New surveillance cameras on hold for Burlingame

Cities on the Peninsula have increasingly turned to the cameras, often in response to reports of property crime. But Burlingame councilmembers expressed concern related to privacy and civil rights and the potential for the cameras to increase police interactions with motorists.

“This isn’t a bike share program, this is something different, these are policies that have real privacy concerns particularly involved with policing which are under more scrutiny these days, which could have racial bias implications,” Councilmember Emily Beach said.

The council last month discussed the issue but did not bring the matter to a vote, requesting more information, specifically related to how neighboring cities had rolled out the technology and if there were concerns. Police Chief Mike Matteucci this week said that other police chiefs he had reached out to had not reported any problems.

Councilmember Michael Brownrigg, however, said he was unconvinced, and asked that civil rights groups be surveyed as well, in addition to clear operating procedures outlined.

“To say that we’ve heard no ill stories because the only people we’ve asked are police chiefs, I’m sorry that’s not really a great survey,” he said.

Brownrigg said he had confidence in the police chief’s commitment to “unbiased approaches in difficult situations,” and was ultimately confident the department would not misuse the technology. But, he said “I try to minimize the number of interactions between armed police and people of color, frankly, because this country has such a horrible record of those interactions.”

Councilmember Donna Colson countered the point, adding that “inviting crime into our city is also not going to solve the problem.” She also pointed to state law that requires the city to collect information regarding the ethnic and other makeup of those stopped.

“Yes, we don’t want to have unnecessary altercations but if somebody has a warrant out for their arrest I do want our police to pull them over and investigate why they’re here,” she said. “From what I hear talking to friends of mine and residents who have been burglarized with children in their home … I want to make sure our residents feel safe.”

Councilmember Ann O’Brien Keighran similarly cited constituent crime concerns, and suggested the city start with a limited number of cameras and increase the amount if the program proved successful. She said reports could be given to alert if there were problems.

Not discussed by the council were some of the intricacies of implementation. The scope of data retention and sharing, for instance, would be largely up to the council. Some cities have opted to keep data local with deletion after 30 days while others have shared data in a central state database for longer storage, with data able to be accessed by outside law enforcement agencies.

Cameras could also be placed at set locations or affixed to police vehicles. Many nearby cities have opted to go with ALPR provider Flock Safety, whose cameras are somewhat mobile and can be moved if desired.

Such cameras come at a yearly cost of $2,500 per camera, plus a $250 initial setup fee. Most cities have somewhere between five and 30 cameras citywide. According to Chief Matteucci, all of Burlingame’s immediate neighbors use the cameras.

The council also discussed the cameras in 2015 but opted not to allow their use. The matter will be brought up again, likely in coming months.

corey@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200, ext. 105