Debate over surveillance cameras and license plate readers on San Diego streetlights re-emerged this week as immigration raids and the threat of federal overreach prompt questions over who can access the technology and for what purpose.
And as the city of San Diego struggles this year to close a budget gap, critics of the surveillance technology pointed to another concern: the $2 million annual cost. Some lobbied to axe the controversial surveillance and instead use the money to keep libraries and parks open.
The San Diego City Council agreed earlier this week to make the funding contingent on a review of how it has been used and approval of its continued use.
San Diego police officials said Friday that while the department has not provided information to federal authorities regarding immigration investigations, it has shared data with them in several criminal probes. But, it said, that practice formally ended earlier this year, and now any information sharing with federal authorities is prohibited.
San Diego’s network consists of about 500 surveillance cameras and automated license plate reader technology on streetlights throughout the city. San Diego police hail the cameras as a force multiplier and a crime-fighting tool. Critics argue the technology intrudes on civil rights and fear that the federal government could muscle access to local surveillance systems despite local laws barring such.
“We now have a much more hostile approach coming from the federal government, and we have disclosures from the San Diego Police Department confirming that it has shared the data from these ALPR cameras with federal agencies,” said Seth Hall of the TRUST SD Coalition, the consortium of groups that helped craft the city’s surveillance law.
“We were promised that the wrong people would not have access to this data, and that those who do have access to it would not use it for reasons that we don’t agree with,” Hall said.
Several speakers at Tuesday’s City Council meeting used the budget talks to ask that the surveillance system, in particular the license plate readers, be ended instead of cutting library services and removing fire rings.
The renewed criticism comes as pushback grows against immigration sweeps such as last month’s raid at a South Park restaurant, and as the federal government sent in the National Guard and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles to quell protests over the objections of state and local officials. Protests against the Trump istration’s immigration policies are expected Saturday throughout San Diego County, including a large one downtown at Waterfront Park.
Councilmember Marni von Wilpert agreed to bring the matter to the city’s public safety committee she chairs; her office said this week it will be calendared for the end of the month. The discussion will include a review of the annual surveillance report the department issued earlier this year regarding its activities in 2024.
In that report, police disclosed they had shared data with federal agencies last year. Such sharing happened three times with the FBI, four times with Homeland Security Investigations, six times with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 14 times with the Secret Service and 20 times with the Drug Enforcement istration. Police said none of the cases were related to immigration.
On Friday, police Capt. Charles Lara said the department has since backed off that practice in order to come into full compliance with state law known as SB 34, which dictates what can be shared with out-of-state or federal agencies. Lara said it no longer shares camera or license plate data with any federal agencies. That policy was made official in a May 23 department order.
In a report, TRUST SD said the Police Department must be held able.
“The California legislature ed these laws to protect immigrant communities’ information from federal immigration enforcement,” the report states. “Considering the current istration’s tactics against immigrants, SDPD’s potential violation of these laws puts immigrants at high risk. The City of San Diego must act to establish increased protections and increased ability.”
State law permits law enforcement agencies to sometimes access each other’s databases. But not so in San Diego. Under the city’s ordinance governing the use of surveillance technology, the department is an island. No outside agencies can directly access its data. Any California law enforcement agency that wants San Diego police to share information must show it is investigating one of a limited number of types of crimes. There are also guardrails as to what can be shared as part of the department’s work with task forces that include federal partners.
In general, the cameras are not monitored in real time. Investigators access the network after serious crimes or incidents occur, police said. Videos captured by the streetlights are deleted after 13 days, and license plate data is deleted after 30 days, unless the information is being used in an active investigation.
Lara said that in the nearly 18 months since the camera system was switched on, the department has used it to investigate more than 450 cases and has recovered 350 stolen vehicles and $5 million in stolen property. “It’s shown a return on investment,” Lara said.
Several council indicated during Tuesday’s meeting that they are open to talking about whether or how to continue using the technology.
Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera said he has “significant concerns growing by the day” about keeping the license plate readers running. “The federal istration is lawless,” he said. “They are targeting our city, our state and our community in a way that is terrorizing them. And we cannot guarantee their safety, especially when those license readers are turned on.”
Councilmember Stephen Whitburn noted that San Diego police have solved crimes using the technology, including hate crimes in his district. “I believe ALPRs can contribute to public safety,” he said.
But he acknowledged “we are in a very different environment today” than when the council first approved the technology. He said it is “within the realm of possibility that this istration would try to force the city of San Diego to share ALPR data” and use it for immigration purposes.
Von Wilpert also said that the question calls for “a nuanced and complicated discussion.” She noted that the license plate readers last year led to the arrest of a man suspected of trying to snatch two young girls in Mission Valley days apart, but also said the technology should never be used for immigration or to go after women trying to access reproductive services.
Putting cameras on the streetlight poles has a convoluted history in San Diego. In 2016, council signed off on a $30 million project that pledged to use “smart” streetlights to collect data such as traffic and parking patterns. A few years ed before the public learned the tech came with cameras that could be accessed by police.
That sparked an outcry regarding privacy and equity concerns. San Diego shut down the network and created an ordinance governing the use of surveillance. The city flipped on a new stock of cameras — and this time, automated license plate readers — last year.
A few weeks ago, the TRUST SD coalition started a change.org petition to urge the City Council to stop funding the automated license plate readers and redirect the funds. More than 1,700 people had signed as of Friday.
If the technology is not shut off and continues to be used, the coalition recommended, among other things, that ALPR data be purged after 24 hours unless a judicial warrant is obtained to preserve it and that the department bolster its policies on how use of the technology is audited.
