Tag: Real Time Crime Center

City Council, immigration, Mayor Harrell, Police, Privacy

City Expands Police Surveillance Despite Overwhelming Opposition, Concerns About Civil Liberties

By Erica C. Barnett

After dozens of Seattle residents testified in opposition to legislation authorizing the expansion of 24/7 police camera surveillance on Tuesday—the bill, which PubliCola has covered extensively, passed the full council on a contentious 7-2 vote—several councilmembers used most of their speaking time to chastise and criticize their constituents for speaking out against the bill—apparently more offended by overwhelming public opposition than by the likelihood that federal law enforcement officials will use the camera footage to crack down on vulnerable Seattle residents.

The city just created the surveillance “pilot” last year, but is already expanding it before the city can collect any data about its effectiveness.

The new law, introduced just weeks after the city rolled out live camera surveillance in the Chinatown/International District, downtown, and along Aurora Ave. N, expands the pilot to include a swath of the Central District centered on Garfield High School, the area south of downtown around the stadiums, and a section of Capitol Hill that includes the Pike-Pine corridor and Cal Anderson Park. It also incorporates hundreds of cameras maintained by the Seattle Department of Transportation into the Real Time Crime Center, a facility at SPD headquarters where police monitor the cameras in real time.

Opposition to the new surveillance program is widespread. Candidates who came out ahead in this year’s primary elections, including mayoral frontrunner Katie Wilson and City Council Position 9 frontrunner Dionne Foster, have opposed expanding the pilot program as have the ACLU of Washington, Northwest  Immigrant Rights Project, Asian Counseling and Referral Services, and the city’s own Community Police Commission and Office for Civil Rights.

They argue, with substantial evidence, that CCTV cameras don’t help prevent or address violent crime, that they violate people’s civil rights and foster an environment of fear, and that provide new opportunities for the Trump Administration to subpoena or otherwise obtain camera footage to target immigrants and people seeking abortions or gender-affirming care.

This week, 17 members of the state legislature wrote to the council opposing the expansion of police surveillance at a time when the Trump Administration is targeting blue cities, including nominal “sanctuary” cities like Oakland, with subpoenas for surveillance footage and other data that cities have no authority to deny the federal government.

Seattle, similarly, will have to comply with any federal subpoenas for surveillance footage. The fact that local laws prohibit police from volunteering this information does not make the federal government subordinate to Seattle’s local regulations, any more than it has in other blue cities that have policies prohibiting police from voluntary cooperation with ICE and other federal agencies.

Meilani Mandery, a resident of the Chinatown/International District, said that since the council approved 20 cameras on nearly every intersection in the area, “people can’t enter or leave the neighborhood without being surveilled. You did this to a poor immigrant community that remembers the racist surveillance of the 20th century, when the government surveilled Japanese Americans before sending them to concentration camps, and the cops had books of Chinese mug shots to profile and justify police violence.”

Expanding police surveillance, Mandery continued, “rolls out the red carpet for ICE to kidnap our families, friends and neighbors. Do we not deserve safety?”

Only a few people have spoken out, over numerous public meetings, in favor of the cameras and the expansion of the Real Time Crime Center, and emails to the council have been overwhelmingly opposed to the program. Nonetheless, several council members claimed that they have heard directly from constituents who haven’t provided public comment that they support the cameras, particularly constituents of color who believe surveillance will make their neighborhoods safer.

Debora Juarez, an appointed council member who represents North Seattle, dismissed opponents of the legislation as people “with a lot of god damn privilege.”

“You can go on and on about the Trump regime. We all watch the news. We get it. We know. I’m not going to go with fear. I’m going to go with facts. I’m going to go with subject matter expertise.”

In fact, the city’s own Surveillance Working Group recommended strongly against the cameras and Real-Time Crime Center before Trump was elected to a second term, noting that they had the potential to violate people’s Constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure as well as the First Amendment, which protects the right to protest and assemble in public. Public comments, the group noted in its report opposing the original program pilot, “were overwhelmingly negative and voiced a serious concern and lack of trust within the community as a whole of the Seattle Police Department’s plan to expand the use of surveillance technology.”

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

 

Although the police department has said repeatedly that the cameras are effective tools for preventing crime and solving crimes after the fact—and the legislation itself says the primary purpose of surveilling Seattle neighborhoods “is to prevent crime [and] collect evidence related to serious and/or violent criminal activity”—some council members suggested the idea that the cameras would prevent crime was a red herring invented by opponents of surveillance.

Calling himself  “one of the few people on this dais who understands the technology,” appointed Councilmember (and former SPD crime prevention coordinator) Mark Solomon said, “Cameras are not a crime prevention tool. They’re an investigative tool.”

“I hear folks say this isn’t going to do anything—well, tell that to family whose house has gotten broken into, because while the stats say that things are getting better, stats don’t mean nothing when it’s your house has gotten broken into, or when it’s your neighborhood that’s been shot at,” Solomon continued. “And I hear that from the people in my neighborhood. I hear that from my community, who are the ones who are saying, yeah, if we had cameras that could help.”

Council President Sara Nelson and public safety committee chair Bob Kettle were also quick to dismiss overwhelming public opposition to the surveillance expansion. Kettle said he had just talked to 24 people in Interbay, and “every single one of those 24 people, those two dozen people, would have been happy to have a CCTV program. So this idea that [there is] overwhelming opposition is false.”

The bills the city is passing to expand police surveillance, Kettle continued, “are not standard bills. They do not reflect what you see in other jurisdictions across the country and they are definitely not red state, red county American bills. They are Seattle bills.”

The council rejected several amendments that would have limited the expansion of surveillance to fewer areas of the city and created new evaluation requirements that would help the city better understand the impact of the cameras on civil rights and crime. In a mostly symbolic acknowledgement of public concerns, they did pass an amendment authorizing the city to pause the cameras for 60 days if the federal government issues an order to turn over camera footage for immigration purposes.

Only Dan Strauss and Alexis Mercedes Rinck opposed the legislation. In comments prior to the vote, Rinck said it was reckless to expand surveillance of Seattle residents at the precise time when the Trump Administration is targeting progressive cities and without any data showing that the pilot program has accomplished any of its goals.

In San Francisco, she noted, the police department itself shared data from automated license plate readers with police from red states, “in contradiction to all of their local policies and state laws that purport to shield their citizens.” Similar incidents are occurring across the country, including in Denver, Nashville, Washington, D.C., and cities across California, she noted.

“Sure, no city has done it exactly the way that we have. We have different contractor providers and different companies, and we all have different safety protocols,” Rinck said. “But this is happening across the board. Do we know with 100 percent certainty what happened in each of these cases that caused their systems to fail? Why do we think we’re so special, so across all across the US, in other liberal and blue cities where communities live, hoping that their government that their government will serve and protect them?”

“I do not look forward to the day where we have to sit back up here on this dais and deal with the aftermath of our data being handed over to other actors,” Rinck continue. “I do not want to be sitting up here in the future telling people telling people, ‘I’m sorry we put your community in danger,’ when we could have stopped it today. It is a matter of when, not if, our data will be handed over to the federal government and other actors.”

Rinck, currently the council’s only consistent progressive, could soon be joined by Eddie Lin (District 2) and Dionne Foster  (Position 9). Debora Juarez, appointed to replace District 5 short-timer Cathy Moore, will be off the council next year, and the incumbents who won in the backlash election of 2023—Rob Saka, Joy Hollingsworth, Maritza Rivera, and Kettle—will be up for reelection in 2027.

If some of the council’s more conservative members are replaced by progressive challengers that year (and if Wilson defeats incumbent Bruce Harrell, as she seems on track to do), it’s likely that some of some of the heavy-handed police-state legislation passed by this council will be reversed—though not in time to prevent any privacy and civil-rights violations that take place as the result of expanded police surveillance between now and then.

City Council, Elections, Privacy

Mayoral Challenger Katie Wilson Closes In on 51 Percent; Council Moves to Expand Police Camera Surveillance

1. Katie Wilson, the labor organizer and transit advocate who’s challenging Mayor Bruce Harrell, is on target to come out of the August primary with around 51 percent of the vote, with Harrell trailing 10 points behind at 41 percent. It’s a huge political victory—passing 50 percent against an incumbent mayor backed by almost $800,000 in pre-primary spending sends a strong message that voters want change—and puts Wilson in an extremely strong position to win in November.

A look at historical vote totals shows why Wilson is on track to win.

To start with, Seattle has not reelected a single incumbent mayor since 2005, when Greg Nickels defeated a nominal challenge from a UW professor named Al Runte, beating him in the primary by a 35-point margin. (Nickels got his comeuppance in the following election, when two challengers, Mike McGinn and Joe Mallahan, nudged him out in the primary).

Additionally, it’s been almost 25 years years since a mayoral candidate has come in second in the primary and won in the general election, which happened most recently in 2001. In that race, the two frontrunners, Mark Sidran and Greg Nickels, were neck and neck, and both advanced to the general after knocking out incumbent Paul Schell. Nickels went on to beat Sidran 50-48.

You have to go back even further, to 1997, to find a comparable gap between the two mayoral frontrunners. In that case, though, the ultimate winner, Paul Schell, won decisively in the primary, beating neighborhood activist Charlie Chong by just under 6 points going into the general. As a weak incumbent, Harrell appears more likely to follow the path of his five most recent predecessors who each failed to win reelection.

2. The city council’s public safety committee unanimously approved bill expanding police camera surveillance into three new neighborhoods on Tuesday, rejecting one accountability-focused amendment from progressive Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck and passing an amendment from Joy Hollingsworth that limits the new CCTV cameras around Garfield High School and Playfield, which is in her council district, to three arterial streets—East Cherry, 23rd Avenue East, and South Jackson St.

Rinck isn’t on the committee, so she couldn’t vote; committee chair Bob Kettle sponsored her amendments as a courtesty.

Another amendment from Rinck, aimed at ensuring that police report back on whether SPD had provided camera footage to any outside entity in response to court orders or subpoenas, passed unanimously.

The expansion of camera surveillance is now on a glide path for approval by the full council.

Once the new cameras are up and recording, Hollingsworth said, “I’m going to continue to be listening to community and trying to address a lot of concerns that they have with the cameras and making sure that we are not violating people’s civil liberties.”

An amendment from Joy Hollingsworth restricted surveillance cameras around Garfield high school to the arterials marked by the blue lines on this map.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Council President Sara Nelson asked a staffer if the cameras would ever be trained on “residential streets.” In reality, they already are—because of Seattle’s zoning laws, apartments are heavily concentrated on arterial roads, and streets where Seattle is currently placing most of its new surveillance cameras are no exception. Although SPD has said it will blur out images of residential buildings, renters coming to and from their homes will frequently be caught on SPD’s surveillance cameras, along with anyone who patronizes businesses, goes to (or has kids in) school, spends time in parks, or visits a public library branch in the areas under SPD surveillance.

The committee also rejected two amendments by progressive Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck. The first would have required any future evaluation of the cameras to include a controlled assessment to determine whether the cameras were meeting the city’s stated goals for deploying them—deterring violent crime, human trafficking, or persistent felony crime.

If the assessment found that the cameras were failing to meet those goals, the mayor would “consider” discontinuing them. “We, as an elected body, should be instilling trust in our community and not pushing for expansions of programs before getting data and information about their effectiveness,” Rinck said.

Committee chair Bob Kettle said it was likely the cameras would accomplish lots of other important goals, beyond the ones supporters have used to justify their expansion, such as aiding in prosecutions, reducing response times, and improving the relationship between SPD and the public, much as Saka said body-worn police cameras have. Juarez added that the city “would have a hard time measuring and enforcing whether or not the cameras are actually deterring violent crime, because if we could do that, we would have done that.”

Nelson then piled on the anti-data train, saying that “it’s very difficult to draw causal conclusions based on an evaluation because many things could be impacting the trends that we have seen.”

Nelson, Kettle, and other council members have consistently blamed the previous city council for causing police to leave the city for by demoralizing them with talk of reducing SPD’s budget in 2020, despite the lack of data to support this claim.

 

Mayor Harrell, Police, Privacy, Uncategorized

As Police Roll Out Live Cameras in Purported Crime “Hot Spots,” Not Everyone Is Thrilled to Be Under Surveillance

By Erica C. Barnett

Police Chief Shon Barnes and Mayor Bruce Harrell touted the uses of new closed-circuit cameras that currently allow police to surveil 57 locations around the city, from Aurora Ave. N to the Chinatown International District, at a press event at SPD’s Real Time Crime Center on Tuesday. The department plans to add cameras in additional locations soon, including the area around Garfield High School, in Capitol Hill’s Pike-Pine corridor, and around the two downtown stadiums.

The city council funded the cameras, along with the expansion of SPD’s existing Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC), last year, adding 21 full-time police positions and expanding the program beyond its originally proposed boundaries at an ongoing cost of several million dollars a year. SPD plans to integrate feeds from private cameras, such as surveillance cameras outside local businesses, into the system.

At Tuesday’s event, SPD Captain James Britt showed reporters how RTCC staff could use a live, map-based feed to monitor the cameras in real time, zooming and panning to see an area up close and from different angles. A six-minute video showed how footage from one camera at Aurora Ave. N and N 100th St. was used to apprehend a shooting suspect, along with footage from King County drones, private businesses, and the top of an apartment building.

Barnes said the cameras had been used in “600 incidents” and more than 90 investigations, but SPD did not provide a further breakdown of those incidents or say whether the city’s cameras duplicated the private surveillance footage that the police have always used in investigations.

City officials took pains to reassure residents that SPD won’t hand its surveillance footage over to ICE for use in immigration raids. “I can’t say enough, we’ll make sure everyone’s rights are protected and the right constitutional safeguards are in place,” Harrell said.

As a city council member, Harrell added, he was “the first person who proposed body cameras” for police and the “author of the privacy surveillance ordinance”—an apparent reference not to the far-reaching 2017 surveillance ordinance, authored and sponsored by then-councilmember Lorena González, but a 2013 law Harrell co-sponsored with then-councilmember Nick Licata that required council approval for new surveillance technologies.

The city has promoted the cameras as a way to prevent and respond to major crimes like human trafficking and gun violence. But not every business owner in the areas under surveillance considers them a benign crime-fighting tool.

PubliCola spoke with Cory Potts, who owns the Center for Bicycle Repair near 12th and Jackson— a longtime “hot spot” for drug use and sales of both drugs and stolen goods. One of the new cameras faces his shop, which is located in a nearly 100-year-old building that was occupied by Japanese businesses before Seattle’s Japanese population was removed from the area and interred in concentration camps during World War II.

After a mass stabbing in front of his building, Potts said, a representative from the mayor’s office showed up at a community meeting to tell them the city was installing the cameras, which Potts later learned was not actually a response to the violence, but a plan that had long been underway.

The city had already made what Potts considered some troubling decisions in the neighborhood, which was historically known as Japantown. First, they placed signs around the areas banning “buying or selling merchandise” in public spaces. “I was struck  by the historical similarities,” Potts said. “There was no outreach about the signs whatsoever—all of a sudden, they went up.”

Shortly after that, city trucks began cleaning the streets with a foaming disinfectant that seeped into Potts’ building. A worker with the Seattle Department of Transportation told Potts the foam was meant to clean up urine, but “based on observation” and talking to the people who hang out near his business, “I don’t believe that was the actual purpose for the foaming,” he said.

“The city doesn’t give those people enough credit for how sensitive they are to the neighborhood and the stuff that happens here. I think they know what it means when a city truck drives by them and shoots foam at the place where they spent most of their time.”

As a business owner in the area since the pandemic, Potts says he doesn’t see how cameras will benefit him, given that he’s seen police hanging around all day without interacting with people on the street. The police department, and Harrell, promoted the cameras as a way to prevent and respond to major crimes like human trafficking, but the building that used to house Viet Wah burned down after the building was improperly secured against intruders for months, Potts said, and no one did anything to address the situation.

He’s asking the city to blur out his business on footage from the cameras as a way to “stand up for what the building represents and what the history of the neighborhood represents.” On Tuesday, Captain Britt told PubliCola SPD generally only blurs footage of residential property, because commercial buildings are open to the public. “We would want to be cautious about [blurring out] businesses that front onto a sidewalk, because the sidewalk is an area that we would want to make sure that we had good footage of,” Britt said.

The RTCC expansion was one of many mayoral priorities that added $100 million in costs, most of them ongoing obligations, to the 2025-2026 budget despite a known revenue gap of around $250 million. In April, the City Budget Office issued a new revenue forecast showing that the city will need to close an additional, previously unanticipated budget shortfall of $241 million during 2025 and 2026. (The budget already assumed deficits starting in 2027).

On Tuesday, Harrell said his 2026-2027 budget proposal could include more funding to add more cameras and expand surveillance into additional neighborhoods. “We think this is good technology, and there could be a push to expand its citywide,” Harrell said. “Everyone in this room understands we have some constraints on our budget, and so it becomes a question of priorities.”

The city’s surveillance ordinance requires agencies like SPD to complete a Surveillance Impact Report, or SIR, before deploying any new surveillance technology. In its SIR for the new surveillance cameras, SPD said it was in the process of creating a new “omnibus surveillance policy” that would include a specific policy for CCTV. To date, an SPD spokesperson confirmed, the department has not completed either the omnibus policy or specific camera and real-time crime center surveillance guidelines, and has “no firm timeline” to finish the work.

According to the spokesperson, SPD’s two-person policy shop has been busy drafting new crowd-control policies but has already begun the work of researching and drafting the new policies around the RTCC.”

The city’s Office of the Inspector General has hired researchers from the University of Pennsylvania to conduct a two-year assessment of the RTCC and the new camera surveillance program.