From [HERE] The Tenth Amendment Center has joined a diverse group of organizations supporting a California bill that would increase oversight and transparency of law enforcement surveillance technology. Passage of the bill would take the first step toward limiting the unchecked use of surveillance technologies that violate basic privacy rights and feed into a broader national surveillance state.
Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) introduced Senate Bill 1186 (SB1186) on Feb. 15. The legislation would require a local law enforcement agency to draft a Surveillance Use Policy for each type of surveillance technology it operates and the information collected. It would then have to submit the policy to its governing body for approval at a regularly scheduled hearing, open to the public. If the plan is not adopted, the law enforcement agency would be required to cease using all surveillance technology within 30 days. The proposed law would require law enforcement agencies to amend their use policies for any new surveillance technology they acquire in the future, subject to the same approval requirements. Without approval, the agency could not use the new technology.
The Tenth Amendment Center has joined a large coalition of organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ACLU California, CAIR California, Restore the Fourth, and Media Alliance in signing a letter supporting passage of SB1186.
“We are organizations dedicated to protecting civil rights and civil liberties, including the right to be free from intrusive, discriminatory, and unaccountable government surveillance. Public safety in the digital era requires that surveillance technology by law enforcement be transparent and accountable. SB 1186 enhances public safety by safeguarding local power to debate and set community standards for law enforcement’s acquisition and use of surveillance technology.”
SB1186 has passed two Senate Committees, but it faces an uphill battle toward final passage. Law enforcement interests in California vehemently oppose any oversight or accountability over their surveillance programs. Numerous law enforcement lobbying organizations officially opposed the measure, including the California Sheriff’s Association, LA sheriffs, Riverside sheriffs and the California Peace officers Association. Their arguments are similar to ones we’ve seen in opposition to reforming asset forfeiture laws.
As the coalition letter points out, “the bill ensures that members of the public have a seat at the table. They will be notified of the proposed surveillance technology before the vote, and they will have an opportunity to be heard. SB 1186 ensures that these local discussions and decisions are not made in secret.”
Local police have access to a mind-boggling array of surveillance equipment. As it now stands, many law enforcement agencies can obtain this high-tech, extremely intrusive technology without any approval or oversight. The federal government often provides grants and other funding sources for this spy-gear, meaning local governments can keep their purchase “off the books.” Members of the community, and even elected officials, often don’t know their police departments possess technology capable of sweeping up electronic data, phone calls and location information.
In some cases, the feds even require law enforcement agencies to sign non-disclosure agreements, wrapping surveillance programs in an even darker shroud of secrecy. We know for a fact the FBI required the Baltimore Police Department to sign such an agreement when it obtained stingray technology. This policy of nondisclosure even extends to the courtroom, with the feds actually instructing prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions about the department’s use of stingray devices on the stand during a trial, citing a federal nondisclosure agreement.
As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”
SB1186 would prevent local police in California from obtaining technology without public knowledge, and would provide an avenue for concerned residents to oppose and stop the purchase of spy gear.
Impact on Federal Programs
Information collected by local law enforcement undoubtedly ends up in federal databases. The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, local data collection using ALPRs, stingrays and other technologies create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans, and obtain and store information on millions of Americans, including phone calls, emails, web browsing history and text messages, all with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it. [MORE]