The question is whether the police should be allowed to view live footage owned by private organizations of an ongoing crime (such as the mass looting of the Louis Vuitton store in Union Square on Nov 19, 2021). Under current law, it takes at least 3 months for the police to install a camera or borrow a camera feed owned by a neighborhood nonprofit. The only exception is “an emergency involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person”, which is almost the same as the use of deadly force law (Penal Code 835a(c)(1)(A)). So basically, currently, the police are justified in borrowing a video feed of a criminal at the same instant that they are justified in killing the criminal. The Mayor tried to allow the police to borrow video feeds during property crime incidents, but Supervisor Aaron Peskin blocked her.
What are the arguments against this policy? Is it that the police could use this as an excuse to just watch everyone all the time, saying "oops sorry we thought there was an ongoing crime"?
Yes, you’re right. The Mayor’s ordinance would encourage a proliferation of private cameras that could turn into police surveillance cameras any time there is an alleged crime, and requires only summary information after the event. This is an end run around the surveillance ordinance which allows the public to review a report about the cameras (software, camera type, location) before they are installed and to view an inventory of all public cameras.
There also seems to be quite a bit of anti-police animosity among activists in general.
Personally, I think the surveillance ordinance is probably too restrictive in prohibiting the police from using technology and not protective enough in ensuring proper policies for the use of the technology that is available. To me, what matters is that the technology is used with professional care, not that the inventory is enumerated months in advance.
A special law to help police investigate some crimes by some people, meanwhile Louis Vuitton pays a million dollars every other year to settle wage theft claims against their own employees.
Fair enough. In that case the policy should not be changed because the crimes involved are low-value and should not be a target of scarce (by the department's estimation) police resources, particularly with respect to the crimes being committed by the stores themselves.
* The current surveillance policy https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s...
* Penal Code 835a(c)(1)(A) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
* Mayor London Breed’s proposed ordinance: Board File 220080 https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5397200...
* Peskin’s proposed initiative: Board File 220109 https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5397228...