Judge to decide if SF police unlawfully used surveillance

Civil rights activists and the city of San Francisco both asked a judge Tuesday to issue summary judgment in their favor in a lawsuit that alleges the police unlawfully used surveillance technology during protests over George Floyd's death in 2020.

"During those protests, the SFPD violated a city law, the Surveillance Technology Ordinance, by acquiring and using a network of over 300 cameras to monitor the protests," Mukund Rathi, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in an interview.

EFF and the ACLU of Northern California represents three activists who helped organize protests in San Francisco against police violence after Floyd's murder by a Minnesota police officer. Hope Williams et al. vs. City and County of San Francisco, CGC-20-587008, (San Francisco Sup. Ct., filed Oct. 07, 2020).

San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer will decide the case.

In a motion for summary judgment, Deputy City Attorney Wayne K. Snodgrass argued the plaintiffs' argument is based on a more restrictive and "imaginary" version of the surveillance technology legislation.

"While plaintiffs repeatedly urge this Court to read additional terms into Section 19B.5(d) of that Ordinance that the Board could have enacted but chose not to, and also ask this Court to ignore the clear terms of that section that the Board did enact, they fail to raise any tenable argument defeating the City's motion," Snodgrass wrote.

The Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinance, enacted in July 2019, requires city agencies to get county Board of Supervisors approval to use surveillance technologies, including surveillance cameras.

According to the city's motion for summary judgment, within the ordinance is a grandfather clause that states if a department was using a surveillance system before enactment of the law, the department could continue to use it until the supervisors decide to pass an ordinance regulating the use.

The SFPD used the surveillance network during the Pride celebration, two weeks before the law took effect. Therefore, the city argues, the surveillance network is considered grandfathered in.

After Floyd's death, protests erupted in San Francisco that soon turned to rioting and looting. The police department requested and received access to cameras owned and operated by the Business Improvement District in Union Square. The agency used it to monitor for criminal activity.

Rathi said the plaintiffs in this case are activists experienced in organizing and understand the concerns of people fighting against police misconduct and violence, including what makes people feel safe or unsafe at protests.

"When people see this, it makes them nervous," he said. "They think, 'If police are willing to violate our rights, are we safe when we go to a protest? Is this going to get me caught up in the very system I'm protesting against?'"

In their motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs seek to enjoin the city from further violations of the city ordinance, arguing SFPD used or borrowed new surveillance networks with brazen disregard of the law and of civil rights protections.

"This is a case about upholding San Franciscans' rights to be free from unfettered police surveillance," Rathi said.