Concerns over police surveillance dominated the Santa Clara City Council meeting.
At its most recent meeting, March 24, the Santa Clara City Council heard a report about the use of automated license plate readers (ALPR). Pointed questions from Council Member Kevin Park at the last meeting prompted the report.
Santa Clara Police Chief Cory Morgan assured the council that the Santa Clara Police Department (SCPD) has a “comprehensive plan” to use ALPR. The department’s policy aligns with state and federal law to ensure resident data is not used for immigration enforcement and disposed of in a timely manner, he said.
Morgan called license plate readers a “force multiplier,” calling them a “truly foundational law enforcement tool.” They help “hold real-world criminals accountable,” he added.
Further, policy prohibits SCPD from sharing information with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Morgan said data is deleted within 30 days after capturing it, saying police use the information to catch crooks, not spy on citizens.
“The system is designed for investigative purposes, not for monitoring residents,” said Sgt. Brian Williams.
Morgan said SCPD conducts monthly audits to ensure compliance.
But several people pointed out the lack of oversight, saying the department’s assurances that it was following the law are not enough.
“I certainly see the utility of it,” said Council Member Suds Jain. “Are we giving up our privacy for this utility? How can we ensure privacy for people? I don’t want to be in a police state.”
Council Member Kevin Park said he worried that the data gathered from the readers would be used to train artificial intelligence.
Members of the public were split on the topic. Some decried what they saw as a government overreach that invaded citizens’ privacy. Others saw the need for the technology with strong safeguards, while others saw the benefits greatly outweighing the costs.
Public commentator Jay Ess said the police department is taking a “trust me, bro” approach.
“In a democracy, you can never have too much transparency, and in this case, we have none,” he said.
Morgan told the council that the information gathered by the cameras is just basic information — plate number, time, date, make, model and color of the vehicle. It does not collect personal data like address, race, gender, height or weight.
Jill Brooks said the readers will help police solve crimes faster. She pointed to many other aspects of daily life where citizens divulge their data to private companies willingly — with less benefit than the crime-fighting power of license plate readers.
“My police department having a picture of the back of my car is the least of my concern,” she said.
Morgan said there are “structural safeguards” to ensure the data gathered is only used for investigative purposes. The issue is one of “transparency and accountability,” he said.
Tim McKenzie, with the Democratic Socialists of America, said it was a false equivalence to claim that the state having access to data and private industry having access to it are the same.
“Our data is the product,” he said. “Having strong policies does not mean they will be followed.”
Despite pushback, others, like mayoral candidate David Kertes, supported the use of the cameras.
“Don’t break the law in the first place, and you don’t have to worry about being tracked,” Kertes said.
The council unanimously approved noting and filing the report.
Consent Calendar Spending
The council approved the following spending via the consent calendar:
- A three-year, $20.84 million purchase agreement with Anixter, Inc. for high-voltage circuit breakers for Silicon Valley Power (SVP).
- A $1.05 million amendment to the agreement with Intertek USA, Inc. for non-destructive examination, consulting and engineering services for SVP.
- A $1.14 million amendment to an agreement with KONE, Inc. for citywide elevator maintenance and repair.
- A $1.54 million amendment to the agreement with Siemens Industries, Inc., for the EnergyIP Meter Data Management System, from 2009 to 2030.
- A $310,000 amendment to an agreement with Z’Onion Creative Group for marketing and communication services. The contract total is now $560,000.
- An $82,500, one-year extension to a contract with Advanced Integrated Pest Management for pest control at Levi’s Stadium.
- A $40,000 extension to an agreement with Gachina Landscaping Management, Inc. for landscaping at Levi’s Stadium. The total contract over four years is now $250,000.
- A $1.6 million amendment to a contract with West Coast Turf for supply, delivery and installation of sod services at Levi’s Stadium.
- A $160,000 amendment to an agreement with Integrated Communication System for retroactive fire alarm testing, inspections, maintenance and related services at Levi’s Stadium.
- A $94,000 amendment to agreement with Everon for retroactive fire sprinkler testing, inspection, and maintenance services at Levi’s Stadium.
The next regularly scheduled meeting is 7 p.m. Tuesday, April 7 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Ave. in Santa Clara.
Members of the public can participate in the city council meetings on Zoom at https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306; Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or call 1 (669) 900-6833, via the City’s eComment (available during the meeting) or by email to PublicComment@santaclaraca.gov
Contact David Alexander at d.todd.alexander@gmail.com
Previous Santa Clara City Council Posts:
Stadium Budget Item Highlights Capital Needs
Santa Clara has a Transparency Problem — Still
Santa Clara Car Dealership’s Alternate Trash Pickup Denied
Re: a “comprehensive plan” to use ALPR. The discussion suggests the data will be used only for collecting ” plate number, time, date, make, model and color of the vehicle.” However it will also collect location data, which can be used to track a person and his friends (think about it), where they go, what they do, when they meet. This is surveillance of the worst kind. What are the safeguards that it will not be used for this purpose?
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are an investigative or evidentiary tools rather than surveillance devices. To be a surveillance device it would have to target a specific person, business or event to gather information on illegal activity. ALPR’s do not do this.
The debate over police surveillance is no longer just about safety versus privacy; it has evolved into a fundamental question of democratic oversight and constitutional integrity. It has been documented that the City of Santa Clara lacks transparency and that the Santa Clara Police Department has an extraordinarily high number of police officers who have been disciplined or terminated for a lack of integrity and for exhibiting abuse of authority.
An intelligent surveillance policy isn’t just about what the technology can do; it’s about what the government should be allowed to do. By combining warrants, bans on flawed tech, local oversight, and data silos, we move from a state of surveillance-by-default to one of accountability-by-design.
SCPD’s lack of accountability and Kertes’s close alignment with the police officer union are yet another reason why residents should not vote for him (Kertes).
The City of San Jose is currently fighting a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU of Northern California, the Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network (SIREN), and CAIR-California. Instead of jumping ahead, maybe the City of Santa Clara should see how that plays out.