wearable cameras that police turn on to record interactions, and drones. The ACLU said agencies had spent more than $65 million on at least 180 surveillance technology programs around the state.

But only 26 of the programs were brought up for public discussion, and only 32 came with publicly available policies governing their use, according to the report.

“Vendors are constantly pitching these technologies as great tools, but we have to have concerns when it comes to balancing that and protecting civil rights and civil liberties,” said ACLU policy attorney Chris Conley. “Whatever the purpose of the technology is, communities really need to do some research for themselves on whether the technology they’re considering will really be effective for the purpose they’re looking for.”

Costs and benefits

Law enforcement agencies have long pushed for the adoption of surveillance technologies that they say can keep people safer. A license plate scanner mounted to a patrol car, for example, can read thousands of plates a day, sounding an alarm when it comes across a vehicle that is stolen or wanted.

But opponents say high-tech devices often aren’t worth their high cost in taxpayer dollars and privacy. License plate data is typically fed into a database — one that includes a wealth of information on the movements of law-abiding citizens as well as car thieves.

The issue of transparency around surveillance technology came to a head this year when the San Jose Police Department quietly bought a drone, sidestepping public discussion by introducing the purchase as a consent calendar item to gain City Council approval. Police officials later released a statement promising not to deploy the device until the department does community outreach and develops a policy.

“San Jose is a prime example of how not engaging with the public has cost the government and law enforcement as well,” Conley said. “It would have been a smoother road to explain to the public what was happening and garner their support.”

The ACLU report includes a proposed ordinance for communities to adopt to ensure transparency around new surveillance technology.

San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos said he plans to introduce the model ordinance. According to the ACLU, San Francisco uses technologies including video cameras, body-worn police cameras, license plate scanners and International Mobile Subscriber Identity devices — known as IMSI catchers — that mimic cell towers to capture phone information.

“We want to be able to have some strong measures in place that would ensure that the public would have knowledge of what’s happening and how the technology is being used,” Avalos said. “We want to make sure we put a high standard in place in San Francisco that can be emulated around the country as well.”

Requiring a hearing

The ordinance would require a “properly noticed public hearing” and Board of Supervisors’ approval before police could take any steps toward buying surveillance devices.

Avalos said he has spoken with Police Chief Greg Suhr, who told him he has long been in support of transparency in adopting surveillance.

“The use of technology is very beneficial for law enforcement and investigators to track down criminals, obtain evidence and make a case,” said Officer Albie Esparza, a police spokesman. “These days, juries like to see evidence, not just what was said to the officer. Technology is very important to law enforcement, but I certainly understand the public concern that with any technology, there’s potential for abuse.

“Our chief has been very open with speaking with the communities and the public about the department,” Esparza said. “He wants to be as transparent as possible.”

According to the ACLU report, San Francisco initiated a public process before installing video cameras at high-crime areas around the city several years ago, but did not open up public discussion when Suhr rolled out a pilot program for body-worn cameras for plainclothes officers in 2013.

San Francisco police also did not engage the public before obtaining an International Mobile Subscriber Identity device in 2009, nor when the department obtained license plate scanners, the ACLU said.

Vivian Ho is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: vho@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @VivianHo