In its last policy committee hearing in Sacramento, SB21, a statewide surveillance transparency ordinance, passed the Assembly Privacy Committee on a 6-3 vote. It now travels to Assembly Appropriations, the Assembly floor and then to the Governor’s desk.
In the hearing, law enforcement (DA and Sheriff’s Associations) and the League of CA Cities continued to state their opposition to public disclosure and community control of the use of surveillance technologies. They said a few amazing things along the way.
The League of California Cities objected to Brown Act compliance. (The Brown Act has been California law since 1953). At least, they objected to “blanket Brown Act compliance”. We guess they meant some of the time, not all of the time? Your guess is as good as ours.
The California Sheriff’s Association said they could not point to one specific case, not a single solitary one, of the inappropriate use of surveillance technologies. There’s a few.
The District Attorneys Association asserted that a court order is required for a law enforcement agency to deploy automated license plate readers (ALPRS). No court order is required to deploy automated license plate readers.
Since most of what they said is kinda preposterous, what’s the real objection?