By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
Detroit’s surveillance technology to identify locations of gunshots fired does not meet procedural requirements to use the equipment, according to a new Court of Appeals decision.
In the published Eagan v. City of Detroit (COA Docket No. 366454) decision written by Judge Brock Swartzle and signed by Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett, the court reversed a lower court's decision in part because of a lack of public information on the technology.
The Detroit Police Department started using ShotSpotter in 2021. To extend the use of this equipment, the court said, there must be conversation and approval from the city council.
The city was sued by citizens to invalidate the contracts for the technology when the city did not make information on the technology available 14 days before the council meeting on the city's website under the Community Input Over Government Surveillance Ordinance for the city.
The trial court decided in favor of the city because they argued that while they did not post that information that “this failure did not deprive the City Council of the authority to approve the procurement.”
The trial court said it was “not really accurate to suggest that the city hid the ball from the citizens in material respects” because there were also other meetings where it was discussed with information attached.
In reversal, Swartzle said there are specific procedural requirements needed for contracts, being both “clear and detailed.”
“With surveillance and similar technology ever encroaching into every recess of modern life, procedural safeguards cannot be ignored or downplayed by government actors as mere technicalities,” he wrote. “To ensure that technology serves the people, and not the other way around, strict compliance with procedural safeguards like the CIOGS Ordinance may well be needed. And, unfortunately, such compliance was lacking here.”
The court remanded the matter consistent with the opinion.
Judge Kirsten Frank Kelly, in a dissenting opinion, said she believes the citizens lacked standing to challenge the decision, aligning with the majority that residence in the city is insufficient in standing, but disagreeing with the majority's nature of the argument on the technology itself. Kelly said ShotSpotter technology is no different than an individual overhearing a gunshot and making a call to the police, which she said does not create standing with the citizens.
Gongwer News Service
Detroit’s surveillance technology to identify locations of gunshots fired does not meet procedural requirements to use the equipment, according to a new Court of Appeals decision.
In the published Eagan v. City of Detroit (COA Docket No. 366454) decision written by Judge Brock Swartzle and signed by Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett, the court reversed a lower court's decision in part because of a lack of public information on the technology.
The Detroit Police Department started using ShotSpotter in 2021. To extend the use of this equipment, the court said, there must be conversation and approval from the city council.
The city was sued by citizens to invalidate the contracts for the technology when the city did not make information on the technology available 14 days before the council meeting on the city's website under the Community Input Over Government Surveillance Ordinance for the city.
The trial court decided in favor of the city because they argued that while they did not post that information that “this failure did not deprive the City Council of the authority to approve the procurement.”
The trial court said it was “not really accurate to suggest that the city hid the ball from the citizens in material respects” because there were also other meetings where it was discussed with information attached.
In reversal, Swartzle said there are specific procedural requirements needed for contracts, being both “clear and detailed.”
“With surveillance and similar technology ever encroaching into every recess of modern life, procedural safeguards cannot be ignored or downplayed by government actors as mere technicalities,” he wrote. “To ensure that technology serves the people, and not the other way around, strict compliance with procedural safeguards like the CIOGS Ordinance may well be needed. And, unfortunately, such compliance was lacking here.”
The court remanded the matter consistent with the opinion.
Judge Kirsten Frank Kelly, in a dissenting opinion, said she believes the citizens lacked standing to challenge the decision, aligning with the majority that residence in the city is insufficient in standing, but disagreeing with the majority's nature of the argument on the technology itself. Kelly said ShotSpotter technology is no different than an individual overhearing a gunshot and making a call to the police, which she said does not create standing with the citizens.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
