📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

San Mateo County Grand Jury • 2016-2017

A Delicate Balance: Privacy Vs. Protection Issue | Summary | Methodology | Glossary | Background | Discussion |

Published: December 31, 2017 79 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 5 findings

F1 Page 57

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 howthetechnologies are used and what theydiscovered. Response: The Cityagreeswith this finding,relying on the Grand Jury's representationsintheirreport.

F2 Page 57

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 agrees with this finding, relying on the Grand Jury's representations in their report.

F3 Page 57

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) atpublicforums and citycouncil meetings: Cityor Town Council meeting orstaff reports posted onwebsite: Atherton, Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco Honorable Leland Davis, III September 18, 2017 Public meeting or Town Halls: East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, Millbrae, Portola Valley, Ladera, and Emerald Hills. The City ofMenlo Park mentioned also having used social media for this purpose Response: The Cityagreeswith this finding,relying on the Grand Jury's representationsin theirreport.

F4 Page 58

With the exception of Burlingame, which borrowed ALPR technology, the cities and the San Mateo County Sheriff's 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 agrees with thisfinding, relying on the Grand Jury's representations in their report. The City website now has a link to the Automated License Plate Reader usage and privacy policy.

F5 Page 58

With the exception of the City of San Mateo, the generic ALPR policies posted by cities and the Sheriff's Office do not provide specific information that helpful toresidents. Response: The City of Burlingame has no independent basis on which to agree or disagree with the Grand Jury's findings as to other jurisdictions' policies. The City of Burlingame believes that the policy posted on the Burlingame Police Department web page is both specific and helpful toresidents. Responses toGrand Jury Recommendations:

Recommendations 3

R1
Page 58

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 ofsurveillance tools (such as ALPRs) and investigative tools (such as ShotSpotter and body worn cameras) utilized by the agency. At aminimum, such awebpage 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, orlocating stolen vehicles Who isauthorized tocollect oraccess the data collected How the system ismonitored to ensure that the data are secure Who owns the surveillance technology What measures were taken toensure the accuracy ofthe 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 theirwebsites as related toALPRs. The CityofBurlingamewill 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
Page 58

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: Registeronline with the CityofBurlingame to receive regularCityupdates atwww.Burlingame.org Honorable Leland Davis, III September 18,2017 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 Burlingame will implement this recommendation for tools used in the conduct of basic police business such as Body Worn Cameras and ALPRs. The City of Burlingame recognizes that not all community members utilize internet and social media, and will seek opportunities atpublic meetings, including neighborhood association meetings,neighborhood watch gatherings, and publicly noticed City meetingstoshare thisinformation. This recommendation cannot be fully implemented for certain law enforcement investigative tools and techniques primarily used for complex criminal investigations without jeopardizing the ability to gather evidence for the serious crimes in question. Therefore, the City will not hold public forums or conduct similar outreach on certain investigative techniques or technology where doing so might compromise critical investigations. Checks and balances already exist through the legal system, including various warrant requirements and Fourth Amendment protections, regarding the use of these techniques. Certain specialized electronic tools are precisely aimed at members ofcriminal organizations,careercriminals,and those underinvestigation forviolent crimes,with minimal to no impact to the law-abiding public. The City does and will continue to take steps to ensure that the informational privacyofpersonswho are notsuspectsorinvolved in such investigationswill be protected. 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
Page 59

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 byDecember 31, 2017. Such ordinances orpolicies should require, ata minimum: Plans to acquire new surveillance technology be announced at public meetings and other forums to ensure thatthecommunity 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 make policies that govern the use of basic police surveillance tools and technologies publicly available. Where possible, the decision to acquire and how to use new technologies will be vetted through apublic process. However, this recommendation cannot be implemented in full because it creates obstacles that could limit law enforcement's ability to adapt and evolve to criminal activity and could compromise the safety and security of residents. Lawenforcementagencies may,undercertain circumstances,be unable towaitfor regularly scheduled publicmeetingsoftheirgoverning bodies whileinpursuitofcriminals and crimesin progress. Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates atwww.Burlingame.org Honorable Leland Davis, III September 18, 2017 Furthermore, existing protections for both personal information and investigatory activities are adequate to address the Grand Jury's concerns. Existing state law, in the form of Government Code 6254(O, exempts investigative, intelligence, and security records from disclosure under the California Public Records Laws. This exception to disclosure protects the integrity of investigations and the criminal legal process, as well as allowing jurisdictions to withhold certain information regarding individuals acquired as a result of an investigation. It is not absolute, however, and the public retains adequate access to information about police activities to be able to monitor a department's overall approach. In addition to the guarantees ofthe Fourth Amendment, California law specifically protects certain kinds of personal information. For example, under California Penal Code 1546 - 1546.4, known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, law enforcement is required to obtain court orders related to electronic communications intercept surveillance under Penal Code 629.50, pen register of trap and trace device under Penal Code 630, and for electronic tracking devices court orders are required under Penal Codes 1524 and 1534. In sum, the City remains committed toan open and publicprocess regarding law enforcement techniques wherever it is feasible and will not compromise sensitive investigations into serious criminal activity. In those contexts in which a full public discussion is not possible, the City nonetheless rigorously adheres to existing legal restraints to ensure that both public safety and personal privacy are protected. Thank you forthe opportunity to respond to this report. Registeronline with the CityofBurlingame to receive regularCity updates atwww.Burlingame.org City of East Palo Alto Larry Moody, Mayor Ruben Abrica, Vice Mayor Office of the Mayor Council Members Lisa Gauthier Carlos Romero Donna Rutherford October 4, 2017 Hon. Leland Davis, III Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevech Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Email: ckresevich@sanmateocourt.org RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT: “A DELICATE BALANCE: PRIVACY VS. PROTECTION.” Honorable Judge Davis, I appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the five findings and three recommendations referenced in the Grand Jury Report filed on July 12, 2017. The City of East Palo Alto’s response to the findings and recommendations are listed below. Response to Grand Jury Findings: