Police in San Diego, California, Allegedly Used License Plate Readers to Track Domestic Violence Victim

Police used automated license plate reader technology to track a domestic violence victim during an internal affairs investigation involving a San Diego Police Department officer, the office of City Councilmember Raul Campillo said Thursday. The department has not disputed that the technology was used in that way, but its characterization of the searches is part of the public record. Ashley Nicholes, the SDPD communications manager, said Internal Affairs detective sergeants used ALPR technology in six administrative investigations involving specific allegations of employee misconduct. She said Officer Miguel Gonzalez, one of the officers the department said was under investigation, was no longer with the department. Protecting a domestic violence victim from unwarranted tracking is a matter of defending the vulnerable (Psalm 82:3).

Nicholes said the department’s ALPR use policy is not limited to criminal investigations. “The Department’s current use policy allows the system to be used for ‘legitimate law enforcement purposes,’ while the Department’s procedure authorizes its use for ‘official investigations,'” she said. She added that the department uses ALPR to help locate missing people and respond to public safety emergencies, and that “investigating specific allegations of officer misconduct falls within those authorized uses.” Nicholes said the department had previously announced that allegations of ALPR misuse would be investigated, and that when such allegations do not involve suspected criminal conduct, they are handled as administrative investigations.

Nicholes also said investigators may use ALPR to corroborate statements from victims and witnesses, verify timelines, or confirm locations. “Those searches are part of conducting a thorough investigation, not an indication that the victim is suspected of a crime,” she said. She added that the department “does not use ALPR to routinely monitor employees or the public or conduct phishing expeditions,” and that its use in administrative investigations has been tied to specific allegations of misconduct.

Following the revelation, Campillo called for the city’s automated license plate reader program to be suspended. He had backed the city’s ALPR contract with Flock in the past. “I have supported ALPRs because they are a proven tool for preventing and solving serious crimes in our San Diego community,” Campillo said. “But my support has never been unconditional.” He said that learning the department had used ALPRs inappropriately to surveil one of its own and a member of the public “calls the entire program into question.” He said he was withdrawing his support and demanded that the program be immediately suspended and that an audit be conducted of its use within the department.

In a separate development, the city council’s Budget and Government Efficiency Committee voted last month to end the city’s contract with Flock Safety for ALPR technology. The full City Council must confirm that decision. Councilman Stephen Whitburn, who had voted multiple times for the Flock contract, changed course in October, saying the cameras are causing too much fear in local communities. With his change and Campillo’s, the council could reach a 6-3 majority to terminate the contract, enough to override a possible mayoral veto.

Mayor Gloria has not yet commented on the alleged SDPD misuse of the technology, though he has supported it as a law enforcement tool. Chief Scott Wahl has also not commented on the alleged misuse. In an earlier statement, Wahl said the committee’s decision was short-sighted and that the department had seen ALPR help in more than 900 cases. In September, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties filed a lawsuit against the city and the department seeking to halt the city’s use of ALPRs. The suit alleges that through a network of at least 500 ALPR cameras, the city is violating the California Constitution by infringing on citizens’ privacy rights.

Whitburn said that when people call for help, “they don’t need a Flock camera; they need help to be on the way quickly.” He added, “Let’s turn off the cameras and cancel the Flock contract. Let’s use the savings to speed up response times when people call for help.”

Source: Read the original report