Guidelines in the works for future police video surveillance in Ann Arbor
Following the recent defeat of a video privacy ordinance, Ann Arbor officials are instead working on establishing administrative guidelines for any future police surveillance of citizens.
Sumi Kailasapathy, who serves as the City Council's liaison on the city's Human Rights Commission, said the issue could come to council soon.
"The Human Rights Commission really wanted the video privacy ordinance," she said. "Since it didn't pass, they want us to move fast and not just let it sit, because they feel it's a serious issue."
She said it makes sense to give the city administrator some clear-cut guidelines for when a police surveillance camera can be installed, how long it can be there, and who gives the approval.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
She voted against last month's proposal from Council Members Mike Anglin and Chuck Warpehoski to codify video surveillance policies in city ordinance.
"When it was voted down last month, people like Stephen Kunselman and Jane Lumm basically said they would be more comfortable giving the city administrator and (Police Chief John Seto) guidelines, rather than put it as an ordinance ... because that would be restrictive," she said.
She said it makes sense to give the city administrator some clear-cut guidelines for when a camera can be installed, how long it can be there, and who gives the approval. She said the Human Rights Commission is doing "a lot of good work" and plans on bringing a resolution to council.
The push for video surveillance guidelines is mostly a preemptive measure, as Ann Arbor officials assure they have no plans to conduct video surveillance of citizens anytime soon.
Warpehoski, D-5th Ward, said he's hopeful the administrative guidelines can address some of the same concerns he hoped to address through ordinance.
"At this point, the needle we're trying to thread is the balance between having something that's strong enough that meets my standards in terms of protecting privacy, but doesn't end up becoming 'here's the path to install cameras' — trying to find that balance," he said. "Looking at the administrative language, there's been some things we can do, but it's still up in the air."
Warpehoski wants to see some clarification on the approval process before police could begin to purchase and deploy surveillance cameras.
"The second thing I'd want to make sure of is that neighbors, if they're getting a long-term camera in their neighborhood, that they're notified," he said. "The third thing is, if there's a majority of neighbors who don't want a camera in their neighborhood, they've got an ability to say no to that."
As a separate matter, Kailasapathy reported Monday night the Human Rights Commission also is working with the city attorney's office on an update to the city's non-discrimination ordinance. She said the plan is to have a special council work session to discuss it and get feedback.
The ordinance, found in Chapter 112 of the city code, states no person shall be discriminated against because of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, condition of pregnancy, marital status, physical or mental limitation, source of income, family responsibilities, educational association, sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV status.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Frustrated in A2
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 4:56 a.m.
I don't do anything wrong so fill free to put video cameras up.
BhavanaJagat
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 3:52 a.m.
WholeDude-Whole Surveillance: I like to quote the comment made by Homeland Conspiracy and affirm that we are "One Nation Under Surveillance." It is not a bad thing. We must gracefully admit that we are proud to live in a Police State. Neither Democrats, nor Republicans can take us back. If the reality is so simple, we must find ways to help our various surveillance programs to earn revenue and cover the costs of their operations. My suggestion would be that of billing all people for the surveillance work in which they are the objects of surveillance. Actually, I am willing to pay a whole penny to NSA, each and every time, they review my blog posts, facebook status updates, twitter posts, and the comments that I share at discussion forums like AnnArbor.com. There is plenty of potential to make some money with my generous offer. To the City, I will be more generous; if they publish my photo image and add this comment to that image, I shall pay the City $5.00, for each and every image they want to share from the surveillance video.
snapshot
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 7:57 p.m.
I'm an advocate of video surveillance for traffic violations at intersections. As for other camera placements in public areas, their use should be limited to solving or preventing violent crimes. As for drug dealing or smoking marijuana, there is no way that such violations could be proven with video alone. Police should not be able to use what they "think" might be such activity caught on camera as a reason to apprehend, search, or obtain search warrants for citizens engaging in what may very well be a legal activity that could be mistaken for illegal activity. I also agree with the poster that suggested any official misuse or abuse should be punished severely with well published and communicated minimums, such as job and pension loss to mandatory prison for abuse of authority. This should apply to all government and elected officials who use their position to break the law, violate citizens civil rights, or use their position for illegal personal gain. Detroit's Kilpatrick, Connors, and the many other corrupt officials, police officers, border patrol, prison guards, and numerous other agency employees that have been convicted of using their positions to commit crimes.
wordcop
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 5:25 p.m.
Pleasr provide a list of conditions that do allow me to discriminate. Let me know whether each of those conditions must be actual or merely perceived. Thanks.
matt1027
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 4:30 p.m.
Time to move. Everything that I love about this city is going away as the hippies turn in to old square professionals, and commerce bends to suit the spoiled geek students with mommy and daddy's credit card. I've lived here my entire life...only lately do I have trouble defending it against outsiders who goof on it's pretentious, wannabe-metro nature. Walk downtown, bunch of middle of the road posers who think they're big shots. And now, probably because they can't solve a crime unless the person is caught red-handed, we'll be surveilled. Time to take that job in Portland.
bunnyabbot
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:56 p.m.
disturbing
Stephen
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:19 p.m.
They need to put one at Dealer Park (Wheeler), people sell and smoke drugs there on a regular basis...and if you already afraid of your privacy being taken away news flash NSA has already done that.
paul wiener
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 2:05 p.m.
These surveillance cameras, here as everywhere, are the worst imaginable things that can happen in a free society - an infraction, an insult, an outrage, fundamentally un-Constitutional - and should be opposed at all costs and in all situations on public streets. They reflect nothing but the growth of a police state in this country and the mentality that supports it.
Homeland Conspiracy
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 8:09 p.m.
Well said...thank you
SonnyDog09
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:58 p.m.
I would prefer a law over a guideline. That law must have teeth. That law must have penalties for those who break it. The penalties in the law must be severe, not a simple slap on the wrist. When the authorities break this law, they must lose the jobs, their pensions and go to jail.
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 1:20 p.m.
How much more homeland money will the city get if they tie our cameras into the fed system? England still has more violent crime than the US. Even with cameras everywhere.
yohan
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:35 p.m.
If the AAPD is not presently conducting video surveillance then who is using all of those cameras on top of traffic signal and light poles around town? There are cameras at Depot and Main. There are cameras at Liberty and Stadium. Those are just two I can name off of the top of my head. I am sure there are many more. Are they part of the trafic control system or used for video surveillance or both?
Frustrated in A2
Wed, Aug 21, 2013 : 4:55 a.m.
Those are sensors for the signals, not cameras. I asked a guy who works for the city's signal shop. Not all intersections have pavement sensors.
Jim Osborn
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 12:31 p.m.
"source of income" Even if a drug dealer, pimp, or mobster?
craigjjs
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:48 a.m.
Police surveillance should be governed by law, not guidelines. The police, otherwise, have the final say on video surveillance decisions. I would prefer a well designed ordinance that provides for a fast, reasonable approval process for circumstances where the police wish to act outside the ordinance provisions. I have faith that the Ann Arbor community will not allow a reckless installation of intrusive video surveillance and the Council will carry out the will of the community. I recently lived in England and video surveillance is pervasive. What started as cameras in "at risk" public areas grew to nearly continuous video surveillance in most areas of London. Often cameras are positioned to see the inside of pubs and other businesses. I know Ann Arbor is not London or New York, but surveillance should be kept at the minimum necessary to accomplish reasonable law enforcement goals.
Homeland Conspiracy
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 : 11:38 a.m.
"guidelines for any FUTURE police surveillance of citizens" = they ARE going to be doing surveillance in 1 way or another EVEN if the ppl say no. We the people are NOT the enemy One Nation Under Surveillance