As Cleveland Police Department increasingly uses surveillance technology, legal experts say the city needs to exercise stricter oversight.
The Cleveland Police Department uses body cameras, dashboard cameras, license plate readers, and gunfire detection technology. How these cameras are used and how long the data is retained is determined by department policy, not law.
There is also external oversight: an independent police oversight board, the Community Policing Commission (CPC), has final authority over police policy. Board members can review and change new and existing policies.
But Brian Ray, a law professor at Cleveland State University who directs the Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection Center, said the committee has many responsibilities that make it difficult to focus on oversight.
In 2022, Mayor Justin Bibb pledged to create a technology advisory committee to address privacy and civil rights concerns. The committee has met once.
Other cities have enacted laws to oversee police use of surveillance technology, and Wray and other legal experts said they would like to see a similar oversight board or ordinance in Cleveland.
What kind of oversight structure does Cleveland have right now?
Jonathan P. Witmer Rich, a law professor at Cleveland State University, said the Cleveland Police Department could be held accountable for its misuse of surveillance technology, but that it could also face stronger oversight.
In court, a judge can decide whether police violated people's Fourth Amendment rights in collecting evidence, which protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures, but most cases are resolved through plea bargains, Witmer Rich said.
“Most police searches and seizures will never be tested in court,” he said.
Commissioner Piet van Lier said the CPC cannot tell the department what technology it can use, “but we can set guidelines on how it can be used.”
The CPC's Police Policy Committee, with the assistance of legal experts volunteering on the Surveillance Technology Working Group, has been reviewing and changing Cleveland Police policy.
In April, the committee approved a change in the department's policy regarding ShotSpotter, a gunshot detection technology.
The committee added language such as, “A ShotSpotter alert alone is not a justification for stopping and searching a vehicle, entering a backyard, or searching a suspect in a store or residence.”
Van Lier said the changes are also intended to ensure people's rights are not violated when police respond to scenes in response to gunshot detection alerts.
“It's starting to become a Fourth Amendment issue.”
At a recent CPC forum explaining what surveillance technology police use and how they use it, Whitmer Rich said the amount of technology police use could be a Fourth Amendment issue.
“The more the system gets better and the more comprehensive it becomes and the more accurate it becomes, that starts to become a Fourth Amendment issue,” Whitmer Rich said, “because it also opens the door to violating people's privacy in more serious and invasive ways.”
The committee is currently reviewing the department's policy on body cameras, which Van Lier said the department recently updated to include dash camera footage. The CPC committee is also reviewing the department's policy on automatic license plate readers.
The group also plans to develop policy for Fusus, a new technology platform that “integrates live video, data, sensor feeds and more” from multiple sources, according to its website.
At Cleveland's Real-Time Crime Center, the Investigative Support Unit uses Fusus to analyze all data coming from publicly and privately accessible cameras, ShotSpotter and other technologies.
“We did it [information] “We need to know what's going on and communicate that to our officers as quickly as possible,” said Sergeant Jose Garcia, who heads the unit.
Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist and spokesman for the ACLU-Ohio, said such a central platform is concerning, saying that by combining the data, the government could have enough information to surveil everyone in a city.
“Where is that person getting treatment? Are they getting mental health treatment? Are they going to gay bars? Are they going to gun stores? Are they going to a mosque or a temple or a church? Any of that,” Daniels said. “Obviously, for many people, there are details of their private lives and whereabouts that they don't want the government to know.”
What are other cities doing?
The American Civil Liberties Union has developed guidelines called Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS), which have helped more than 20 cities enact surveillance laws.
Under these laws, police forces must explain why they want to use a particular technology before deploying it. The oversight body also reviews existing technology and makes policy recommendations.
“The CCOPS process requires the city to get approval before they can use something,” Whitmer Rich said. “Whereas in Cleveland, the police department has to start using something before they can do it.” [CPC] We are working on what the policy should be after the police are already using it.”
In Oakland, California, an independent advisory committee considers costs, privacy risks, and whether the technology will disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. It makes recommendations based on its findings to the City Council, which almost always enforces the committee's policies and restrictions.
Ray, who worked with analysts in Oakland, said the best model for independent oversight would also include annual reports on how the technology was used and who had access to the data.
“This gives us the opportunity to continually evaluate whether the technology is serving its intended purpose,” Ray said, “and also whether the restrictions we have in place are being adhered to.”
In February, then-Safety Director Cully Howard told Marshall Project Cleveland that the city's proposed technical advisory committee wouldn't hold public meetings. Instead, it would release a report after quarterly meetings. When asked whether residents could trust the reports' accuracy, Howard replied, “You'll just have to trust us.”
The committee met in March and included the two area police chiefs, Van Lier said. It was organized by former deputy public safety chief Jamika Dye, who was fired in mid-April.
Governments must legitimize surveillance technology
Daniels, of the ACLU of Ohio, said she would like to see laws that would limit not only police policies but also what police can do with surveillance data.
“It's not our job to justify to the government why we don't want to be monitored,” he said. “We're flipping the debate. The justification is to explain why the government needs to take this step, why it needs to spend all this money to do these things.”
During a forum last week, a community member asked Daniels whether there had been any instances of Cleveland police misusing surveillance data.
Daniels said there is no need to wait until there are instances of abuse to enact legislation.
He gave Signal Cleveland the example of restaurant sanitation regulations.
“I don't want to wait until I get sick to go to a restaurant because of the way they handled my food,” Daniels said. “There should be laws in place stating that food should be handled in an ABC way so people don't get sick.”
“When politicians fail…the police crack down harder.”
LaTonya Goolsby, executive director of Black Lives Matter Cleveland, said surveillance technology used by police, particularly ShotSpotter, is not effective at reducing crime. Gunshot detection sensors are primarily installed in Black and brown communities, Goolsby said.
“When politicians don't address social issues, we see more policing, more surveillance and more criminalization in our communities,” Goldsby said at a forum last week. “And here's why: It doesn't have any effect on gun violence. It doesn't reduce the crime that we see in our communities.”
A study published in the Journal of Urban Health found that ShotSpotter “does not significantly affect firearm-related homicide or arrest outcomes.”
Sarah Fadlallah, who works with the Cleveland Palestine Advocacy Community, was one of the community members who attended the forum. She said the discussion raised several concerns.
“I remain convinced that excessive policing and surveillance is not the path we should be taking,” Fadlallah said. “We should be doing a better job of implementing community-led programs, initiatives that actually target the gun violence that we're trying to eliminate.”
