Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 108-2017 (17-870)City of South San Francisco - P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA City Council Resolution: RES 108 -2017 File Number: 17 -870 Enactment Number: RES 108 -2017 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT, DATED JULY 12, 2017, ENTITLED "A DELICATE BALANCE: PRIVACY VS. PROTECTION ", AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SEND THE RESPONSE LETTER ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL. WHEREAS, pursuant to California Penal Code section 933, a public agency which receives a Grand Jury Report addressing aspects of the public agency's operations, must respond to the Report's findings and recommendations contained in the Report in writing within ninety days to the Presiding Judge of the San Mateo County Superior Court; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and reviewed the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report, dated July 12, 2017, entitled "A Delicate Balance: Privacy vs. Protection;" and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Civil Grand Jury Report; and WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Police Department will implement in part Rl; and WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Police Department will not implement R2 or R3; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the response to the Civil Grand Jury, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO hereby approves the City Council's response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report, dated July 12, 2017, entitled, "A Delicate Balance: Privacy vs. Protection" as set forth in Exhibit A attached to this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby authorizes the City Manager to send the response letter to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of San Mateo County on behalf of the City Council. City of South San Francisco Page 1 File Number: 17 -870 Enactment Number: RES 108 -2017 At a meeting of the Special City Council on 9/6/2017, a motion was made by Richard Garbarino, seconded by Mark Addiego, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed. Yes: 5 Matsumoto, Normandy, Addiego, Gupta, and Garbarino Attest City of South San Francisco page 2 September 6, 2017 The Honorable Leland Davis, III Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 -1655 Subject: Response of the City of South San Francisco to the Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance: Privacy vs. Protection." Dear Judge Davis, Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury report entitled "A Delicate Balance: Privacy vs. Protection." The City of South San Francisco's response to both the findings and recommendations are listed below. Responses to Grand Jury Findings: Fl. The County of Santa Clara passed an ordinance in 2016 requiring agencies to adopt policies related to any surveillance technology before such technology is acquired or activated. The ordinance also requires agencies to issue annual reports explaining how the technologies are used and what they discovered. Response: The City of South San Francisco understands what is represented in the Grand Jury Report. The City is not intimately familiar with local ordinances in other jurisdictions regarding surveillance technology, and therefore takes no position on this Finding. F2. The County and cities in San Mateo County have not enacted any ordinances governing their acquisition and use of surveillance technology, or the accessibility, management, or retention of the information acquired. Response: The City of South San Francisco agrees that it has not enacted any ordinances specifically governing the acquisition and use of surveillance technology, or the accessibility, management, or retention of the information acquired. The City does not have enough information regarding other local ordinances within San Mateo County regarding surveillance technology to state a position. F3. The County and cities in San Mateo County do inform residents about the use of some surveillance tools (Automated License Plate Readers and Body Worn Cameras) at public forums and city council meetings: • City or Town Council meeting or staff reports posted on website: Atherton, Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco • Public meeting or Town Halls: East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, Sheriff's Office • The City of Menlo Park mentioned also having used social media for this purpose. Response: The City of South San Francisco agrees that it informs residents about the use of surveillance tools at public forums and city council meetings. The City is not familiar with the practices in other jurisdictions regarding surveillance technology. F4. With the exception of Burlingame, which borrowed ALPR technology, the cities and the San Mateo County Sheriffs Office have complied with the law requiring ALPR users to "conspicuously" post a link to the ALPR usage and privacy policy on their websites. Response: The City of South San Francisco agrees that it complies with applicable state law requiring ALPR users to "conspicuously" post a link to the ALPR usage and privacy policy on their websites. The City is not familiar with the practices in other jurisdictions regarding surveillance technology. F5. With the exception of the City of San Mateo, the generic ALPR policies posted by cities and the Sheriffs Office do not provide specific information that helpful to residents. Response: The City of South San Francisco believes that the policy posted on the South San Francisco Police Department web page is both specific and helpful to residents. However, the South San Francisco Police Department will evaluate the provided information to determine if amendments are necessary. The City is not familiar with the practices in other jurisdictions regarding surveillance technology. Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations: R1. In addition to providing a conspicuous link to usage and privacy policies on operator websites (as required by law for ALPRs), all law enforcement agencies in the County should create an easily accessible and simply written information webpage by December 31, 2017, which lists the types of surveillance tools (such as ALPRs) and investigative tools (such as ShotSpotter and body worn cameras) utilized by the agency. At a minimum, such a webpage shall include these details about each tool: • What is the use and purpose of the technology, such as assisting in ongoing criminal investigations, locating missing children, or locating stolen vehicles • Who is authorized to collect or access the data collected • How the system is monitored to ensure that the data are secure • Who owns the surveillance technology • What measures were taken to ensure the accuracy of the data • How long the data will be retained Response: This recommendation will be implemented in part. San Mateo County Law Enforcement Agencies have already, by law, posted privacy policy information on their websites as related to ALPRs. The City of South San Francisco will expand its ALPR privacy and usage policy to include additional electronic equipment where the release of such information does not unnecessarily jeopardize public safety and criminal investigations, and will place that information in a conspicuous location on its website by December 31, 2017. R2. All law enforcement agencies in the County shall increase the number and types of opportunities for community members to voice support for or opposition to any proposed addition of new surveillance technologies including, but not limited to: • Surveying residents to better understand their concerns about law enforcement's use of surveillance tools and address those concerns in public meetings, Town Halls, Neighborhood Watch sessions and other local gatherings. • Using social media platforms such as Nextdoor© to keep residents engaged and informed about surveillance technologies and its uses in your community. Response: The City of South San Francisco believes this request to be reasonable for tools used in the conduct of basic police business such as Body Worn Cameras and ALPRs. Furthermore, the City of South San Francisco recognizes that not all community members utilize internet and social media, and will seek opportunities at public meetings, including neighborhood association meetings, neighborhood watch gatherings, and publicly noticed city meetings to share this information. However, this recommendation will not be implemented for law enforcement investigative tools and techniques primarily used for complex criminal investigative purposes. It is neither appropriate nor reasonable for law enforcement agencies to publicly explain and expose certain critical investigative techniques or technology in any type of public forum. Nor would law enforcement agencies seek public input or conduct feedback surveys from the public on the specialized tactics and techniques employed within the criminal justice system designed to detect criminal activity. Checks and balances already exist through the legal system regarding the use of these techniques. Certain specialized electronic tools are precisely aimed at members of criminal organizations, career criminals, and those under investigation for violent crimes, with minimal to no impact to the law- abiding public. Public discussion of all law enforcement technologies and investigative techniques would be detrimental to ongoing criminal investigations, compromise capabilities to protect communities, and allow individuals involved in criminal activity to more easily avoid detection. All agencies in San Mateo County have signed a data and records sharing agreement with the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC) that places data in a secure repository located in a federal facility subject to federal and state statutes and policies addressing access, storage, and disclosure. R3. Staff shall bring to the city or town council (in the case of a police department or police bureau) or the Board of Supervisors (in the case of the Sheriff s Office) a policy or ordinance for consideration at a public meeting by December 31, 2017. Such ordinances or policies should require, at a minimum: • Plans to acquire new surveillance technology be announced at public meetings and other forums to ensure that the community is aware and engaged when new technology is under consideration. • Any "use policies" related to surveillance technology be readily available and easy to access on the city or County websites. • Oversight and accountability be supported by posting periodic reports on the effectiveness of the surveillance tools used in the community Response: Existing law requires that law enforcement agencies provide information to local governing bodies when acquiring certain new technologies. Law enforcement agencies also make policies that govern the use of our basic police surveillance tools and technologies publicly available. However, this recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable for law enforcement agencies to disclose reports on the effectiveness of surveillance tools. To do so would create obstacles that would limit law enforcement's ability to adapt and respond to criminal activity and would compromise the safety and security of residents. Furthermore, existing state law protects law enforcement agencies from having to disclose investigative, intelligence and security records under the California Public Records Act. Government Code 6254 (f) recognizes the need for discretion and protects law enforcement agencies from disclosing investigative and tactical information that would compromise its law enforcement capabilities. Existing laws also prohibit the release of information derived from, or related to the security of law enforcement technology systems specifically to ensure those protecting the public are not compromised. Under California Penal Code Sections through 1546 through 1546.4, known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, law enforcement is required to obtain court orders related to electronic communications intercept surveillance. Furthermore, California Penal Code Sections 1524 and 1534 require court orders for the use of electronic tracking devices. Sincerely, Mike Futrell City Manager OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER September 6, 2017 The Honorable Leland Davis, III Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 -1655 CITY COUNCIL 2017 PRADEEP GUPTA, PH.D., MAYOR LIZA NORMANDY, VICE MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER RICHARD A. GARBARINO, COUNCILMEMBER KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER Subject: Response of the City of South San Francisco to the Grand Jury Report "A Delicate Balance: Privacy vs. Protection." Dear Judge Davis, Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury report entitled "A Delicate Balance: Privacy vs. Protection." The City of South San Francisco's response to both the findings and recommendations are listed below. Restlonses to Grand Ju Findin s' Fl. The County of Santa Clara passed an ordinance in 2016 requiring agencies to adopt policies related to any surveillance technology before such technology is acquired or activated. The ordinance also requires agencies to issue annual reports explaining how the technologies are used and what they discovered. Response: The City of South San Francisco understands what is represented in the Grand Jury Report. The City is not intimately familiar with local ordinances in other jurisdictions regarding surveillance technology, and therefore takes no position on this Finding. F2. The County and cities in San Mateo County have not enacted any ordinances governing their acquisition and use of surveillance technology, or the accessibility, management, or retention of the information acquired. Response: The City of South San Francisco agrees that it has not enacted any ordinances specifically governing the acquisition and use of surveillance technology, or the accessibility, management, or retention of the information acquired. The City does not have enough information regarding other local ordinances within San Mateo County regarding surveillance technology to state a position. City Hall: 400 Grand Avenue • South San Francisco, CA 94080 • P.O. Box 711 • South San Francisco, CA 94083 Phone: 650.877.8500 • Fax: 650.829.6609 Response: The City of South San Francisco agrees that it informs residents about the use of surveillance tools at public forums and city council meetings. The City is not familiar with the practices in other jurisdictions regarding surveillance teclinology, ReSDonses to Grand atf s° D Who owns the surveillance technology. • What measures were taken to ensure the accuracy of the data? • How long the data will be retained? 113. Staff shall brig to the city or town council (in the case of a police department or prance bureau) or the Board of Supervisors (in the case of the Sheriff's . five) olic o ordinance for consideration t public tip by r 1, 2017® h o da s or policies s should require, at a minimum- Plans to acquire new surveillance technology be announced at public meetings and other forums to ensure that the community is aware and engaged when new technology is under consideration. Any muse policies" related to surveillance technology be readily available and easy to access on the city or County websites. 0 Oversight and accountability be supported by posting periodic reports on the effectiveness of the surveillance tools used in the community Response: Existing law requires that law enforcement agencies provide information to local governing bodies when acquiring certain new technologies. Law enforcement agencies also make policies that govern the use of our basic police surveillance tools and technologies publicly available. However, this recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable for law enforcement agencies to disclose reports on the effectiveness of surveillance tools. To do so would create obstacles that would limit law enforcement's ability to adapt and respond to criminal activity and would compromise the safety and security of residents. Furthermore, existing state law protects law enforcement agencies from having to disclose investigative, intelligence and security records under the California Public Records Act. Government Code 6254 (f) recognizes the need for discretion and protects law enforcement agencies from disclosing investigative and tactical information that would compromise its law enforcement capabilities. Existing laws also prohibit the release of information derived from, or related to the security of law enforcement technology systems specifically to ensure those protecting the public are not compromised. Under California Penal Code Sections through 1546 through 1546.4, known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, law enforcement is required to obtain court orders related to electronic communications intercept surveillance. Furthermore, California Penal Code Sections 1524 and 1534 require court orders for the use of electronic tracking devices. Sincerely, ike Futrell City Manager