2026-10-14 - Assembly Worksession

00:02Okay everyone, let's get this work

00:04session started.

00:05Today is Wednesday, October 14th. We are

00:07noticed from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. If we

00:10have a long discussion, we might go a

00:10little bit longer, but we'll uh

00:12deal with that when we get there. Uh

00:14this is a work session on AO 2026-108.

00:17Uh there is an S version, S1 version,

00:19some amendments. We're here to discuss

00:21uh

00:22those versions and amendments. I will

00:23turn it over to the sponsors after we do

00:26introductions. So, uh starting with

00:27members in the room.

00:28>> Donald Handeland.

00:31>> Sydney Scout.

00:32>> Daniel Volland.

00:33>> Anna Brawley.

00:34>> Yarrow Solvers.

00:36>> And then on the phone, I see Mr.

00:38Martinez.

00:40>> Yes, thank you.

00:41>> Mr. Johnson.

00:44>> I'm here, Chair.

00:45>> Mr. McCormick.

00:48>> Here.

00:49>> And then uh so that's everybody here.

00:51So, we have members in the

00:51administration, Assembly Counsel,

00:53Clerk's office, and a couple members of

00:56the public in the back. And then I'll

00:57just note, I know a couple members are

00:59out of town. So, hello as you are

01:01probably going to be listening to the

01:02recording in the future. Uh so with

01:04that, so again, we are here to discuss

01:06AO 2026-108 and its various versions and

01:09amendments. Uh this is regarding uh

01:12restrictions on surveillance technology

01:14and

01:15uh things related to APD technology and

01:18such. Long title. Uh title has been

01:21changing, but we'll see that in the S

01:23versions. So, first I'm going to turn it

01:25over to

01:26the underlying ordinance sponsors. Just

01:29if you want to kind of set the table.

01:31And then my understanding is today we're

01:32going to be talking through questions on

01:34any of the any of these versions as well

01:36as amendments. And then we had a work

01:37session on this um

01:39don't remember the date, but it was a

01:40couple weeks ago. So, I will turn to

01:43members McCormick, Volland, and Scout to

01:45kick us off.

01:47>> Okay, thank you, Chair. Yeah, so we

01:49thought we would just have the

01:50opportunity here today.

01:52Um

01:53you know, I I think recently we have had

01:57some

01:59large proposed policy changes on other

02:02matters where there's been a slew of

02:04amendments coming in at the last minute

02:06and

02:07sometimes folks feel a little bit caught

02:10off guard or frustrated that they don't

02:11have

02:14time to to process those things in

02:16advance of a decision point. So,

02:18we just wanted to preview preview some

02:21amendments that we may be bringing

02:23forward we being myself, member Scout,

02:26member McCormick, but also

02:29allow others to do so as well if there's

02:30ideas that they want to bring to the

02:31table or amendments that they want to

02:34preview.

02:35That they also can do so.

02:41I guess I'll speak to a few. You don't

02:43have printed copies in front of you.

02:46But there's

02:49four amendments that

02:52myself, member Scout, member McCormick

02:53are going to be bringing forward to the

02:55S version. That would essentially more

02:57closely align it with the S1 version.

03:01So, if if the S version, which is the

03:03mayor's version,

03:05is the one that ends up

03:07getting moved, amendments that we plan

03:10to bring forward would be

03:12amendment that would require warrants

03:14for sharing of information with other

03:16entities.

03:18Sort of talked about that when we had

03:20the work session and were able to

03:21contrast the different versions.

03:23That would be our first amendment. The

03:26second amendment would be to put in the

03:29in the S version also the language

03:31around

03:33when

03:34DMV integration would be allowed,

03:37Department of Motor Vehicles.

03:40Um

03:42We also heard some feedback from the

03:44public.

03:45Something that was in our original

03:47version, but is in neither the S nor the

03:49S1

03:51was having a codified retention limit,

03:55how long data can be stored if if it is

03:57not, you know, pertinent to an active

03:58investigation.

04:00Um, and then lastly, removal of the

04:05language in the S version, knowingly and

04:08willingly,

04:10um, that that that be a sort of a a

04:13predicate to,

04:14um, allow suspension of the system when

04:17there is a violation. Um, we we believe

04:20that

04:20language, um,

04:22that qualifying language is a little bit

04:23too high of of a barrier for the

04:25assembly to say, "Hey,

04:27let's take a pause on this, um,

04:29if there is a misuse or a violation of

04:31this technology."

04:33Um, so those are the four that we will

04:35sort of collectively be bringing

04:36forward, and then,

04:38um, member McCormick, if you're on the

04:40phone, I thought maybe,

04:42um, if it's okay, Chair, he could share

04:44next, um,

04:47his amendment, and then, um,

04:49we could turn it over to other members

04:50as you, uh, see best.

04:53>> Yeah, sure. And I'll note, um, I have a

04:55a few amendments as well. So, uh, so

04:56I'll just, for everybody's awareness, so

04:58there's, um, well, there's multiple

04:59packets here. There's the three

05:00versions, and then there's, uh, two sets

05:03of amendments. One is actually one, it's

05:04McCormick amendment number one. That's

05:05the one we'll talk about next. Um, and

05:08I'll turn to him in a second to speak to

05:09that. And then I have a a set of

05:12amendments, and there might be others in

05:13here as well. Only these are mine. So,

05:14um, so we'll come back to those, and

05:16then I'll also note, um,

05:18uh, that Ms. Silver's will want to be in

05:19the queue, but first we'll turn to Mr.

05:20McCormick. Go ahead.

05:25>> Thank you, Chair. Yeah, uh, talking

05:26about this amendment is a adds a charter

05:29change. It does sit inside of a

05:33previous versions. This would, um, go

05:36inside. It would not replace.

05:38This, um, adds a layer of adding

05:43uh, the charter amendment so that

05:45these are further

05:47added to the charter, can't be changed

05:49by just a

05:51a future body or future mayor, police

05:54chief. It adds in the requirement for a

05:57warrant being required to track a person

05:59over time from the surveillance data.

06:03It

06:04prohibits the city from joining outside

06:06surveillance networks or purchasing bulk

06:09data. It also adds in the previous

06:12biometrics that I believe member Volland

06:14was a part of that

06:16code change in 2023 of facial

06:18recognition, adding that into charter as

06:21well

06:22along with other biometrics that can be

06:24collected at a distance meaning like

06:27gate tracking, lip reading, voice,

06:30but does not touch uh

06:33like I guess close proximity biometric

06:35data like fingerprints or DNA

06:38being collected from a person

06:40as police typically do during

06:42um

06:44admits and in the custody.

06:47Um

06:48this charter change does not touch the

06:50um

06:51license plate readers that can still

06:54track off of a hot list. It just adds

06:56that warrant for going back through

06:59historical data that was collected.

07:03Um it also leaves out retention periods

07:05cuz I you know I don't think that that

07:07would be something that should be part

07:08of a a charter. That should be something

07:10that the assembly is able to

07:13to ratify or change at a later time.

07:17And that's my overview of the or

07:20amendment there. Thank you.

07:26>> Okay, thank you. So I'll turn to just

07:29questions, comments from members and

07:31I'll start with Ms. Zilvers.

07:35>> Um so

07:37uh

07:39I wanted to just kind of ask about your

07:42amendment a little bit. Um

07:45proportionate penalties.

07:47So, I think that's important. Like, if

07:50you have that amendment that

07:52strikes that language about it being I

07:55can't think of the word off the top of

07:57my head, but

07:58>> knowingly knowingly and willingly

08:00>> Yes. Um I think if you strike

08:04those that language, you have to have

08:07our proportionate penalty. Um because I

08:09think the question um in my mind is

08:12like, what happens if they accidentally

08:14keep the data for 15 days, right? Does

08:17every person in Anchorage get to sue or,

08:20you know,

08:21um is does the penalty apply for, you

08:23know, everyone whose rights were

08:25violated by that? Um

08:27And so, I think um

08:31seeing that developed maybe a little bit

08:32more into a separate proportionate

08:35penalty track.

08:36>> So, I don't think that the ordinance or

08:38our amendment is going to envision a

08:42penalty, per se. It's just it would

08:44allow the assembly

08:46as a body to suspend the technology for

08:49a time being.

08:50Um

08:51likely by resolution.

08:53So,

08:55um

08:57Yeah, I I don't think it's necessarily a

08:59punitive thing. It's more like whoa,

09:01something happened. We need to address

09:03that before this continues on and make

09:04sure there's not um

09:07the potential for abuse or going outside

09:12of what is in code.

09:13Um

09:15And essentially, yeah, have time to

09:19shore up whatever that is and prevent it

09:21from continuing happening.

09:23>> Okay.

09:24Um and then my next question is for

09:27member McCormick. Um

09:30I

09:31kind of want to get to the bottom of

09:34like what you are trying to address with

09:38policy.

09:39Um cuz I've been trying to follow along

09:41and I'm I'm a little confused um quite

09:43frankly. Uh

09:46so like I've watched some of your videos

09:47um on Facebook um and I saw the one

09:50where you used

09:53dashcam footage that had been redacted

09:56to

09:58blur the scene but show the officer's

10:00movements.

10:01Um

10:03voter approved dashcams uh you know and

10:06redaction and I'm wondering is that the

10:08type of stuff that you are

10:10trying to write policy around?

10:12Cuz like that's what you're showing in

10:13your videos. And so I I'm just I'm

10:15confused and I I'd like a little bit

10:17more information on what you're actually

10:19trying to write policy for. Are you

10:21trying to regulate dashcam and bodycam

10:24footage? Are you trying to regulate

10:26redaction or redaction software or is it

10:29something else that you're trying to do?

10:34>> Yeah, software of all types is able to

10:35track people um and used in all

10:38different sorts of ways um and showing

10:41tracking is uh very viable to people's

10:44privacy and what they're concerned

10:46about. So we're looking to limit

10:49technology that would allow police to

10:52track individuals. They released video

10:55showing uh them tracking individuals and

10:59when you talk about Fusus, Fusus is a

11:02incredibly large data set. And you can

11:05use that technology across that large

11:07data set to then do what we're talking

11:09about which is tracking individuals,

11:11developing a mosaic of their life,

11:13seeing where they go, where they come

11:14from, who they talk to, um and where

11:17they spend their money and use that um

11:19in ways that people find uh

11:21unacceptable, invasion of their privacy.

11:25>> So

11:27do you consider

11:30body camera footage and dash cam footage

11:34that has been redacted to protect the

11:37privacy of individuals or the scene

11:40within that footage. Do you consider

11:42that person tracking technology that you

11:46are trying to

11:49write policy around?

11:53>> Yeah, again, so tracking of people can

11:56be used in multiple different ways. It

11:57can be used to redact everything outside

11:59of that individual. Um but it shows that

12:02there's technology that is uh being used

12:05to to do that and it can be used in

12:07other ways. It can be used across body

12:09cameras, license plate readers, um

12:12cameras set up in Town Square Park. Uh

12:14again, the same technology that tracks

12:16people can be used to redact the area

12:18outside of them and it can be used to

12:20track them as an individual across

12:22multiple different uh areas of

12:24collection.

12:26>> So, do you want to limit

12:29ATPD's ability to

12:33redact footage to protect the privacy of

12:37certain individuals within that footage?

12:41>> I think people are very interested in

12:43the protection of their privacy and

12:45don't want to be tracked across uh

12:47multiple different mediums and that is

12:49what um this policy and charter change

12:52is looking to do.

12:55>> I don't think you understand my question

12:57or you haven't answered it. Um I'm

12:59talking about

13:00>> Okay, I think maybe we have an impasse

13:02then because I've answered your question

13:03multiple times.

13:04>> What do you want to do with redaction

13:06technology?

13:09Do you want to allow

13:11>> I want to make sure that we we protect

13:13people's privacy and that we're not

13:14tracking people across multiple

13:16different data sets that's being conglag

13:18uh conglag uh

13:20consolidated fuses that then would allow

13:23police to track people across multiple

13:25different uh

13:27mediums, methods, technologies.

13:30>> Okay. So, from what what I'm hearing,

13:31what I'm understanding is that you don't

13:33want APD to be able to redact

13:37the scene or other individuals within a

13:40video,

13:42um a body cam or a dash cam video

13:44because that involves

13:48um

13:48allowing like the officers' movements to

13:50be tracked. That's kind of what I'm

13:52understanding. Thank you.

13:55>> Okay. And then I I think Mr. Boone also

13:56wanted to respond to that.

13:57>> Yeah. So, um I'm not

14:00a sponsor of this particular amendment,

14:02at least not yet. But I think what might

14:04be helpful is for us to be grounded in

14:07in the language of the charter

14:09amendment. And what it does is it

14:11defines biometric surveillance.

14:14So, it said it said it means an

14:15automated or semi-automated process that

14:18identifies or verifies an individual,

14:20tracks an individual,

14:22or infers the identity of an individual

14:24based on physical or behavioral

14:26characteristics, including face, gait,

14:28voice, body shape, movement of the lips,

14:31uh whether applied to live or recorded

14:34images, video, or audio.

14:37Um and I I I also think I want to

14:40um

14:42back up even further, zoom out even

14:44further off of this particular

14:45amendment, and just um and and bring it

14:48back, you know, to the amendments that I

14:49spoke to, but also the underlying

14:51ordinances.

14:53Um and just make it clear that

14:57the guardrails I I at least I think I

14:59can speak for myself and and my

15:00co-sponsors, um

15:03the guardrails that we are hoping to see

15:04put in place in in order to protect

15:08people's privacy rights,

15:10um while we simultaneously need to

15:12address public safety issues in our

15:13community,

15:15this is not reactive to current

15:18practices, to current personnel, to

15:20current leadership at the department, to

15:22the current administration. This is

15:24proactive legislation

15:26um

15:27that it it if it is reactive uh is is

15:29more so reactive to what we are seeing

15:32in other jurisdictions. Um the level of

15:35privacy interference, um

15:38the the um evolving legal landscape.

15:41There was just a court case that that

15:42found

15:43um

15:44uh that

15:46the the use of surveillance tracking was

15:48unconstitutional and I can have uh the

15:50the clerk circulate um that that case to

15:53my colleagues.

15:54Um this is also about protecting the

15:56municipality um

15:58against litigation on on uh Fourth

16:01Amendment grounds.

16:04Um

16:05And so

16:06you know

16:08I I I guess I've I've heard some some um

16:14I want to make sure I'm not venturing

16:16into debate here.

16:17I I I've heard a concern about, you

16:19know, certain technology that we do or

16:21do not have currently. You know, we have

16:23really bad traffic cameras as it is.

16:25Um

16:27you know,

16:28and that may be true now, but technology

16:30evolves over time.

16:32Um and so this is really trying to put

16:34guardrails in place that says, you know,

16:36if we were to upgrade our cameras, if we

16:37were to bring on new technology, what do

16:40we want to have a a a base level of code

16:42that is not just

16:44changeable internal policy that can be

16:47changed on a whim, right? And where

16:49where how do we strike that balance? So

16:50that's what we're after.

16:52Um and then also there is that added

16:53piece of, you know, the real-time crime

16:55center.

16:57If we are able to access data from

17:00private cameras,

17:02um

17:03I know folks will have seen recently

17:05that Lowe's had a Flock camera and I

17:06guess

17:07some folks tore it down and

17:09if anybody's listening, we do not

17:10endorse that. Um please don't be

17:12vandalizing or destroying private

17:14property.

17:16Um

17:16but

17:18you know, that opens up a whole another

17:20series of questions and I I I think I'm

17:22sort of toying with the idea for an

17:23amendment of you know

17:26if if we are able to

17:29if if there's a Flock camera or an Axon

17:31camera or a Motorola camera,

17:33um cameras that have this sort of

17:35tracking technology um capability

17:39then

17:41when what is what is accessing that data

17:43look like? We might have protections in

17:46our own contracts with Axon.

17:48Um

17:49you know, where we say for our own

17:51cameras, for our own technology that we

17:53own, you know

17:55we're not going to give you access to

17:56that or that we protect everything. But

17:59what about the the third-party cameras

18:01and the third-party technology and how

18:02does the municipality make use of that

18:04in a way that also protects citizens'

18:07privacy rights? And I think it's a

18:08complicated tangled question. Um but

18:11yeah, I think that might be another

18:12thing that you see come forward from me.

18:13Thank you, Madam Chair.

18:15>> Thanks. Um so next I have Mr. Handeland

18:17in the queue. I also note we were joined

18:18by um member Park about 2:08. Mr.

18:20Handeland.

18:22>> Yeah, I have a couple questions for uh

18:23Mr. McCormick on So is the the purpose

18:26of moving this to or portions of this to

18:30a charter amendment is just to kind of

18:32uh in your view kind of raise the bar to

18:34make it so that it's more difficult for

18:36a future assembly or

18:38uh to uh kind of make any tweaks to

18:41that?

18:45>> That's correct. That's kind of what I've

18:47been hearing from the community of um

18:49what level protections they're looking

18:50for.

18:52>> Okay. And then also kind of on that it

18:54it's only moving I guess some portions

18:56of it uh if I'm I'm reading this

18:59correctly, is that right?

19:02>> That's correct. Um like I was saying,

19:04retention policy stuff is is not

19:07appropriate for uh charter level uh

19:10protections. That that um is something

19:12that a future assembly

19:14could modify.

19:16>> Okay. So, yeah, I guess as I

19:19am understanding this, it's it's kind of

19:20you you're putting the the main pieces

19:22there and so that if a future assembly

19:24wanted to to change that, it would just

19:25have to go back before voting the

19:27people.

19:30>> Correct.

19:31>> Okay, thank you.

19:33>> Okay, thanks. Next back in the queue,

19:35Ms. Silvers.

19:38>> Um I guess I just want to kind of direct

19:40the same question to Eva. Um

19:44have you had a chance to look over this

19:45yet and see

19:47how this

19:49or if it would affect

19:53using redaction software or redacting

19:57voter approved dashcam and body cam

20:00footage in order to protect the privacy

20:04of individuals other than the officers.

20:07Thank you.

20:08>> Uh thanks for the question. Do you mean

20:09specifically the proposed amendment that

20:11would turn into a charter amendment?

20:13>> Yeah, that I mean any of it actually,

20:16but I'm just looking at this definition

20:17of biometric surveillance. And I

20:19apologize I didn't get this

20:21a lot of this in time to read through it

20:24ahead of this.

20:26Um and so I apologize if I I

20:29you know, it's in here and I

20:31don't see it, but um yeah, I just I want

20:34to

20:36ensure or know

20:38um if any of this this charter amendment

20:41or any of the other stuff

20:43>> [clears throat]

20:43>> affects the ability

20:45to redact voter approved dashcam

20:49body and and this question comes up

20:50because this is the kind of stuff that I

20:52see on in videos on Facebook and stuff

20:54and that we're talking about um

20:56restricting.

20:58Um but I I think we need to

21:00Okay, I'm going to stop now cuz I think

21:02that's getting into debate, but I'm just

21:03going to go with my question. Thanks.

21:05>> Sure. And I will say caveat, I got these

21:08when I walked into the room and picked

21:09up picked them up off the table. Um but

21:11just looking at the at McCormick

21:12Amendment number one, I do think that

21:14there are um

21:16some unintended consequences uh of this

21:19draft, whether it were put into code or

21:21or into charter.

21:22And one of them is that

21:24it does put very very broad prohibitions

21:27on the use of surveillance technology.

21:28And if you look back at the

21:30uh

21:31first

21:34third page, that's the definition under

21:36N, uh surveillance technology is defined

21:38as any device, software, or system

21:41operated by or for the municipality that

21:43collects, records, or processes image,

21:45video, audio, etc. This that's

21:47essentially anything that collects this

21:49as an example, anything that collects

21:51video data.

21:52Um and then there are prohibitions on

21:54the next page, section 22.02.

21:57Um and these prohibitions are very broad

21:59um and very specific. It says, "No

22:02municipal agency officer, employee, or

22:03contractor shall use surveillance

22:05technology to monitor a person or

22:07vehicle over time or query, search, or

22:09analyze retained surveillance data to

22:12identify, locate, or monitor a

22:14particular person or vehicle." And then

22:16there are some specific listed

22:17exceptions, like, "Oh, you have pulled

22:19the information, you know, in a specific

22:21reported incident."

22:23Um but the there are the the exceptions

22:25are very very narrow.

22:27And this would, for example, uh the

22:29situation you're describing is APD,

22:31let's say they get a public records

22:32request for or traffic gets a public

22:34records request for some footage, um and

22:38they need to redact

22:40sections of it to protect the privacy,

22:42let's say there are children in the

22:43frame, right? And somebody uh you want

22:46to redact the children out of there to

22:47protect their privacy.

22:49Um

22:51this would actually tech that's being

22:53pulled in for provided for public

22:55records reasons. Public records

22:57are not on this list of exceptions, and

22:58so this would actually prohibit

23:01anyone from

23:03uh

23:03pulling that retained surveillance data,

23:06right? Which is anything that can

23:07collect video or audio of individuals.

23:09So, you would not be able to pull that

23:11retained surveillance data and analyze

23:12it for the purpose of identifying,

23:13locating, or monitoring particular

23:15person or vehicle. So, if you're like, I

23:16know there's these three minor crime

23:18victims in this footage,

23:20I don't want to reveal their identity,

23:22you would be pulling that video that

23:24video footage, analyzing it, and then

23:26processing it for redaction to protect

23:28the

23:29the identity of those individuals. And

23:30that would technically be prohibited

23:31under this. And again, this is

23:33just my first take at looking at it, but

23:35I do think that when you have a broad

23:36definition and very narrow exceptions to

23:39prohibitions on how you can use the

23:42technology broadly defined, you will end

23:44up with unintended consequences.

23:47>> And I guess just in a follow-up like um

23:49so, the the

23:50clip

23:51that um brought this to my attention was

23:53from a officer-involved shooting, I

23:55believe. Um and so, they

23:58redacted the scene to not show

24:03um you know, the scene. Um but, they

24:05showed the officers' movements um

24:08because

24:10the voter-approved dashcam and body

24:12camera footage uh you know, is for more

24:17um

24:18public transparency into these types of

24:20events. And so, having that footage out

24:24available to the public to see

24:26um

24:28is that the type of thing that would

24:30also be affected by this?

24:32>> Yes, in the specific example of your

24:35referencing, um my recollection of that

24:38footage um

24:40the public footage is that it revealed

24:42certain parts of that scene. It revealed

24:44the officer, maybe a vehicle, I don't

24:46recall. Um but, it clearly

24:49APD personnel went in there, identified

24:51the officer, right? Which is definitely

24:54identifying, locating, or moni-

24:55monitoring a particular person uh using

24:58retained surveillance data, right? From

25:00this technology and then redact it

25:02around it. So, I mean, this would

25:04technically prohibit that type of

25:05activity because in order to redact the

25:06rest, you have to identify the

25:08individual they're trying to show in the

25:10footage.

25:11>> So, it essentially render

25:14voter approved dash cam and body cam

25:17footage kind of useless for the public

25:19being able to see in a lot of instances.

25:23>> Um

25:25APD, I know that their records personnel

25:27are very strict about protecting privacy

25:30of individuals who are not, you know,

25:32uh

25:33individuals who are kind of bystanders

25:34or victims of crime um or incidents. Uh

25:38and so, I think that it would be

25:41difficult for them to responsibly and in

25:43accordance with their policies and

25:44privacy laws release footage publicly if

25:47they were not able to

25:49redact.

25:52>> Okay, thank you.

25:53>> Okay, thanks. Um next I have Mr. Bohan

25:55and then Mr. McCormick, did you want to

25:56be in the queue to respond to that or

25:58just generally in the queue?

26:01>> Uh I'll stay in after member Bohan and

26:04see if I want need anything to add.

26:06>> Okay, thanks. Go ahead, Mr. Bohan.

26:07>> Yeah, thank you. I I feel like we're

26:08kind of going down a rabbit trail with

26:09this redaction thing, but uh

26:11I would say this again, this is an

26:12opportunity. I I I know that sort of

26:15performance law on the fly is part of

26:16the job of the the municipal attorney,

26:18but now these are live and so, we all

26:20have an opportunity to have offline

26:22conversations and to dig into these

26:24things and digest them after this work

26:26session and before we take action on

26:28this item. Um I will say that I I

26:30disagree with the reading of the

26:31municipal attorney. As I read this,

26:34biometric surveillance surveillance

26:36means an automated or semi-automated

26:38process that identifies or verifies an

26:41individual, tracks an individual.

26:43It is absolutely possible to do

26:45redaction in post-processing of video.

26:48It may not automatic, it might make um

26:51add a little bit more time and effort.

26:53You might need someone who who knows

26:54how, who has those skills to be able to

26:56do video post-production.

26:58Um but you don't need it doesn't need to

27:00be automated or semi-automated. So,

27:03um

27:04I I don't think that as I read this that

27:06it would prohibit post-processing

27:08redaction. Thanks.

27:12>> Okay, thanks. Um next Mr. McCormick and

27:13then Ms. Park.

27:16Sorry, Eva wanted to respond first. Go

27:17ahead.

27:17>> Yeah, agreeing with member Boland, I

27:20um I had a different reading in that

27:22different

27:26>> I'm turning it again and again if other

27:27folks are in the queue.

27:29>> Yeah.

27:30Okay, yeah, Mr. McCormick and then Ms.

27:32Gardner will respond and then go to um

27:34Ms. Park.

27:38>> Thank you. Yeah, sorry, I'm on a little

27:39delay. Um I I had a different uh

27:42interpretation reading

27:43uh of that, but I welcome uh an

27:46amendment that makes sure that it is

27:48clear the intent of this is the

27:50surveillance and tracking of

27:51individuals, not uh redaction uh of

27:56privacy for

27:58for public transparency.

28:00Thank you.

28:03>> Thanks. Uh Ms. Gardner.

28:04>> Um thank you. Just a quick clarification

28:07um in response to member Boland's

28:09comment. So, if you look I was talking

28:10about the definition of surveillance

28:12technology and I was specifically

28:14referencing the prohibitions on the use

28:16of surveillance technology in section

28:1822.02a.

28:20There is a separate section on um

28:22restricting the use of biometric

28:24surveillance, which is the definition

28:25you're referencing. That's on the next

28:27page in subsection C. But there are some

28:29very broad prohibitions on accessing um

28:34using and accessing and analyzing

28:35surveillance anything from surveillance

28:37technology itself. So, I think we're

28:38talking about slightly different pieces

28:40of the of the proposed legislation.

28:46>> Okay, thank you. Uh next Ms. Park and

28:48then I'll also note um we do have a few

28:50other amendments to talk through. I know

28:51this one is a substantial one, but if we

28:54get to about 2:40 or so then I'm going

28:55to suggest we switch topics. So Miss

28:56Park and then I think Miss Mr.

28:58Handeland.

28:59>> Thank you, Chair. And I know I know this

29:02this this reads that

29:04it's specific to signals

29:07surveillance technology at

29:10amendment number five. It

29:12>> Sorry Miss Park, we're we're only on

29:14McCormick amendment number one right

29:15now. So we'll come to the other So if

29:17you want to ask questions we'll get to

29:18that. Okay, thank you. Next Mr.

29:20Handeland.

29:23>> If

29:24>> [clears throat]

29:24>> I'll I'll get back in later.

29:27>> Okay.

29:28Any other questions right now on

29:30amendment one? Mr. Handeland.

29:32>> Sorry, I guess So my question is maybe

29:34for for the attorneys on this. So I mean

29:36look at looking over this, this seems I

29:39mean now that we're switching from an AO

29:40to a charter amendment, is that allowed

29:43to be through

29:45just a normal amendment or does this now

29:47kind of kick it up into we've changed

29:50enough of it

29:52that I guess the public can I guess

29:54comment on on

29:56these changes separately

29:58compared to when we're I I guess I guess

30:00making minor tweaks versus major.

30:05>> Yes, if the amendment were approved, we

30:07would say that the nature of the

30:09ordinance would have changed to a degree

30:10that you would need to reopen the public

30:12hearing and

30:14re-notice the AO. However, you can

30:17debate and discuss the amendment itself

30:20and vote on it without doing that. It's

30:22only if you approve it that that

30:24requirement would be triggered.

30:26>> Okay. And then

30:27is the public hearing for this still

30:29open?

30:30It's closed at

30:31>> It's closed at this time.

30:33And also note there's also the ability

30:35to introduce a separate ordinance. So

30:37that doesn't preclude us doing what the

30:39path that we have, but that's another

30:40option. Thanks,

30:42uh any other questions, Mr. Handeland?

30:45Okay, then Ms. Scott.

30:47>> Thank you. Um I'm curious

30:50for um

30:52member McCormick

30:55on this amendment

30:57know- knowing this that it would reopen

30:59public hearing if we approve it. Um

31:03and yeah, I'm just thinking about the

31:05two different tracks here of

31:09guardrails now versus charter amendment

31:12going to voters. Um I'm curious for your

31:13thinking on

31:15why you chose this pathway of proposing

31:18an amendment to the AO that's moving

31:20versus a separate um

31:23charter amendment proposal on the same

31:25topic.

31:29>> Yeah, thank you. I did explore that with

31:31the attorneys and sounds like they

31:34answered members Handeland

31:36uh about that and some of the things we

31:37discussed. We had public comment on this

31:41on the technology regarding

31:43surveillance. I feel like feel like we

31:44had a robust conversations on it.

31:47I would like to see what where the body

31:50is at

31:51on it and then yeah, if if this is

31:53something that is going to move forward,

31:55we'll open back up for public comment

31:58and can have further public input on it

32:00as well.

32:03>> Thanks.

32:04Um I'm wondering maybe Matthew you can

32:06help me understand

32:08the pros and cons of amendment that

32:12puts this

32:14that kicks this current AO up a notch

32:16versus separate

32:18amendment pursuing

32:21a charter change separate from this

32:24ordinance.

32:26>> Uh so it generally just comes down to

32:28the members preference um how they want

32:31to introduce a proposed amendment

32:33whether it be through a substitute

32:34ordinance or whether it be by floor

32:36amendment. Typically, floor amendments

32:38are usually for smaller individualized

32:40changes, but that doesn't preclude a

32:41member from

32:43springing one like this.

32:44>> Yeah.

32:45I think

32:46Okay. I don't know if my question is

32:47making sense but can

32:49>> Yeah, Mr. Vong, go ahead.

32:50>> Yeah, say so if the amendment passes, we

32:52have to reopen public hearing.

32:53>> Yeah.

32:54>> If we bring a separate project forward,

32:56we would also have to have a public

32:57hearing and we would also have to

32:59introduce it. Um, so it would it so

33:02anybody who could who wants to could

33:03bring a separate item forward, um, but

33:05they would just have to follow our uh,

33:07required introduction timelines and

33:10public notice timelines.

33:16>> Mr. Handlin.

33:17>> Just kind of a follow up on that, I

33:18guess for the for the process cuz I know

33:20we've seen that uh, before. Is it

33:21essentially at the same meeting we sit

33:23there and we just essentially reopen

33:25public comment at that thing or I mean,

33:28isn't I guess kind of the point of us

33:30introducing us and having that notice is

33:32so that hey, the public has a certain

33:33amount of time to

33:36hear about stuff beforehand and have the

33:39opportunity to to testify, kind of get

33:41organized somewhat rather than just hey,

33:44we're going to do it, open it. If if you

33:45weren't there, then

33:47too bad, so sad.

33:48>> That that is correct. If you if you were

33:50to approve the amendment, then the next

33:52appropriate motion would be to postpone

33:54to the next regular meeting so that the

33:58ordinance as amended

34:00basically met the charter requirement

34:01for 7 days notice for new ordinance. So

34:04I guess the distinction then really does

34:06come down to

34:07um,

34:09whether or not and if if this were

34:11introduced by substitute version, then

34:13we would advise the body to just

34:14postpone everything to the next meeting

34:17to allow for this new substitute version

34:19to be

34:20uh, properly noticed to the public and

34:22then uh,

34:24reopen the public hearing and have

34:25debate.

34:26Um, vice this where the substance of the

34:29uh, Uh,

34:30a proposed amendment is before you, and

34:33the requirement to notice and postpone

34:35would only occur if you approved it.

34:37>> Okay. And so, if

34:39uh this goes forward, the amendment is

34:41approved, essentially before we are

34:43voting on that final approval, we would

34:46sit there and and have that break. So,

34:48the public Okay, that answers my

34:49question. Thank you.

34:51>> Okay. Um, well, and let me just add to

34:53that as well. So, I think that the key

34:55thing is that

34:56just to dig into this a little more,

34:58that the public all the public notices

35:00for every single ordinance, every public

35:01hearing we have for every meeting shows

35:03up on our If you go to the public

35:05notice, uh where it has all our

35:06meetings, and so that happens at least a

35:08week beforehand. That's

35:09The difference would be if that was

35:11already done, and then we closed a

35:12hearing, say we went to another item,

35:14then we came back to that that first

35:15item, and that had already been noticed,

35:17we could reopen the same hearing in the

35:19same meeting, because it's been noticed.

35:20In this particular case, and it's on our

35:22agenda now under the 11s, which is the

35:25unfinished business, no public hearing.

35:26So, that's the distinction, too. So, I

35:28just I just want to be clear in case

35:29it's not clear, that if it if a hearing

35:32had already happened in the same

35:33meeting, and it had been noticed as

35:34such, we could close and reopen it. We

35:36don't usually do that, but it is

35:37possible. This is a different situation.

35:40Um, and then, Ms. Silvers, you had a a

35:41point of information.

35:43>> Is it eight votes for a charter

35:44amendment to pass?

35:46Okay.

35:46>> That is correct.

35:48However, that doesn't attach to the

35:49amendment. It would still be a simple

35:51majority to approve the amendment. That

35:53heightened majority, the supermajority

35:55is only required to approve the AO if it

35:57were amended.

35:59>> Okay. So,

36:01by

36:02bringing it as an amendment, rather than

36:04as a separate version, it lowers the bar

36:08for approval of a charter amendment?

36:11>> No, no, no. Just the amendment itself,

36:13if you

36:14argue and approve the amendment, it only

36:15takes a simple majority to amend the AO

36:18with this amendment, but then,

36:20afterwards, there is the heightened

36:22requirement to approve the AO as

36:23amended.

36:24>> Okay.

36:25>> Yeah. So, it's essentially being voted

36:27on twice.

36:28>> Okay. Thank you.

36:31Okay. Um so, I know we've got about 20

36:35minutes left or so. I'm going to ask one

36:36more time and I I know we're this is

36:38good that we're sorting out procedure.

36:39Um

36:41with this particular amendment, is there

36:42any other questions on this amendment in

36:44particular?

36:45Check the phone one more time.

36:47Uh okay, I don't see any right now. Um

36:50so, then we are going to switch gears

36:51and I'll remind folks too. I know um

36:53certainly my intention was to get my my

36:55amendments out earlier. That didn't

36:57happen, but also I think um this is

36:59common where this is really introducing

37:01ideas and and we'll go through this with

37:03the budget amendments as well. Just note

37:05it note that uh the expectation is not

37:07that we've all kind of deep deep dived

37:09into them, but it's an opportunity to

37:10explain what they are um not debate, but

37:13certainly ask questions. So, uh so, with

37:15that I'm going to switch to the other

37:16ones um and then I'm going to briefly I

37:19guess what I'm going to suggest I'll do

37:20is I'll talk through these four

37:22amendments that I am bringing um and

37:24then we'll just if we can just take

37:25questions um

37:27together on them just to make sure we

37:28don't run out of time. And then I'll

37:30just also preface by saying I am

37:32bringing these um I had some good

37:33conversations with community members.

37:35So, thanks to those folks who helped uh

37:37helped me think through this. And then I

37:39am bringing these for discussion and

37:41consideration in case there is another

37:42version or or I just want to also signal

37:45uh I am not necessarily

37:46uh directing the attorneys to put all

37:48four of these on uh the debate agenda

37:50for for Tuesday. So, so just really

37:52wanting to kind of get these out there

37:54as ideas. Um gauge questions or if

37:56there's ways to refine them and then

37:57also they are certainly open for others

38:00to consider. Um so, I'll I'll run

38:02through them in order that we have them.

38:03First is um Broly amendment two. The

38:06purpose of this one is to uh really more

38:09narrowly tailor the allowed use and

38:11these are I should say also these are

38:12all code changes. So, they don't they

38:13don't deal with the charter amendment.

38:15Um

38:15uh this one narrows the allowed use of

38:17of ALPRs license plate readers to uh a

38:21more kind of specific list um and then

38:23calling back to the discussion about the

38:26contract approval last fall, you know,

38:28this was this was kind of the priorities

38:29that were given as far as uh you know,

38:32what this technology would be used for.

38:33So, that's that's really what it does.

38:35Um

38:36and as I said, I'll run through them and

38:37then we'll go through the queue.

38:39Uh amendment three

38:40uh requires essentially it's got two

38:42pieces. It requires assembly approval as

38:45the existing ordinance says, not just

38:46for contracts. It also adds um

38:49demonstrations with vendors uh as well

38:52as requiring disclosure of marketing

38:54materials. And uh so, it uh it does that

38:56piece of it. So, it says uh for example,

38:59if I I participated in a demonstration

39:01last year with Axon. Um so, rather than

39:03that being something the department can

39:05just do and I know that is not a typical

39:08um I should say you know, a lot of

39:09departments probably engage with

39:11discussions with vendors. This would

39:12require prior approval for consideration

39:14of that um

39:16uh

39:16demonstration. And then it also requires

39:19a public hearing for um

39:22for approval of the contract itself. So,

39:24not uh not for the demonstrate There's

39:26two pieces of that approval, uh but it

39:28just heightens the heightens the

39:30requirement for that. So, that's uh for

39:32consideration. And then I should have

39:34said before I did the first one, uh all

39:36of these there's two sets of the same

39:38language essentially because it's it's

39:40noting where the S or the S1 would be

39:42amended just for clarity. So, rather

39:44than having our attorneys draft two

39:46separate sets. Um

39:47and that would get cleaned up depending

39:49on

39:50where we go from here. Uh so, that's

39:51number three. Number four is uh that it

39:54would uh specify the word judicial

39:57warrant. And I do note in the amendment

39:59one, I did see there was description of

40:00of warrant in a court. This really just

40:02adds the word judicial uh to distinguish

40:04between uh administrative warrants. Um

40:07and I I don't know if that was the

40:08sponsor's intent, but I think that's um

40:11worth considering being specific there.

40:13That's amendment number four.

40:15And then the last one, the fourth of my

40:17number five, uh

40:19addresses and prohibits the use of

40:21signals surveillance. I know that was uh

40:23it sounds like Ms. Park had a question

40:24on that. Uh but essentially, and I think

40:26it's it's similar to this idea of

40:28biometric data and these other pieces

40:30where there's, you know, a lot of our

40:31devices, I'm holding two cell phones

40:32right now, both of them are emitting a

40:34signal of some kind uh that the that

40:36data can be used essentially to uh

40:39compile a very, you know, detailed

40:41profile of someone's movements and their

40:42activities and and habits and so on. And

40:45so uh also adding that to

40:48uh the list of things that are

40:51uh

40:51prohibited for municipal use and uh also

40:54limiting the the extent to which um it

40:57can be used for evidence. And so uh so

41:00there's a few pieces there. It does also

41:02mention um

41:04in required reporting, that's the last

41:06piece of that. Uh that there's a

41:08detailed uh log of access to that or use

41:11of that uh signals surveillance

41:13technology. This is like many other

41:15things, we know that this type of

41:17technology is being used in the private

41:18sector, it's being used elsewhere, but

41:20uh this is limiting municipal use of

41:22that. So So those are the amendments. Um

41:24happy to take uh questions.

41:27And so Ms. Park, it sounded like you had

41:28a question.

41:30Okay.

41:31>> Thank you, Chair. Um my question about

41:34that is whether we can choose to

41:39um omit evidence of a it choose not to

41:43admit evidence of a crime

41:45uh

41:46>> [clears throat]

41:46>> if that's been given to us and that may

41:47be more appropriate for Ms. Gardner.

41:51>> Yeah, certainly more appropriate for Ms.

41:52Gardner. And then I would note um

41:54before she answers, you know, that my

41:56understanding is that if something was

41:58collected illegally, it cannot be

41:59admitted as evidence. But um question to

42:01Ms. Gardner for that.

42:02>> Um thanks for the question. I think I

42:04need a little more clarification on the

42:05question uh or which part of the

42:07amendment here.

42:08>> Well, it it says the municipality shall

42:10not accept or use evidence of crimes

42:12committed provided by a private company,

42:15land owner, or third-party vendor or

42:17from signal surveillance technology. So,

42:21first of all, are we

42:22saying that specifically

42:24separate from other technological

42:27evidence like a video, a recording,

42:31um, or whatever other kinds of evidence

42:36that we could use. This is considered,

42:38first of all, a separate kind of

42:40evidence. Is that correct?

42:41>> I So, this would require it to be

42:43treated differently. Um, and looking at

42:45this section, I think that there are a

42:47couple

42:48different answers. Um, so your first

42:50question was, can we do we get to choose

42:52which evidence we we use? Um, I think if

42:54we never accepted, right, evidence If we

42:56didn't receive anything, we wouldn't

42:58have it. We wouldn't be able to use it.

42:59I don't think we'd have a duty to use

43:00it. However, if we get something and

43:02then it gets requested from us, right,

43:04um,

43:04in criminal prosecutions, we do have

43:06requirements to hand over discovery

43:08material. And so, if we have something

43:09in our records and we got a request for

43:11it, we would have to hand it over. It

43:12could then be used. I don't know if that

43:14would count as us using it. Um, but I

43:16think this

43:17has a little bit, uh,

43:20has a little bit of a implementation

43:22issue because this doesn't have any

43:24knowing requirement and we may not

43:25always know that the information we're

43:27being provided, you know, maybe the

43:29private, um, retailer got it from their

43:32security contractor who, you know,

43:34contracts with a third-party vendor that

43:37uses facial recognition technology or

43:38signals um, surveillance and we may not

43:41know by the time the information gets to

43:43us. And this is drafted actually, uh, it

43:46wouldn't necessarily have to be the

43:46signal surveillance signals information

43:48itself. It just it was derived from. So,

43:50maybe they were able to identify an

43:53individual provided name to APD as a

43:55suspect, for example, and ultimately

43:57that was derived from the use of this

43:59technology, but we would have no way of

44:00knowing that. Um, but this is drafted

44:02kind of as a strict prohibition without

44:04any

44:05awareness

44:06requirement.

44:09>> Thank you. And I guess the the separate

44:11part of that question is whether

44:13that whether signal surveillance

44:16technology would be

44:19considered a separate kind of evidence

44:21from, as I said, a video, you know, a

44:24crime is, you know, an assault is

44:25committed in the parking lot and it's

44:27recorded on a

44:28video camera.

44:31>> I'll say, legally I don't know that

44:33there's a distinction between different

44:34categories of evidence like this, but

44:37this is the first time I've seen signal

44:39surveillance technology come up in this

44:40context. I'd have to probably circle

44:42back and get some more information

44:43before I could give any more detailed

44:45answers. Thank you.

44:49>> Okay, other questions from folks?

44:52Oh, yeah, that's right. Uh, Ms. Burgess,

44:53go ahead.

44:56>> Okay, let's see, on amendment two. Uh,

44:59do we have a definition of violent

45:00crime?

45:09>> Isn't that in state law?

45:15>> Uh, I don't know that there is a

45:18definition of violent crime in state

45:19law. I'd have to check. Uh, I think

45:21there are a lot of crimes that are

45:22defined in state law, uh, but if there's

45:24a broad definition of violent crime, I

45:26don't know. I would I would say if there

45:27is you'd want to explicitly

45:28cross-reference it to ensure that that

45:31definition is captured.

45:33>> Did did you

45:34do you know if we have that?

45:36>> Um, I'm not familiar, but that is a good

45:38follow-up. I can look into that.

45:39>> Okay, um, and and so I'm wondering would

45:41this uh, cover

45:43um, like theft above a certain amount,

45:45um,

45:46major acts of vandalism, uh,

45:50arson? I don't know if there wasn't a

45:52weapon involved, um,

45:55you know, things like that.

45:57It

45:58would it restrict the use of ALPR in

46:01those types of crimes.

46:05>> Okay, that's a good question. I'm going

46:06to do a follow-up and figure out what

46:09definition or what kind of categories if

46:11it can be more specific. Thanks.

46:13>> Okay, and then

46:14um

46:16I have a question on Amendment number

46:19five.

46:22Um do you know do we use any of this

46:24type of data now? Signals?

46:28Surveillance data?

46:30And if so, how do we use it?

46:32>> I do not have an answer to that right

46:34now. I think we would need APD to

46:36respond to that question.

46:37>> Okay, um

46:39and then I don't I I follow some of the

46:42current stuff online and I've followed

46:44the Lindsey Clancy case a little bit um

46:47and they did actually use like location

46:49and digital data from cell phones,

46:51computers, and other

46:54um types of technology like that. Would

46:56that kind of

46:58investigatory work be um limited

47:02under Amendment five?

47:07>> I mean just looking at the terms of the

47:09Amendment, it does look like it would

47:10encompass digital signals coming out of

47:13cell phones and everything. So I don't I

47:16think that it would apply extensively.

47:18But I don't know specifically.

47:21>> Okay, thank you.

47:24>> Are there other questions from members?

47:27Let me check online one more time.

47:30Yeah, Mr. Bond.

47:31>> And so maybe this did Sorry, did counsel

47:34help you

47:35draft this?

47:37Can I Can I turn If I turn to

47:39counsel, would they know

47:40sort of how this fits in the rest of the

47:43>> Um I I can't speak for them. I brought

47:44these um mostly fully drafted.

47:46>> Okay, okay.

47:47Um I guess my question is so

47:51whereas

47:54a couple versions of the underlying item

47:55or or an amendment that myself and my

47:58co-sponsors intend to bring forward

48:00um have a threshold where

48:02you know, some surveillance would be

48:04allowed, right? If you had a warrant, it

48:06was an active um criminal investigation,

48:09missing person,

48:11um

48:12could amendment number five be so

48:14structured where

48:16there would be in in some instances an

48:18opportunity to use

48:21this type of surveillance provided

48:23certain conditions were met. Is that

48:26um envisioned by this amendment or would

48:28it have to be

48:30tuned a little bit?

48:31>> Good question. [clears throat] I think

48:32um I mean, as written, I think this is

48:34the maximalist version. It says we

48:36should not be using this. We can

48:37obviously cannot preclude private

48:39companies from using it. Um but at the

48:40same time, I

48:42part of my purpose, especially today, is

48:44to raise these these questions cuz they

48:46have not been

48:47fully raised, I think, in the discussion

48:48so far. Obviously, we haven't debated

48:50yet. But also, just to call attention

48:52that this is another form of

48:53surveillance. And so, I think um

48:56I I'm always interested in what's

48:57practical. And so, I so I would say as

48:59written, this is a broad prohibition on

49:01it. Um and then I'm interested in what's

49:03realistic as well. Thanks.

49:08>> Okay, and uh Mr. Silver has another

49:10question.

49:12>> Um

49:14I think this question is for anybody

49:16that would like to answer it or maybe

49:18nobody does and we just something to

49:19think about. How much privacy protection

49:24do we believe that criminals who have

49:26committed crimes

49:28should have when we're trying to

49:30investigate and bring them to justice?

49:33Thank you.

49:37>> I mean, I'll take a crack at it.

49:39Um

49:40so,

49:43those who have committed crimes

49:46um and you know,

49:49uh

49:50have

49:52have the

49:53commensurate penalty.

49:55Um

49:59You know, and our and then are no longer

50:01the subject of a criminal investigation,

50:04active criminal [clears throat]

50:04investigation, they have the same

50:07constitutional rights

50:09to privacy as you and I do.

50:12So, I guess that would be my answer.

50:16>> And also, Miss Scout.

50:19I guess um

50:21I have a response and then I have a

50:22question, too, but I'm happy to break

50:23those up. Um

50:27Yeah, I'd

50:29echo what Vice Chairwoman said. Um

50:32With the addition that our justice

50:35system is predicated on the assumption

50:37that people are innocent until proven

50:39guilty. And so, if somebody is accused

50:42of a crime, that does not mean they are

50:44a

50:45criminal yet and they're

50:47duly protected under the state and

50:49federal constitution.

50:51Um

50:53My question And then I have a question

50:55later. I can get back with you for that.

50:57>> Yeah, um and yeah, I know we have a few

50:58minutes. Um I wanted to respond. So,

51:00Miss Park, did you have a separate

51:01question or did you want to respond?

51:02>> Um I I just wanted to clarify what

51:04Member Silver

51:05Thank you, Chair. I wanted to clarify

51:07Member Silver's question as to whether

51:09she meant during the investigation

51:11period.

51:15>> Yeah, I guess I mean

51:17in the investigation of crimes, you

51:21know, with warrants and stuff like that.

51:23And so, if we're prohibiting making

51:25overall pro- prohibitions,

51:28you're not even able to get the data

51:30with a warrant.

51:32Um generally, you have a warrant when

51:34there's

51:35probable cause. And so, I'm just

51:37wondering like how far do we want to go

51:40to protect criminals

51:43from being investigated and brought to

51:45justice.

51:48>> Thank you.

51:49>> Okay. And I have a brief response and we

51:51can go to Ms. Scout, I think. My I'm

51:54going to go real philosophical and real

51:55broad

51:56and that is that I would say things like

51:59crime, criminal behavior, antisocial

52:01behavior,

52:03really that sanity, mental health, or

52:05mental illness, all of those are

52:07socially defined and they have changed

52:08over time. They're different in

52:10different societies and so I guess

52:12that's the lens that I look at

52:13everything and which makes it really

52:15difficult to get practical sometimes,

52:17but I do see that that um

52:20it's hard to to come up with a hard and

52:22fast definition of what a criminal is

52:24and what a crime is when you really get

52:26into the

52:27the broad strokes of where it could go.

52:29Um so next I have Ms. Scout and then we

52:31and then we just have a few minutes. We

52:32can extend if we need to.

52:34>> Yeah. Um I think I also just sort of

52:37have a big picture question that I love

52:39my colleagues to think about with me. Um

52:42the Brawley amendments, particularly the

52:45one about the signal technology, um does

52:49bring up

52:51something we've talked about in this

52:53category of policy in the past. It's

52:55just how do we keep up with the changes

52:58in technology? Um so we talk about

53:00signal technology now. I don't what will

53:03be the equivalent of that in 10 years?

53:06Um will we be trying to prohibit

53:09everybody's like personal AI bot from

53:12um giving away information? I really I

53:15don't I can't predict where we're going.

53:17Um and so I'd be really curious to think

53:20about and explore ways that we can

53:22ensure um if this policy is passed and

53:27or as we're deliberating it, ways that

53:29we can um put in some sort of

53:32housekeeping mechanism, regular updates,

53:35um regular updates on internal policy

53:37that we can then embrace at the

53:40municipality. Um

53:42so yeah, I really just wanted to pose

53:44that bigger picture question because I I

53:46appreciate the amendment on

53:49um

53:50on the signal

53:52techno whatever it's called, the signal

53:55technology and um that made me think

53:57about

53:59all of the other technologies we can't

54:01even anticipate at this time.

54:06>> Thanks.

54:07Ooh,

54:08>> [snorts]

54:08>> other questions from members.

54:13And it looks like we got um one more

54:15amendment number six, so I'm going to

54:16turn

54:16>> Actually, Chair, these are the

54:18amendments that we spoke to

54:20earlier um that have now been

54:23distributed in paper form so you all can

54:25>> Yeah, do you want to just

54:27>> Yeah, those are the ones that I

54:28mentioned at the top of the meeting, so

54:30um amendment number six is um

54:33the requirement uh

54:35to only share surveillance data with

54:37non-municipal individuals or entities um

54:40if there's either for criminal justice

54:42law enforcement purposes

54:45and when required by law

54:48warrant or court order. Um, member

54:51Bralliar's

54:52um

54:53amendment that she put forward would

54:54change that to judicial

54:56warrant.

54:58Um

55:00Proposed amendment number seven

55:01um

55:03is the uh additional language

55:06restricting the sharing of ALPR

55:08information with the department of motor

55:10vehicles without prior prior assembly

55:13approval

55:15by resolution, so at some point the uh

55:16future this assembly or future assembly

55:18could

55:19do a resolution to say, "Yeah, yeah,

55:20we're okay with that. Um

55:22we can share that information."

55:24Um amendment number nine um is the

55:27removal of the the knowingly,

55:29materially, consistently um

55:32language.

55:34That's it.

55:37>> Okay, thank you.

55:39Uh okay, one last call. Is there any

55:43any additional questions, comments on

55:45these?

55:46Ms. Burke.

55:48>> This maybe Ms. Gardner could tell me

55:51that in the

55:53where it states uh

55:56whether

55:57can be accessed by

55:59a court order or a

56:02would that include subpoena power? It's

56:04for instance in a civil

56:06case and the thing that comes to mind

56:08immediately would be um

56:10an auto accident where the victim or the

56:12insurer wants information relevant to

56:16that accident.

56:17>> Okay. And I also see Mr. Hurt wanted to

56:18answer. Okay, sorry, go ahead.

56:21>> Yeah, we understand law to refer to

56:23valid court orders. So a subpoena would

56:24be a valid court order and

56:26and we get this type of request in civil

56:29you know, third-party civil cases all

56:30the time. We get a subpoena to the

56:32municipality and we provide records. I

56:34will say we are still careful to ensure

56:37that we are producing only the records

56:38that are necessary and we'll seek a

56:40protective order, right? Or an agreement

56:42with the other side about what

56:43reductions we are going to make or where

56:46what what whether the information we're

56:47providing needs to be kept confidential.

56:49But yes, law would include subpoena.

56:51>> Thank you.

56:53>> Thanks. Mr. Hurt.

56:55>> Uh yeah, I just wanted to clarify

56:57something with with regard to amendment

56:58nine, the knowing materially

57:00consistently. Um the point of that

57:02amendment as I understand it is not to

57:05create some sort of strict liability

57:06offense for the municipal government,

57:08but rather the the effect of this

57:10amendment is to bring any violation to

57:12the assembly's attention and allow them

57:14to have a public hearing and then decide

57:16based off of the nature of the violation

57:19whether or not to suspend the use of the

57:21technology. So it's not like there's a

57:23violation and instantly like the the

57:26hammer comes down.

57:28>> Right. And and also um

57:31>> [snorts]

57:32>> pinging back to member Silver's earlier

57:35question about a

57:36a penalty.

57:38Um again, this does not this section

57:40doesn't envision a penalty. It it just

57:43envisions, as Mr. Herre just said,

57:46the assembly to have an option, if they

57:48desire as a body, a majority,

57:52to suspend the technology until whatever

57:54the issue was can be figured out and

57:56then they can

57:57um

57:58reactivate it, so to speak.

58:02>> Okay.

58:04So, I'll check one more time. So, we're

58:05just uh just after 3:00, is there any

58:07further discussion on this item?

58:10Questions? Okay. Uh so, with that,

58:12thanks everyone. So, I will note um

58:14again, this is uh amendments uh and a

58:16little bit of discussion about the

58:17versions for AO 2026-108. There is an S

58:20version and an S1 version and several

58:22amendments. This is back on our agenda

58:24for Tuesday, October 20th. Um I will

58:27note uh also that in terms of

58:29expectations for the public, uh this is

58:32a uh the public hearing on the side of

58:33this been closed. Um currently, it is

58:35one of the first items on the agenda. Um

58:38we may need to change the order of the

58:39day because we also have our budget uh

58:41hearings. And so, I wouldn't anticipate

58:43that this is necessarily the first thing

58:44we talk about, but the intent is

58:46certainly uh we know that this is going

58:47to be a significant discussion. So, uh

58:49leadership is working on uh making time

58:51for that and then we'll uh be what we'll

58:53let you know more about the changing of

58:55the orders so we also have time to

58:56accommodate our budget public hearings.

58:58So, with that, um this is the last

58:59meeting for today. So, uh have a good

59:01day, everybody, and we'll see you

59:02tomorrow for some committee meetings.

59:04Thanks.