For the last few years, an interpretation of the city's surveillance ordinance has kept the police from using footage from home security cameras to identify criminals
Allowing the police, with the homeowner’s consent, to use footage from home security cameras to identify criminals seems reasonable. It’s a reactive measure to a crime committed. It’s not a blank fishing exercise.
First, didn’t the mayor also vote for this? I recall it being unanimous. Have to look at the “tape”!
Second I wish there was an outlet for idealists who in many cases don’t actually live in Sebastopol could express their views that didn’t include burdening tax payers and residents who actually live in Sebastopol.
Finally, I wish the city council could look at these things from a practical point of view. There is an existing security camera in the police station and on city hall looking at the door. That seems like a pretty universal thing. They are old. Routine policy is to come to council as part of budget and again for the RFP and again to approve purchase. It delays purchases by months. Plenty of opportunities for council to assess privacy concerns and vote no.
Exceptions to a ordinance require a whole other public notice process that takes staff time and several meetings and it is unlikely that anyone in the public will notice or remember. All to buy a new security camera to replace an existing camera.
Presumably based on the discussion at the meeting, this is critical because ICE might come to town and confiscate camera footage of the front door of city hall. Wasting real tax payer money is the result. Not a surprise half our streets are at or near their useful lives and we have a financial crisis.
Whoa, you are correct. My recollection was the mayor initially said she wouldn't support the motion because it didn't include all the amendments, but what she really said was that she wished it included both, and indeed, she voted for it. My mistake. Which means I'll be sending around a correction.
If Larry meant that the ordinance only applied to city owned cameras, that should have been stated clearly in the ordinance. As our city attorney, Larry had no business leaving something as important as the specifics of what the ordinance applied to up in the air. And, Omar is saying that the intent wasn't to apply to private cameras but if that was what the intent was, it should have been written into the ordinance! Any ordinance having to do with police evidence need to be extremely clear.
Thank you for your thorough coverage of this important issue. The intent of the ordinance was never to restrict the use of private security cameras to apprehend and prosecute criminals. This is why former City Attorney Larry McLaughlin accurately recalled that the ordinance only applied to city-owned cameras. It would make no sense to forbid the Sebastopol Police Department from using private security footage in criminal investigations, and it would be an insult to the intelligence of former Chief Nelson to suggest that he would have been OK with that. He would not. Yet, because the common-sense interpretation of the ordinance is being overlooked, clarification is important at this juncture. No one who values public safety opposes the use of private security footage in criminal investigations. As a parent, homeowner, and small business owner in Sebastopol (all within city limits) I also support civil liberties. Police oversight is important, and oversight by our elected City Council over city-operated surveillance technologies is critical.
Allowing the police, with the homeowner’s consent, to use footage from home security cameras to identify criminals seems reasonable. It’s a reactive measure to a crime committed. It’s not a blank fishing exercise.
Agreed. It’s the opposite of dragnet surveillance which the ordinance was intended to address.
First, didn’t the mayor also vote for this? I recall it being unanimous. Have to look at the “tape”!
Second I wish there was an outlet for idealists who in many cases don’t actually live in Sebastopol could express their views that didn’t include burdening tax payers and residents who actually live in Sebastopol.
Finally, I wish the city council could look at these things from a practical point of view. There is an existing security camera in the police station and on city hall looking at the door. That seems like a pretty universal thing. They are old. Routine policy is to come to council as part of budget and again for the RFP and again to approve purchase. It delays purchases by months. Plenty of opportunities for council to assess privacy concerns and vote no.
Exceptions to a ordinance require a whole other public notice process that takes staff time and several meetings and it is unlikely that anyone in the public will notice or remember. All to buy a new security camera to replace an existing camera.
Presumably based on the discussion at the meeting, this is critical because ICE might come to town and confiscate camera footage of the front door of city hall. Wasting real tax payer money is the result. Not a surprise half our streets are at or near their useful lives and we have a financial crisis.
Whoa, you are correct. My recollection was the mayor initially said she wouldn't support the motion because it didn't include all the amendments, but what she really said was that she wished it included both, and indeed, she voted for it. My mistake. Which means I'll be sending around a correction.
This is really disappointing.
Mayor McLewis wanted both to be approved.
If Larry meant that the ordinance only applied to city owned cameras, that should have been stated clearly in the ordinance. As our city attorney, Larry had no business leaving something as important as the specifics of what the ordinance applied to up in the air. And, Omar is saying that the intent wasn't to apply to private cameras but if that was what the intent was, it should have been written into the ordinance! Any ordinance having to do with police evidence need to be extremely clear.
Thank you for your thorough coverage of this important issue. The intent of the ordinance was never to restrict the use of private security cameras to apprehend and prosecute criminals. This is why former City Attorney Larry McLaughlin accurately recalled that the ordinance only applied to city-owned cameras. It would make no sense to forbid the Sebastopol Police Department from using private security footage in criminal investigations, and it would be an insult to the intelligence of former Chief Nelson to suggest that he would have been OK with that. He would not. Yet, because the common-sense interpretation of the ordinance is being overlooked, clarification is important at this juncture. No one who values public safety opposes the use of private security footage in criminal investigations. As a parent, homeowner, and small business owner in Sebastopol (all within city limits) I also support civil liberties. Police oversight is important, and oversight by our elected City Council over city-operated surveillance technologies is critical.