St. Louis Police Detective Nicole White sat behind four computer screens, watching at least 20 video surveillance streams in the city’s Real Time Crime Center. At the same time, she listened to several radio channels for officers calling in about crimes they were pursuing. Her job was to correlate any video in the area of these pursuits and provide officers with information that could help them do their jobs.
“If we can give them some reactionary time, the better we increase their safety,” Lt. Brent Feig, who leads the center, said during a media tour of the center on May 23.
The center has access to 600 cameras throughout St. Louis, a third of which the city owns. Feig said the center’s goals are to deter crime, use the high-definition video for quick facial recognition and quick capture of criminals, and provide more “situational awareness” for officers on the street.
While Feig couldn’t say if the center prevents crime, he said that its license plate recognition technology has been responsible for more than 600 felony arrests.
The center opened in 2015, yet three years later, some believe that city leaders still have not addressed civil liberties concerns around the surveillance at the center and throughout the city.
“Any time the government is collecting data on its citizens, there really should be clear policies about what the government does with that data,” said Alderwoman Cara Spencer of the 20th Ward. “When we are doing surveillance, we are collecting meaningful information about people – their license plates, where they travel; there is a lot of facial recognition software these days. These cameras can pick up all kinds of information.”
Privacy advocates believe the Surveillance Accountability Bill that Aldermen Terry Kennedy (Ward 18) and John Collins-Muhammad (Ward 21) will soon introduce could help address these concerns. The bill would require any city entity that operates a surveillance program – including using street cameras, body cameras, automatic license plate readers, and facial and voice recognition programs – present an in-depth plan to the Board of Aldermen, as well as annual accountability reports. It would mainly apply to the police, Street Department and business districts.
“The bill basically sets forth a policy on how surveillance equipment would be used in the city, as well as ensuring that there is a public comment component,” said Kennedy, who chairs the aldermanic public safety committee. “Before any kind of surveillance equipment is implemented, there would be public hearings, a clear goal set forth, and a set of standards that would be used to both measure its success and to ensure that people’s privacy is protected.”
The bill outlines pointed questions that must be answered about who has access to camera footage, along with details on its storage and uses. The aldermen would also review whether the surveillance technology has been used in a racially biased manner.
Kennedy and Collins-Muhammad introduced an almost identical bill, Board Bill 66, during the 2017-2018 session, but it failed. Some aldermen felt that it would make the process too lengthy if they wanted to install cameras in their wards.
The new bill added language that will hopefully address those concerns, Kennedy said. The bill is going through a legal review with the board’s attorney and will be introduced after that process is complete, he said.
Members of Privacy Watch, a coalition of about 10 advocacy organizations monitoring mass surveillance in St. Louis, have been talking to various aldermen and are optimistic that the bill has broad support, said John Chasnoff of the coalition.
The St. Louis American requested a comment from Public Safety Director Jimmie Edwards about whether or not he would support the bill, but Edwards didn’t want to comment on the bill until it has been introduced, according to a city spokesman.
Activists hope the bill will spur questions about racial bias, particularly regarding the placement of cameras.
“There is a surveillance camera on Arsenal and South Grand pointed at MokaBe’s Coffeehouse, where Black Lives Matter activists and other human rights protestors are known to meet,” said Kendra Tatum, organizer with the Organization for Black Struggle (OBS). “We should conclude that police are using the surveillance camera as an intimidation tactic on First Amendment Rights.”
Those active in racial justice organizing have experienced a long history of federal agencies viewing black movements and organizations as a threat to national security, said Jamala Rogers, OBS executive director.
“Surveillance as a primary crime-fighting tool gives people a false sense of security,” Rogers said. “We need to know what surveillance technology is being imposed on us and how it’s being used.”
While some of the driving forces behind this legislation are from the activist community, Spencer said she believes this issue impacts everyone.
“We have cameras in front of neighborhood homes and people who are just going about their lives,” Spencer said. “This is about protecting everyone, not just a select few.”
During the media tour of the center, Feig said that the center receives “a lot” of Sunshine requests for access to the crime center’s footage – from simple car accidents to larger criminal investigations.
When Spencer was asked about her thoughts on the city’s current policies on surveillance, she said, “We don’t really have any policies now. It’s not clear when or if the general public has access to any of the surveillance data. That’s a black box to the general public and city officials.”
