>>> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. TODA
IS FEBRUARY 8th AND THE ECONOMI
DEVELOPMENT, TECHNOLOGY AND THE
CITY LIGHT COMMITTEE WILL NOW
COME TO ORDER. IT IS 9:37.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS HAS ASKED
TO BE EXCUSED TODAY. I
UNDERSTAND THAT CENTRAL STAFF
HAS BRIEFED HIM ON THE ITEMS ON
TODAY'S AGENDA. WILL THE CLERK
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, JUAREZ?
>> HERE.
>> HERBOLD?
>> HERE.
>> CHAIR NELSON?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT HAS
REQUESTED TO BE EXCUSED. SO
THERE ARE THREE PRESENT, TWO
EXCUSED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY
FOLKS, TODAY THERE ARE SIX
COUNCIL BILLS ON THE AGENDA FOR
DISCUSSION. WHICH WOULD APPROVE
THE SURVEILLANCE IMPACT REPORTS
ON SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES
ALREADY IN USE BY SPD WHEN THE
2017 SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE TOO
EFFECT. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
RETROACTIVE, THESE S.I.R.'S AR
FROM GROUP 4B AND THE SPECIFIC
TECHNOLOGIES ARE CAMERA SYSTEMS
FOR IMAGES OR NON-AUDITORY VIDE
RECORDINGS. VEHICLE CRASH DATA
RETRIEVAL TOOLS. COMPUTER CELL
PHONE AND MOBILE DEVICE DATA
EXTRACTION TOOLS. GEO TIMED
SOFTWARE. REMOTELY OPERATED
VEHICLES, NOT INCLUDING AERIAL
DRONES, AND TRACKING DEVICES.
AGAIN, TODAY IS FOR BRIEFING AN
DISCUSSION ONLY, AND THE PLAN I
TO VOTE THEM OUT OF COMMITTEE A
OUR NEXT MEETING ON FEBRUARY
22nd. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS
TO THE AGENDA? HEARING NO
OBJECTIONS, THE AGENDA IS
OBJECTED. ADOPTED.
>>> BEFORE PROCEEDING TO PUBLIC
COMMENT I WANT TO EXPAND A BIT
ON MY REMARKS ABOUT MY TRIP TO
CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND NEXT -
LAST WEEK FOR BACKGROUND,
BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THIS,
SISTER CITIES GREW OUT OF
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER'S PEOPLE T
PEOPLE INITIATIVE TO FURTHER
INTERNATIONAL PEACE BY FORGING
RELATIONSHIPS AND FRIENDSHIPS
BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
AMONG PEOPLE. IT WAS ESTABLISHE
ON SEPTEMBER 11th, 1956. SEATTL
HAS 20 SISTER CITIES AND THE
SEATTLE CHRISTCHURCH PROGRAM IS
ONE OF THE CITY' STRONGEST AND
WAS FOUNDED OVER 40 YEARS AGO.
IT'S ADMINISTRATED BY OIR
DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS STACY. ON MONDAY AND
MENTIONED THE FACT THAT SEATTLE
AND CHRISTCHURCH HAVE BENEFITED
OVER THE YEARS FROM THE EXCHANG
OF MUTUAL AID AND LESSONS
LEARNED FROM RECENT EARTHQUAKES
BECAUSE WE BOTH OCCUPY ZONES.
THAT WAS A MAJOR TOPIC OF
CONVERSATION BETWEEN ME AND THE
MAYOR. BECAUSE CHRISTCHURCH IS
STILL GOING THROUGH PLANNING AN
REBUILDING AFTER THEIR 2011
EARTHQUAKE THAT DESTROYED ABOUT
70% OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE CIT
CENTER. I ALSO IN -- BY
DESTROYED I MEAN DAMAGED
SIGNIFICANTLY. MANY ARE STILL
STANDING BUT THEY ARE UNDER
RENOVATION, OR THEY ARE YET TO
BE DEMOLISHED. I ALSO TOUCHED O
THE MEETING -- ON MEETINGS THAT
TIM RAYMOND, OIR'S DIRECTOR OF
TRIBAL RELATIONS AND SEVERAL
OTHERS HAD WITH THE CORPORATE
ENTITY OF ALMOST ALL OF NEW
ZEALAND'S 18 SUB TRIBES ON THE
SOUTH ISLAND. SO TO CONTINUE,
WHAT I WANTED TO GET THAT, ON
THE FIRST DAY OF MY TRIP BEFORE
THE DELEGATION'S OFFICIAL
ACTIVITIES BEGAN, IN ADDITION T
MEETING WITH THE MAYOR AND A
COUNSELOR, AND BY THE WAY HE IS
ONE OF 16 COUNSELORS.
CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL IS
MADE UP OF 16 CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR SITS IN O
ALL THE MEETINGS. IT'S REFERRED
TO AS CITY COUNCIL. ANYWAY, THE
ARE ALL ELECTED BY WARD. ANYWAY
IN ADDITION TO THOSE MEETINGS I
ALSO MET WITH ALLIE ADAMS, CHIE
EXECUTIVE OF CHAI'S CHURCH NEW
ENGLAND. THE DEVELOPMENT. FUNDE
PRIMARILY BUT OUTSIDE THE CITY
STRUCTURE. AND MARTIN, THE
GENERAL MANAGER FOR INNOVATION
AND BUSINESS GROWTH. THE
AGENCY'S WORK IS DIVIDED AMONG
PRIMARILY INDUSTRY SECTORS. SO
OF COURSE BECAUSE OF MY INTERES
IN FILM I ASKED TO MEET WITH TH
HEAD OF THE -- OF SCREEN
CANTERBURY, WHICH IS THE
REGIONAL DIVISION OF THE NEW
ZEALAND FILM COMMISSION, WHICH
IS OF COURSE SECURING SOME OF
THE COUNTRY'S LARGEST FILM
PROJECTS. OF COURSE THE LORD OF
THE RINGS WAS FILMFARE. SO THAT
WAS A REALLY INTERESTING
DISCUSSION TO SEE HOW THE CITY
SUPPORTS THE FILM INDUSTRY. I
ALSO MET WITH THE HEAD OF THE
CHRISTCHURCH ANTARCTICA OFFICE.
WHICH HAS A LONG-STANDING
RELATIONSHIP. THIS FORMER
RELATIONSHIP WITH JOINT BASE
LEWIS-MCCHORD, FORMERLY McCHORD
AIR FORCE BASE. WHY? BECAUSE
CHRISTCHURCH IS ONE OF THE
WORLD'S FIVE GATEWAY CITIES TO
THE ANTARCTIC. McCORD FLIES U.S
AND NEW ZEALAND'S SCIENTISTS AN
SUPPLIES EVERY SEASON ON THEIR
AIRPLANES. THE POLAR STAR
ICEBREAKER ALSO STOPS IN
CHRISTCHURCH WHEN IT TRAVELS TO
ANTARCTICA. IN ADDITION TO
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, A TOTAL OF
75 BUSINESSES GENERATE ABOUT
$300 MILLION IN REVENUE EACH
YEAR. FOR THE COUNTRY, AND SO
I'M JUST MENTIONING THIS BECAUS
THIS PARTNERSHIP IS CRUCIAL NOT
ONLY FOR NEW ZEALAND, BUT ALSO
FOR THE U.S. THE DELEGATION GOT
TO ATTEND A PORTION OF A CITY
COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH WAS LIVE
STREAMED ON THEIR VERSION OF TH
SEATTLE CHANNEL. THIS IS FAIRLY
NEW. THE COUNCILMEMBER I
MENTIONED BEFORE TRAVELED TO TH
U.S. ON A DELEGATION YEARS AGO
AND NOTICED THAT WE FILM AND
ARCHIVE OUR COUNCIL MEETINGS,
WHICH WASN'T DONE IN
CHRISTCHURCH, AND SO HE BROUGHT
BACK THIS IDEA AND MADE IT
HAPPEN. THIS IS JUST ONE
DEMONSTRATION OF THE BENEFIT,
MUTUAL BENEFIT, OF THESE SISTER
CITY RELATIONSHIPS. OTHER
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE TRIP INCLUDED
TRIPS TO THE BOTANIC GARDEN AND
OTHER CITY PARKS TO LEARN ABOUT
NEW ZEALAND AND CHRISTCHURCH'S
SPECIFICALLY EFFORTS TO CREATE
BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE
PROTECTION, FOR WHICH OF COURSE
NEW ZEALAND IS RECOGNIZED AS A
GLOBAL LEADER. SO, I'LL CLOSE B
NOTING AGAIN THAT IN
CHRISTCHURCH, ALMOST 100% OF TH
2500 CITY HALL EMPLOYEES,
INCLUDING THE ELECTEDS AND THEI
STAFF, HAVE RETURNED TO WORK
FULL-TIME. IN THE OFFICE. 85% O
WORKERS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT HAVE ALSO RETURNED TO
OFFICE FULL-TIME. OBVIOUSLY HER
IN SEATTLE, WE ARE A BIT BEHIND
RESUMING IN OFFICE WORK, BUT ON
MONDAY, THE MAYOR AND KING
COUNTY EXECUTIVE ANNOUNCED THE
LIFTING OF COVID-19 VACCINATION
MANDATES FOR CITY AND COUNTY
EMPLOYEES. THIS FOLLOWS THE
STATE, COUNTY, AND CITY AND IN
THE COVID STATE OF EMERGENCY ON
OCTOBER 31st. THEN, LAST WEEK,
THE LEGISLATURE DEPARTMENT'S TW
DAY IN OFFICE WORK REQUIREMENT
WAS ANNOUNCED STARTING ON
FEBRUARY 15th. THANK YOU,
PRESIDENT JUAREZ. SO I MENTIONE
BEFORE THAT IF I HAD MY WAY, AL
COUNCIL MEETINGS WOULD BE HERE
IN PERSON. BECAUSE I BELIEVE
THIS IS GOOD FOR IMPROVED PUBLI
AND PRESS ACCESS TO THE
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS OF COUNCIL
MEETINGS. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT
WE ARE GOING IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION TOWARD OUR ECONOMIC
AND CIVIC RECOVERY. TO QUOTE, I
THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE IN THE
AUDIENCE TODAY, AND THEY WILL B
PRESENTING, BUT IF YOU HAVE
LOOKED AROUND CITY HALL, I WANT
TO QUOTE FROM THE SIGNS THAT YO
CAN FIND ALL AROUND THAT SAY
THIS CITY, THIS CITY OF SEATTLE
FACILITY IS SAFE, AND READY, AN
WELCOME TO YOU. SO, BACK IN TWO
WEEKS. WITH THAT WE WILL NOW
MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS
LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
>>> [ NO AUDIO ]
>> IT'S COMING, FOLKS.
>> HELLO, SEATTLE. WE ARE THE -
EMERALD CITY. THE CITY OF
FLOWERS AND THE CITY OF
GOODWILL. BUILT ON INDIGENOUS
LAND. THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL
WELCOMES REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT
AND IS EAGER TO HEAR FROM
RESIDENTS OF OUR CITY. IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO BE A SPEAKER AND
PROVIDE A VERBAL PUBLIC COMMENT
YOU MAY REGISTER TWO HOURS PRIO
TO THE MEETING ON THE SEATTLE
CITY COUNCIL WEBSITE. HERE IS
SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEEDINGS.
SPEAKERS ARE CALLED UPON IN THE
ORDER IN WHICH THEY REGISTERED
ON THE COUNCIL'S WEBSITE. EACH
SPEAKER MUST CALL IN FROM THE
PHONE NUMBER PROVIDED WHEN THEY
REGISTERED ONLINE AND USE THE
MEETING I.D. AND PASSCODE THAT
WAS EMAILED UPON CONFIRMATION.
IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL
CONFIRMATION, PLEASE CHECK YOUR
SPAM OR JUNK MAIL FOLDERS. A
REMINDER, THE SPEAKER MEETING
I.D. IS DIFFERENT FROM THE
GENERAL LISTEN LINE MEETING I.D
PROVIDED ON THE AGENDA. ONCE A
SPEAKER'S NAME IS CALLED, THE
SPEAKERS MICROPHONE WILL BE
UN-MUTED AND AN AUTOMATIC PROMP
WILL SAY THE HOST WOULD LIKE YO
TO UNMUTE YOUR MICROPHONE. THAT
IS YOUR CUE THAT IT IS YOUR TUR
TO SPEAK. AT THAT TIME, YOU MUS
PRESS STAR SIX. YOU WILL THEN
HEAR A PROMPT OF YOU ARE
UN-MUTED. BE SURE YOUR PHONE IS
UN-MUTED ON YOUR END SO THAT YO
WILL BE HEARD. AS A SPEAKER, YO
SHOULD BEGIN BY STATING YOUR
NAME AND THE ITEM THAT YOU ARE
ADDRESSING. A CHIME WILL SOUND
WHEN 10 SECONDS I LEFT IN YOUR
ALLOTTED TIME AS A GENDER
REMINDER TO WRAP UP YOUR PUBLIC
COMMENTS. AT THE END OF THE
ALLOTTED TIME, YOUR MICROPHONE
WILL BE MUTED AND THE NEXT
SPEAKER REGISTERED WILL BE
CALLED. ONCE SPEAKERS HAVE
COMPLETED PROVIDED PUBLIC
COMMENT, PLEASE DISCONNECT FROM
THE PUBLIC COMMENT LINE AND JOI
US BY FOLLOWING THE MEETING ON
SEATTLE CHANNEL BROADCAST OR
THROUGH THE LISTING LINE OPTION
LISTED ON THE AGENDA. THE
COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO
LIMIT PUBLIC COMMENT IF IT IS
BEING ABUSED, OR IF THE PROCESS
IMPEDES THE COUNCIL'S ABILITY T
CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS ON BEHALF
OF OF THIS CITY. ANY OFFENSIVE
-- FOCUSED -- APPROPRIATE TOPIC
-- AND COUNCIL RULES MAY LEAD T
THE SPEAKER BEING MUTED BY THE
PRESIDING OFFICER. OUR HOPE IS
TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS THAT WIL
ASSIST OUR ORDERLY CONSIDERATIO
OF ISSUES BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS NO
OPEN. WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE
FIRST SPEAKER ON THE LIST.
PLEASE REMEMBER, TO PRESS STAR
SIX AFTER YOU HEAR THE PROMPT
OF, YOU HAVE BEEN UN-MUTED.
THANK YOU, SEATTLE.
>> OKAY. SO, WE HAVE NO IN
PERSON COMMENTS SIGNED UP, SO W
WILL GO STRAIGHT TO REMOTE
SPEAKERS. EVERYONE WILL HAVE TW
MINUTES TO SPEAK AND WE WILL
START WITH EMMA.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME TO TESTIFY TODAY ON
ITEM B3. I'M A SENIOR POLICY
ANALYST AT A NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION IN WASHINGTON, D.C
THAT WORKS TO ADVANCE JUSTICE.
I'M HERE TO TESTIFY ABOUT
SEATTLE'S USE OF MOBILE DEVICE
FORENSIC TOOLS BASED ON OUR
REPORT MASS EXPRESSION WHICH IS
THE MOST APPREHENSIVE REPORT OF
HOW POLICE USE THEM. THESE TOOL
ALLOW POLICE TO SEARCH YOUR CEL
PHONE FOUR YEARS WORTH OF TAX,
PHOTOS, LOCATION DATA, ONLINE
HISTORY AND MORE. AT NO POINT I
HUMAN HISTORY HAVE WE CASUALLY
START SO MUCH INFORMATION IN ON
PLACE MAKING IT A SIGNIFICANT
EXPANSION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
POWER. GIVEN THIS, WE BELIEVE
THE COUNCIL SHOULD MOVE TO BAN
POLICE CONSENT SEARCHES. WE
FOUND THAT POLICE COMMONLY RELY
ON PEOPLE'S CONSENT TO SEARCH
CELL PHONES INSTEAD OF GETTING
WARRANT. THIS MEANS THERE IS NO
JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT OR LEGAL
LIMITATIONS ON THE SCOPE OF THE
SEARCH OR LIMITS ON HOW THE DAT
IS LATER USED. BETWEEN 2018 AND
2019 NEARLY 1/3 OF PHONES THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
SEARCHED WERE OBTAINED THROUGH
CONSENT AND NOT A WANT. CONSENT
SEARCHES ARE LEGAL FISSION. THE
SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT IT
IS LEGITIMATE IF IT IS COURSE
THE NOTION THAT SOMEONE CAN FEE
FREE TO WALK AWAY FROM
INTERACTION WITH -- IGNORES
REALITY ESPECIALLY FOR PEOPLE O
COLOR WHO FACE INCREASED THREAT
OF POTENTIALLY DEADLY POLICE
VIOLENCE. RECENT DATA FROM
CALIFORNIA SHOWS THAT 95% OF
INDIVIDUALS CONSENT TO A SEARCH
WHEN ASKED BY AN OFFICER.
ADDITIONALLY THERE IS ALMOST
NEVER INFORMED CONSENT IN THE
CONTEXT OF CELL PHONE SEARCHES.
PEOPLE MAY KNOW THAT THERE IS
SENSITIVE INFORMATION ON THE
PHONE, BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
KEEP TRACK OF EVERY RECORD
FURTHER, THEY CONNECT DATA THA
SOMEONE DOES NOT KNOW LIKE
METADATA, MANY PEOPLE CANNOT
FULLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE
CONSENTING TO. BENNETT CONSENT
SEARCHES IS NOT A PERFECT
SOLUTION AS IT IS EASY FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO OBTAIN A SEARCH
WARRANT, BUT IT CAN HELP LIMIT
POLICE DISCREPANCY.
ACCORDINGLY, THE COUNCIL SHOULD
AT MINIMUM BAN THE USE OF
CONSENT SEARCHES OF CELL PHONES
IF NOT ALL CONSENT SEARCHES OUT
RIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OUR NEX
SPEAKER IS CYNTHIA.
>> HI, I'M CYNTHIA. AN
INDEPENDENT SECURITY RESEARCH A
BIT MY COMMENTS REGARDING ALL
SIX. I SENT WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS ON EMAIL THAT HAVE NOT
YET BEEN ADDRESSED BY EITHER TH
SEE EXISTING REPORTS. PLEASE
RECALL THAT THE CITY ORDERED
RETROACTIVE TECHNOLOGY BE USED
SUCH THAT THE LATER GROUPS WERE
INCREMENTALLY MORE CONCERNING
COMPLEX ARE MORE DIFFICULT.
SINCE THIS IS A LARGE GROUP
THESE WOULD MORE FOR BE THE MOS
IN NEED OF YOUR SCRUTINY AS AN
OVERSIGHT. MANY OF THESE
TECHNOLOGIES ARE HIGHLY PRIVACY
INVASIVE. GEO TIMED COMPUTER
CELL PHONE AND MOBILE DEVICES,
COVERT CAMERAS, SHOULD ALL BE
LIMITED ONLY TO CASES THAT ARE
OF A VIOLENT OR SERIOUS OFFENSE
THERE YOU SHOULD BE PROPORTIONA
TO THE CRIME. ACROSS THE BOARD
THERE NEEDS TO BE REQUIREMENTS
FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR AL
THE CONSENT-BASED USE OF ANY OF
THESE TOOLS AND A BAN ON BOTH
PREDICTIVE POLICING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SCHOOLS. USING TH
SYSTEMS OR THEIR DATA.
ADDITIONALLY, SBD IS USING AT
LEAST ONE TOOL THAT IS FROM A
COMPANY WHICH IS LINKED TO HUMA
RIGHTS ABUSES AND MULTIPLE
AUTHORITARIAN COUNTRIES. PLEASE
REQUIRE THAT INVESTMENT. MORE
PROTECTIONS ARE NEEDED FOR
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
WHICH COULD BE PERPETRATED BY A
SBD EMPLOYEE. THE USE OF THESE
TECHNOLOGIES, EXCEPT PURSUANT T
THAT, EXPOSES THE INDIVIDUL TO
CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LIABILITY.
STOP THE MILITARIZATION AND
WEAPONIZATION OF SBD BY
PROHIBITING MOUNTING OF WEAPONS
TO ANY WITH THE INTENT TO HARM
OR KILL A LIVING BEING. MILITAR
MANUFACTURERS OR DEFENSE
CONTRACTORS. MANY OF THE PUBLIC
QUESTIONS ON THE CAMERAS
LOCATION TRACKERS ARE OF THESE
TOOLS. THEY ARE UNANSWERED
BECAUSE THERE ARE QUESTIONS.
THIS IS A DISSERVICE TO THE
PUBLIC AND HIGHLIGHTS THAT THE
CITY CARES MORE ABOUT
APPEARANCES AND KEEPING THE
STATUS QUO INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY
LISTENING AND COLLABORATING WIT
RESIDENTS. I URGE COUNCIL
MEMBERS TO REVIEW THE EMAILS I
SENT, WHICH HAVE MORE DETAILS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OUR LAS
SPEAKER THAT ASSIGNED UP IS
JENNIFER.
>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
JENNIFER. I'M THE TECH POLICY
LEAD AT THE ACLU OF WASHINGTON.
I'M ALSO COCHAIR OF THE
COMMUNITY SURVEILLANCE WORKING.
I'M COMMENTING ON THE SIX SBD
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES UNDER
REVIEW. WE APPRECIATE THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE WORKING
GROUP'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT
BELIEVE THAT THE COUNCIL BILL
FOR EACH TECHNOLOGY NEED TO BE
UPDATED TO FULLY REFLECT THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADDRESS
SERIOUS PRIVACY AND EQUITY
CONCERNS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ACLU
OF WASHINGTON IS CONCERNED THAT
THE USE OF COMPUTER, CELL PHONE
AND MOBILE DEVICE EXTRACTION
TOOLS BY SBD TO SURVEIL AND
ULTIMATELY KILL
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FIRS
AMENDMENT ACTIVITIES CONCERNING
RELIGION, EXPRESSION, AND
ASSEMBLY. WE RECOMMEND A
PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF
CONSENT SEARCHES WITH THESE
EXTRACTION TOOLS AS CONSENT
SEARCHES CREATE AN INHERENT
PARENT AND BALANCE. CONSENT
AGREEMENTS ALSO GENERALLY DO NO
DEFINE ADEQUATE PARAMETERS FOR
ADMITTING THE SEARCH. THE POLIC
HAVE AMPLE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHA
DATA TO EXTRACT WITH THESE
TOOLS. THE SCOPE OF DATA THEY
EXTRACT AND WHAT THEY DO WITH
THAT DATA. WE KNOW THAT SBD
HEAVILY RELIES ON CONSENT
AGREEMENTS TO DEPLOY THEM. AND
CONSENT PROCESS IS UNLIKELY TO
ADEQUATELY FIX THE INFORMATION
DEFICIT ESPECIALLY IN THE
ABSENCE OF LEGAL COUNCIL.
ADDITIONALLY FOR ALL OF THESE
TECHNOLOGIES, THERE NEED TO BE
PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF THESE
TOOLS WITH BIOMETRIC TECHNOLOGY
FOR PREDICTIVE POLICING AND
SOCIAL MEDIA ANALYSIS. WE ARE
CONCERNED THAT THE APPENDICES I
EACH COUNCIL BUDGET DO NOT
ADEQUATELY UP THE
RECOMMENDATION. AND MANY OF
THESE, THERE ARE CLAIMS THAT TH
S.I.R. ADDRESSES THE WORKING
GROUP'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT IN
MANY CASES THE S.I.R. ACTUALLY
FALL SHORT. LASTLY, THERE ARE
MANY OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS ON
UNDERCOVER CAMERAS, TRACKING
DEVICES, REMOTELY OPERATED
VEHICLES AND CRASH -- WE HAVE
SUBMITTED DETAILED WRITTEN
COMMENTS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS O
EACH OF THE TECHNOLOGIES, AND W
ASK THAT YOU ADOPT ALL OF THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS IN ORDER TO
MITIGATE PRIVACY AND CIVIL
LIBERTY CONCERNS. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT WA
OUR LAST SPEAKER, SO THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW CLOSED.
>>> SINCE THERE ARE SIX ITEMS O
THE AGENDA OF BASICALLY THE SAM
NATURE, AND WE HAVE A PANEL OF
PRESENTERS AND A PRESENTATION
FROM SEATTLE LIGHT THAT
ADDRESSES ALL OF THEM AT ONCE,
I'M GOING TO ASK THE CLERK TO
READ ITEMS ONE THROUGH SIX INTO
THE RECORD RIGHT NOW.
>> AGENDA ITEM 1. COUNCIL BILL
120499. AN ORDINANCE RELATING T
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
IMPLEMENTATION, AUTHORIZING
APPROVAL OF USES AND ACCEPTING
THE 2022 SURVEILLANCE IMPACT
REPORT AND 2022 EXECUTIVE
OVERVIEW FOR THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S USE OF CAMERA
SYSTEMS, IMAGES OR NON-AUDITORY
VIDEO RECORDINGS.
>>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO,
COUNCIL BILL 120500. AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
IMPLEMENTATION, AUTHORIZING
APPROVAL OF USES AND ACCEPTED
THE 2022 SURVEILLANCE IMPACT
REPORT AND 2022 EXECUTIVE
OVERVIEW FOR THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S USE OF CRASH DATA
RETRIEVAL TOOLS. AGENDA ITEM 3,
COUNCIL BILL 120501. AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
IMPLEMENTATION AUTHORIZING
APPROVAL OF USES AND EXCEPT IN
THE 2022 SURVEILLANCE IMPACT
REPORT AND 22 EXECUTIVE OVERVIE
FOR THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT USE OF COMPUTER, CEL
PHONE AND MOBILE DEVICE
EXTRACTION TOOLS. AGENDA ITEM
NUMBER FOUR, COUNCIL BILL
120502. AN ORDINANCE RELATING T
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AGEND
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, COUNCIL BILL
120503. AN ORDINANCE RELATING T
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY .
AGENDA ITEM 6. COUNCIL BILL
120504. AN ORDINANCE RELATING
TO SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AL
SIX AGENDA ITEMS ARE UP FOR
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU, STEPHEN. OKAY SO
THIS IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO
THIS. SEATTLE I.T. WILL GIVE ON
PRESENTATION ON THE S.I.R.
REVIEW PROCESS, AND THEN AGAIN
CAPTAIN BRITT WILL ANSWER, WIL
PRESENT EACH TECHNOLOGY AND ITS
USES AND COUNCILMEMBERS WILL
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK
QUESTIONS ABOUT EACH ONE. LISA
KAYE OF CENTRAL STAFF IS HERE
AND IS ALSO AVAILABLE TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS IN HER MEMO ATTACHED
TO THE AGENDA. SO, WITH THE
PRESENTERS PLEASE COME TO THE
TABLE, AND FOR EVERYONE ONLINE
AND PRESENT, INTRODUCE
YOURSELVES PLEASE. THEN, YOU MA
BEGIN.
>> I GUESS I'LL GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING EVERYONE. I'M CAPTAIN
JIM BRITT WITH THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
>> INTERIM CHIEF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE
>> SARA CARRIER, PRIVACY
PROGRAM MANAGER, CITY OF
SEATTLE.
>> AND DO WE HAVE -- LISA, WOUL
YOU LIKE TO PRESENT -- INTRODUC
YOURSELF?
>> YES, THANK YOU, SORRY ABOUT
THAT. LISA KAYE, CENTRAL STAFF.
>> OKAY, LET'S BEGIN NOW. GO
AHEAD. TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
>> OKAY.
>> ME I, IF YOU DON'T MIND, IT
IS EASY FOR THE AUDIENCE TO
HEAR. THESE MICROPHONES AREN'T
VERY SHORT. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO
SPEAK WITHOUT YOUR MASK ON.
>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL
START WITH THE NEXT SLIDE
PLEASE. THANK YOU. FIRST WE
WILL WALK YOU THROUGH A LITTLE
BIT OF WHAT THE SOME CLIENTS
PROCESS IS. STARTING WITH AN
OVERVIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF
SURVEILLANCE, AND WHY WE ARE
LOOKING AT THESE TECHNOLOGIES
TODAY. SO THE DEFINITION OF
SURVEILLANCE IS A TECHNOLOGY
WHOSE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO
OBSERVE, ANALYZE, THE MOVEMENTS
BEHAVIORS, OR ANALYZE [
INDISCERNIBLE ]. THERE ARE A
SERIES OF INCLUSION AND
EXCLUSION CRITERIA THAT ARE
OUTLINED IN THE ORDINANCE. THAT
WE USED TO EVALUATE WHAT
TECHNOLOGIES SHOULD GO THROUGH
THIS REVIEW PROCESS. EXCLUSIONS
INCLUDE TECHNOLOGIES SUCH AS
SECURITY CAMERAS, POLICE WORN
BODY CAMERAS. AND INFRASTRUCTUR
PROTECTION CAMERAS. INCLUSION
CRITERIA YOU CAN SEE ON THE
RIGHT-HAND SIDE. ANY PERSONAL
INFORMATION SHARED WITH NON-CIT
ENTITIES. THEY WILL BE USED
WHERE THE DATA WILL BE USED FOR
PURPOSES OTHER THAN PROVIDING
THE CITY WITH CONTRACTUALLY
AGREED-UPON SERVICE. AND THINGS
LIKE TECHNOLOGIES THAT RAISE
REASONABLE CONCERNS ABOUT CIVIL
LIBERTIES.
>> NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO, THE
PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE SURVEILLANCE IMPACT REPORTS
IS ROUGHLY OUTLINED IN
APPROXIMATELY SEVEN STEPS. THIS
IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPOR
THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED INCLUD
THESE SEVEN SECTIONS FOR EACH O
THE TECHNOLOGIES GOING THROUGH
THIS PROCESS. THE FIRST IS A
PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT, WHIC
OUTLINES PROTECTIONS, DATA
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AND
APPLICABLE ASSOCIATED POLICIES
THAT HELP GOVERN THE TECHNOLOGY
WE HAVE THE FINANCIAL
INFORMATION SECTION. AN
ADAPTATION OF THE RACIAL EQUITY
TOOLKIT. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS. THE
PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
IMPACT ASSESSMENT THAT IS
DRAFTED BY THE SURVEILLANCE
WORKING GROUP. THE CTL RESPONSE
TO THAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT BY TH
WORKING GROUP AND THEN
APPENDICES AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION.
>> NEXT PLEASE. OKAY. SO
OVERALL, THE S.I.R. TIMELINE FO
THESE RETROACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN
APPROXIMATELY 8 TO 9 MONTHS.
THAT INCLUDES THE INITIAL
DRAFTING OF THE SURVEILANCE
IMPACT REPORT. WHICH IS AN
EXTENSIVE RESEARCH PROJECT.
THEN, AFTER THE REPORT IS
DRAFTED AND GO TO PUBLIC
COMMENT. THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS
ADDED TO THE SURVEILLANCE IMPAC
REPORT. THEN, PROVIDED TO THE
SURVEILLANCE ADVISORY WORKING
GROUP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THEIR PRIVACY AND CIVIL
LIBERTIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT.
THAT IS THEN INCORPORATED INTO
THE S.I.R.. THE CTO HAS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE
CONCERNS OUTLINED IN THE
ASSESSMENT OF THE WORKING GROUP
AN EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW IS DRAFTE
OF THE SURVEILLANCE IMPACT
REPORT. THEN FINALLY WE GET TO
COUNCIL SUBMISSION. WHICH IS
WHERE WE ARE NOW. [ LAUGHTER ]
ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE BEEN IN
THIS PROCESS I BELIEVE SINCE
2017. WE HAVE GOTTEN 18 OF THE
RETROACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES THAT
ARE ON THE MASTER LIST THROUGH
THIS PROCESS. THROUGH THE
COUNCIL PROCESS. THOSE ARE
LISTED HERE. WE HAVE GROUPED
THEM ACCORDINGLY JUST FOR
EFFICIENCY SAKE ESSENTIALLY. SO
NOW WE ARE HERE TO ADDRESS SOME
OF THE SIX THAT WILL BE ON THE
NEXT SLIDE.
>> WHICH ARE ALL SBD
TECHNOLOGIES. AGAIN, CAMERA
SYSTEMS, COMPUTER CELL PHONE
MOBILE DEVICE EXTRACTION TOOLS.
CRASH DATA IT'S AND TRACKING
DEVICES. SO A LITTLE BIT MORE
ABOUT THE FOUR PUBLIC ENGAGEMEN
PROCESS. AND THE RESULTS. SO,
THERE WERE TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS
HELD DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD FOR THIS GROUP OF
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES. WHIC
ALSO INCLUDED YOU CAN SEE ONE
PAGE FLYERS. THEY WERE
TRANSLATED INTO THE SEVEN TIER
LANGUAGES. THE RECORDINGS WERE
POSTED ONLINE AFTER THE MEETING
SO THOSE WERE MADE PUBLICLY
ACCESSIBLE. THE TWO MEETINGS FO
THIS GROUP ARE HELD ON APRIL
27th AND MAY 18th OF 2022. YOU
CAN SEE SOME OF THE NUMBERS THA
RESULTED FROM ALL OF THE COMMEN
PERIOD. SOME OF THE LETTERS
SUBMITTED, QUESTIONS, ONLINE
COMMENTS. PARTICIPANTS, NUMBER
OF PARTICIPANTS AT THE PUBLIC
MEETING, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE
CITY STAFF. AND THE NUMBER OF
QUESTIONS RECEIVED THROUGH ALL
OF THOSE MEDIUMS.
>> SO WE HAD 12 ARCHES OF PANTS
AND TOTAL FOR BOTH OF THE PUBLI
MEETINGS. WE HAD 12 COMMENTS,
AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF
CONSISTENCY WE COUNTED THOSE
LETTERS FROM ORGANIZATIONS SUCH
AS THE ACLU AS ONE LETTER.
THAT'S WHERE THAT 12 COMES FROM
THEN, A MYRIAD OF QUESTIONS THA
WERE BOTH FROM THE PUBLIC
MEETING AND PRESENT IN ONLINE
COMMENTS OR EMAILS SUBMITTED AS
PUBLIC COMMENT. AND IN THE
LETTERS RECEIVED ON THESE
TECHNOLOGIES. NEXT SLIDE
PLEASE.
>> ALL RIGHT. I WILL HAVE TO
HAND IT OVER TO CAPTAIN BRITT.
>> HOLD ON, I HAVE A QUESTION
ABOUT THIS, AND I'LL ASK MY
COLLEAGUES DO AS WELL. CAN YOU
GO BACK TO SLIDE FIVE PLEASE?
OKAY, SO THIS SAYS -- THIS IS A
GENERAL TIMELINE AND IT SAYS 8
TO 9 MONTHS. YOU ALSO SAID THAT
THIS HAS BEEN IN PROCESS SINCE
THE 2017 WENT INTO EFFECT. I'M
ASSUMING SOMETIME IN 2018 OR
WHATEVER. BUT, SO, QUESTION IS,
IS THAT AN ASPIRATIONAL 8 TO 9
MONTHS ONCE THIS WHOLE BATCH IS
FINISHED?
>> THE 8 TO 9 MONTHS IS KIND OF
GAUGED PER GROUPING. SO WE
STARTED WITH GROUP 1, GROUP 2
AND FOR GROUP 3. FOR EACH OF
THOSE WE WOULD APPROXIMATE 8 TO
9 MONTHS IF EVERYTHING GOES
CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE
PROCESS.
>> OKAY.
>> GOT IT, THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU. A COUPLE
QUESTIONS. IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY,
A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC SAID THA
WE HAVE MOVED THROUGH THESE
GROUPS OF RETROACTIVE
TECHNOLOGIES IN ORDER OF
COMPLEXITY AND SUGGESTED THAT
THIS PARTICULAR GROUP OF
TECHNOLOGIES IS THE --
CONSEQUENCE UGLY, IF THAT IS
TRUE THIS IS THE MOST COMPLEX O
THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE HAVE
APPROVED THUS FAR. I'M
INTERESTED TO KNOW WHETHER OR
NOT THAT IS THE CASE. I'M
WONDERING ALSO, AS IT RELATES T
THE PROCESS PIECE, OF THIS
EFFORT, IS THERE -- I UNDERSTAN
THAT THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE WORKING GROUP. SOME OF
THOSE MAKE IT IN, SOME OF THEM
DON'T. IS THERE DOCUMENTS THAT
SEATTLE I.T. CAN TITLE THAT
EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NOT
INCLUDING SOME OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT AREN'T
INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS
TO COUNCIL? IF THAT EXISTS, I
WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT. TO
UNDERSTAND BETTER WHY MANY OF
WHAT WE ARE HEARING HAS
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT INCLUDE
SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE
THINKING OF THE CITY TEAM ON
THIS. THANK YOU.
>> YEAH. SO, SO THE -- THE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME FROM
THE WORKING GROUP CAN BE FOUND
IN THE PACKAGE. IN THE S.I.R.
ITSELF WITHIN THEIR PRIVACY AN
CIVIL LIBERTIES IMPACT
ASSESSMENT. I WOULD HAVE TO
DEFER TO SBD TO EVALUATE HOW
THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY
OPERATIONALIZE THOSE. THAT WAS
MORE OF A BUSINESS DECISION THA
AN I.T. DECISION. RIGHT NOW THE
S.I.R. REFLECTS -- RIGHT NOW -
OH, SORRY.
>> MY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NO
THERE IS A DOCUMENT THAT
EXPLAINS THE THINGS THAT AREN'T
INCLUDED THAT WERE RECOMMENDED.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WORKIN
GROUP. I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL. WHA
I'M ASKING IS, IS THERE SORT OF
A CROSSWALK? A WRITTEN
EXPLANATION FOR WHY CERTAIN
THINGS WERE RECOMMENDED AND
WEREN'T INCLUDED?
>> IF I MAY, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD, THE TABLE, THE
ATTACHMENT IN EACH OF CENTRAL
STAFF'S MEMO DOES PROVIDE A BIT
OF THAT CROSSWALK. IT DOES
MENTION THAT IT GROUPS SOME OF
THE RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER
CERTAIN CATEGORIES SUCH AS WOUL
REQUIRE A CHANGE IN STATE LAW,
OR THEY HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN
THE S.I.R.. SO, THAT IS, THAT
CAN GIVE A PARTIAL WINDOW INTO
PERHAPS WHY SOME OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS HAVEN'T BEEN
IMPLEMENTED OR TAKEN FURTHER.
BUT, I WILL ASK LISA IF YOU HAD
ANY OTHER INFORMATION.
>> ONE OTHER DOCUMENT I WOULD
POINT YOU TO COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD IS THE CHIEF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICER'S RESPONSE TO THE
PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT. IN
ALL CASES, THE CHIEF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICER HAS FOUND THAT THE
LIMITATIONS ENACTED BY THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT PROVIDE
ADEQUATE MITIGATION FOR THE
CIVIL LIBERTIES CONCERNS RAISED
BY THE WORKING GROUP. THAT'S TH
PRIMARY DOCUMENTATION.
>> SO, WE DON'T NEED THESE
THINGS AS OPPOSED TO GOING
THROUGH AND EXPLAINING WHAT THE
-- WHAT THE -- WHAT THE -- WHAT
THE PROBLEM WOULD BE WITH THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS? I DO
UNDERSTAND, MADAM CHAIR, THANK
YOU. THAT LISA KAYE HAS DONE
THAT. THAT OVERVIEW AND THE
GROUPING. I WAS MORE INTERESTED
FROM -- AND I THANK HER FOR
THAT, IT IS DOUBTFUL. I WAS MOR
INTERESTED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SIDE, UNDERSTANDING THEIR
ARGUMENTS FOR WHY SO MANY OF TH
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BEING
MADE AREN'T MAKING IT IN.
>> I WILL BE FOR TWO CTO. THE
S.I.R. DOES INCLUDE
EXPLANATION'S FOLLOWING THE
OVERALL FINDINGS. WHERE THE CTO
SITES WHERE THEY SEE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS HAVING BEEN
ADDRESSED IN THE S.I.R.. BUT I
WOULD DEFER TO THE CTO ON THIS.
>> MANY THANKS, THANK YOU.
>> CTO HERE. WHERE I HAVE THE
INFORMATION FROM A TECHNOLOGY
PERSPECTIVE ON WHY A GIVEN
RECOMMENDATION IS NOT
TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE, I HAVE
INCLUDED THAT IN MY RESPONSES.
CAN'T SPEAK OFF THE TOP OF MY
HEAD TO THE SIX UNDER
DELIBERATION TODAY. BUT, BY FAR
THE OBJECTIONS, OR I WOULDN'T
THE OBJECTIONS, BUT THE REASONS
WHY CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS CAN
BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, OR
CAN'T BE IMPLEMENTED LET ME PUT
IT THAT WAY, IS REALLY MORE
ABOUT THE WAY THE TECHNOLOGY IS
OPERATED BY THE DEPARTMENT. SO,
I WILL, BY TRANSITIVE PROPERTY,
THEN DEFER FURTHER TO CAPTAIN
BRITT AND MY COLLEAGUES AT SPD
IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
THAT AREN'T ADDRESSED IN THE CT
RESPONSE. I ALSO WANT TO COMMEN
ON THE OTHER QUESTION THAT
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD RAISED
ABOUT THE ORDER IN WHICH THESE
TECHNOLOGIES WERE CONSIDERED BY
US. I THINK CERTAINLY IN THE
FIRST YEAR OF THE EXISTENCE OF
THE ORDINANCE, WE DELIBERATELY
CHOSE TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE
CONSIDERED TO BE LESS
CONTROVERSIAL THAN OTHERS. ALSO
IN ORDER TO TEST OUT THE PROCES
THAT WE PUT IN PLACE, AND TO
DEVELOP THE TIMELINE AND THE
ELEMENTS OF THE S.I.R. THAT YOU
SAW PRESENTED TO YOU. I WOULD
SAY SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, FIRST
BATCH OR TWO, IT HAS BEEN A
BLEND. I THINK THE CYCLIC PICK
TECHNOLOGY FOR EXAMPLE THAT SDO
HAD IMPLEMENTED AS WELL AS
LICENSE PLATE READER
TECHNOLOGIES WERE EXAMPLES OF
VERY COMPLEX TECHNOLOGIES THAT
WE ADDRESSED EARLIER IN THE
PROCESS. EVEN TODAY, I WOULD SA
THAT THERE IS A COUPLE OF THE
TECHNOLOGIES ON THE SCREEN IN
FRONT OF US THAT I WOULDN'T
NECESSARILY GROUP INTO THE
PARTICULARLY COMPLEX QUOTE
UNQUOTE. SO COMPLEXITY IS
OBVIOUSLY SUBJECTIVE. THERE IS
NO DEFINITE -- DEFINITION OF
WHAT THAT IS. BUT I WOULD SAY
THERE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE
EFFORT OVERALL TO STACK THE
COMPLEX TECHNOLOGIES HERE AT TH
END. IT REALLY JUST WORKED OUT
THAT WAY CIRCUMSTANTIALLY. EVEN
THOUGH WE DID DELIBERATELY
CHOOSE SOME LESS COMPLEX AND
LESS CONTROVERSIAL TECHNOLOGIES
AT THE VERY BEGINNING. THE
GROUPING AND THE PROCESS AND TH
PROCEDURE HERE HAS REALLY BEEN
JUST DUE TO A NUMBER OF FACTORS
OTHER THAN COMPLEXITY. I HOPE
THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
>> YES.
>> OKAY, ARE THERE ANY OTHER
úQUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBE
BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO CAPTAIN
BRITT? I AM NOT SEEING ANY.
OKAY. GO AHEAD PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND
GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. IF IT'S
ALL RIGHT WITH THE CHAIR, WHAT
WOULD LIKE TO DO IS PRESENT THE
INFORMATION THAT'S ON EACH OF
THE SCREENS AND THEN GET INTO
SOME OF THE ANSWERS THAT WE WER
ABLE TO PROVIDE TO THE
SURVEILLANCE WORKGROUP
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE LISTE
IN THE CATEGORIES OF -- WOULD
REQUIRE SPD POLICY ADJUSTMENTS.
WHEN THE SURVEILLANCE WORKGROUP
RECOMMENDATIONS WERE SENT, SOME
OF THEM WERE EITHER ADDRESSED
ALREADY, WOULD REQUIRE A CHANGE
TO STATE LAW, OR WOULD REQUIRE
CHANGE TO SPD POLICY AND
PROCEDURES. IF IT'S ALL RIGHT
WITH THE CHAIR WE WILL GO
THROUGH THE TECHNOLOGY AND THEN
I WILL ANSWER THOSE AND ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN AT
THAT'S REASONABLE.
>> THAT'S FINE.
>> THANK YOU, CAN WE GO TO THE
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THANK YOU.
THE FIRST ONE IS THE CAMERA
SYSTEMS. THESE ARE COVERT CAMER
SYSTEMS THAT ARE USED TO CAPTUR
IMAGES AND VIDEO OF IDENTIFIABL
INDIVIDUALS, SOME OF WHOM ARE
UNAWARE OF THE RECORDING. THEY
ARE CONCEALED ON A PERSON OR
HIDDEN ON OBJECTS WITHIN AN
ENVIRONMENT. TO CAPTURE IMAGES
ONLY IF THEY DO NOT RECORD
SOUND. ON THE RIGHT OF THE
SCREEN IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT A
CAMERA MIGHT LOOK LIKE. COVERT
CAMERA SYSTEMS ARE USED BY THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT TO OBTAIN
INFORMATION DURING CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS. BEAR DISGUISED
AND YOU TO RECORD SPECIFIC
EVENTS RELATED TO AN
INVESTIGATION. GO AHEAD MOVE
ONTO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
>> HOW THEY ARE USED, WHEN YOU
REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINA
ACTIVITY EXISTS CAMERAS MAY BE
PLACED TO CAPTURE PLAINVIEW
EVENTS IN AREAS WHERE NO
REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY EXISTS. WHEN PLACED IN
AREAS WHERE A REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY EXISTS,
OR PROTECTED AREAS, USE OF
CAMERA SYSTEMS IS PURSUANT TO
THE WASHINGTON PRIVACY ACT AND
ARE UTILIZED ONLY AFTER
UTILIZING APPROPRIATE CONSENT
AND/OR A LEGAL SEARCH WANT.
ADDITIONALLY I WANT TO PAUSE
JUST FOR A MINUTE AND ADDRESS
SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE
BEEN RAISED ABOUT CONSENT. IN
WASHINGTON STAY WE HAVE CASE AR
RELATED TO THIS RESPECT CALLED
STATE VERSUS FERRIER. IT
REQUIRES THAT A PERSON WHO IS
GIVING CONSENT TO A SEARCH TO
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWE
TO REFUSE THE SEARCH THEY ARE
ALLOWED TO REVOKE THE SEARCH AT
ANY TIME DURING THE PROCESS. AN
THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LIMIT THE
SCOPE OF THAT SEARCH AT ANY
TIME. THAT IS A STATE LAW THAT
DOESN'T NECESSARILY EXIST
OUTSIDE WASHINGTON STATE. SO
WASHINGTON STATE LAW HAS
ADDRESSED SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED RELATED T
CONSENT. THE PROTECTIONS IN
PLACE, ALL DEPLOYMENTS OF THE
DEVICES ARE DOCUMENTED BY THE
TECHNOLOGICAL UNIT AND SUBJECT
TO AUDIT BY THE OFFICE OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL AND THE
FEDERAL MONITOR AT ANY TIME. AL
INFORMATION MUST BE GATHERED AN
RECORDED IN A MANNER THAT IS
INCONSISTENT WITH SPD POLICY
SUCH THAT IT DOES NOT REASONABL
INFRINGE UPON QUOTE, INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS, LIBERTIES AND FREEDOMS
SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, INCLUDING
AMONG OTHERS, THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, PRESS, ASSOCIATION IN
DECEMBER, LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE
THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, AND
THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES OR VIOLATE RIGHT TO
PRIVACY. IF WE CAN GO TO THE
NEXT LIGHT FOR JUST A MOMENT.
>> THE NEXT SLIDE LIST POLICIES
VARIOUS POLICIES IN THE
WASHINGTON STATE LAW. THEY APPL
TO THE USE OF THESE CAMERA
SYSTEMS. RELATED TO THE
WORKGROUP QUESTIONS THAT CAME
UP, OR AT SOME OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE WERE
THREE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE
LISTED UNDER AREAS THAT WOULD
REQUIRE SPD CHANGE IN POLICY.
THE FIRST ONE WAS TO RESTRICT
THE USE OF THESE CAMERA SYSTEMS
TO SERIOUS AND VIOLENT OFFENSES
THE PROBLEM HERE, AND FORGIVE M
IF I GET A LITTLE OFF WHAT WOUL
BE CONSIDERED A SCRIPT. THE
PROBLEM HERE IS WHAT CONSTITUTE
A SERIOUS OFFENSE. IF A
TECHNOLOGY CAN FURTHER AN
INVESTIGATION OF BE USED LEGALL
AND RESPONSIBLY AND ETHICALLY,
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE
ABLE TO PURSUE THAT
INVESTIGATIVE OPTION. THE
PROBLEM HERE WITH THE DECISION
OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED A SERIOUS
OFFENSE IS IT'S VERY SUBJECTIVE
A CELL PHONE STOLEN FROM A
VEHICLE IN A CAR PRALL MAY NOT
BE CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE
GRAND SCHEME, BUT IF THAT CELL
PHONE CONTAINS IMAGES OF THE DA
YOUR CHILD WAS BORN OR THE LAST
VOICEMAIL YOUR FATHER, WHO HAS
NOW PASSED ON, LEFT YOU, I
IMAGINE THE OWNER WOULD CONSIDE
THAT TO BE A VERY SERIOUS
OFFENSE. IF THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT HAS TECHNOLOGY THAT
WOULD AID THEM IN PURSUING TO
RETRIEVE THE PROPERTY OR TO
IDENTIFY THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE,
WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO
ETHICALLY AND RESPONSIBLY AND
LEGALLY. THE SECOND
RECOMMENDATION WAS THE
DISCLOSURE OF THE MAKE AND THE
MODELS OF THE CAMERAS. THE
PROBLEM, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE
OF HOW THESE CAMERAS ARE USED
COVERTLY, IT WOULD ALLOW
SUBJECTS OF INVESTIGATIONS TO
DEVELOP COUNTERMEASURES TO
PREVENT THEIR USE AND THE GATE
THEIR ABILITY TO FUNCTION
APPROPRIATELY FOR WHAT THEY ARE
USED FOR. THE THIRD
RECOMMENDATION WAS A MONTHLY
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE
DEPLOYMENTS OF THESE CAMERAS.
ONCE AGAIN, THIS RECOMMENDATION
HAS THE POTENTIAL TO ENDANGER
INVESTIGATIONS, NOT ONLY THE
INVESTIGATE ITSELF, BUT
POTENTIALLY UNDERCOVER OFFICERS
OR COOPERATING PARTIES THAT USE
CAMERA. MANY OF THE
INVESTIGATIONS USING THESE
CAMERAS MAY EXTEND BELONG THE
MONTH-LONG PERIOD AND EVEN
REDACTING TO A LIMITED AMOUNT O
INFORMATION VERY WELL COULD
DISCLOSE INFORMATION THAT WOULD
ENDANGER PERSONNEL.
>> THANK YOU, CAPTAIN. I DID
HAVE THE SAME THOUGHT REGARDING
THE WORD SERIOUS, WHICH IS NOT
DEFINED. THAT ALWAYS MAKES ME
NERVOUS BECAUSE IT COULD
INTRODUCE BIAS. ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU. ONE POPS OUT AT
ME. SO THESE ARE ALL POLICIES.
YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM AND
THAT'S VERY HELPFUL TO
UNDERSTAND. BUT HOW DO WE -- HO
DO WE AS A CITY CONFIRM THAT TH
USE -- IN THE USE OF THESE
TECHNOLOGIES, THAT THESE ARE
POLICIES -- IS THERE DATA BEING
COLLECTED THAT WE COULD LOOK AT
TO DETERMINE THAT YOU ARE USING
THESE CAMERAS IN A WAY THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH FOR INSTANCE
BIAS FREE POLICING? THAT IS ONE
QUESTION. THE SECOND QUESTION I
HAVE IS AS IT RELATES TO THE
CONSENT SEARCHES. I MAY NOT HAV
ALL THREE OF THE CRITERIA -- TH
LIMITATIONS THAT ARE SUBJECT --
ASEPTIC CAN PLACE, BUT I BELIEV
THEY CAN REFUSE, THEY CAN END,
OR THEY COULD REDUCE THE SCOPE.
I'M WONDERING IS THE SUBJECT
TOLD THAT AT THE TIME WHEN
YOU'RE SEEKING CONSENT? IN OTHE
WORDS, ARE THEY AWARE OF THAT
RIGHT TO REFUSE, ADJUST THE
SCOPE, OR END? THIRDLY, RELATED
TO THAT, WE HAVE A LAW HERE IN
SEATTLE. ACTUALLY I THINK BOTH
COUNTY AND STATE HAVE ALSO
PASSED IT. SOMETIMES REFERRED T
AS THE MY CHANCE ORDINANCE. THI
IS FOR WHEN YOUNG PEOPLE ARE
CONTACTED BY POLICE OFFICERS.
THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A
ATTORNEY NOTIFIED THAT THIS
CONTACT IS HAPPENING SO THAT
THEY HAVE A MORE ENHANCED
UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR RIGHTS.
I'M WONDERING WITH THESE -- AND
I THINK THAT THIS IS PROBABLY A
QUESTION FOR ALL OF THE
TECHNOLOGIES BEFORE US. WITH TH
SUBJECT OF THE TECHNOLOGY, IF
THAT PERSON WAS UNDER THE AGE,
THINK IT IS 24 AND UNDER I
BELIEVE. WHAT THAT LOT BE
TRIGGERED, AND WITH THAT
INDIVIDUAL BE AFFORDED THOSE
RIGHTS? THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTIONS
COUNCILMEMBER. THE FIRST
QUESTION RELATED TO BIAS FREE
POLICING OF THE DATA. ALL THE
TECHNOLOGY LISTED HERE IS
SUBJECT TO OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL. WORKING WITH THEM WE
WOULD HAVE TO DEVELOP METRICS B
WHICH WE WOULD REPORT ON THAT
INFORMATION AND WE WOULD BE ABL
TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION AS
APPROPRIATE TO THE AUDIT
EFFORTS. AS FOR THE WARNINGS,
YES, WHEN A PERSON IS BEING
ASKED FOR CONSENT, IN FACT ON
THE VERY TOP OF THE CONSENT FOR
THAT IS GENERALLY SIGNED, IN
THESE CASES, IT LISTS ALL THREE
OF THEM. YOU HAVE THEM CORRECT.
THE RIGHT TO REFUSE, THE RIGHT
TO REVOKE AT ANY TIME, AND YOU
HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIMIT THE
SCOPE OF THAT SEARCH. THEY ARE
TOLD THAT COME IN STATE LAW AND
STATE CASE LAW REQUIRES THAT TH
PERSON REMAIN PRESENT SO THAT
THEY CAN INVOKE THAT RIGHT AT
ANY TIME. SO I CAN'T READ THESE
WARNINGS TO YOU, AND THEN GO
SEARCH THE CAR WELL AWAY FROM
YOU OR SEARCH WHATEVER I'M
SEARCHING WELL AWAY FROM YOU SO
YOU CAN'T REVOKE IT. YOU HAVE T
BE GIVEN NOT JUST A WARNING, BU
THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY ENACT
YOUR RIGHTS DURING THE PROCESS
AS WELL. SO YES, THOSE ARE READ
IN ADVANCE AND ARE ON TOP OF AL
THE FORMS THAT ARE USED AS FOR
THE YOUTH, THE QUESTION ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT I CAN SEARCH YOU
PROPERTY IS IN FACT QUESTIONING
WHICH MEANS IT WOULD TRIGGER
THAT LAW AS IT RELATES TO
QUESTIONING OF YOUTH UNDER THE
YOUTH RIGHTS ACT. HOPEFULLY I
ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> CERTAINLY, THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD YOUR
VOICE IS A LITTLE FAINT AND
GARBLED.
>> I'M SO SORRY. IS THAT BETTER
>> A LITTLE.
>> OKAY. WELL, LET ME JUST TRY.
[ INDISCERNIBLE ]
>> UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE
FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THA
PROCESS WORKS. AS I UNDERSTAND
IT BASICALLY, THE INVESTIGATOR
THAT IS ASKING TO USE THIS
TECHNOLOGY HAS TO MEET CERTAIN
THRESHOLDS, WHICH INCLUDES IS
THE TECHNOLOGY LIKELY TO FURTHE
THEIR INVESTIGATION? DO THEY
HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE WITH A
WARRANT OR CONSENT? THAT, THEY
HAVE TO RUN IT THROUGH THEIR
CHAIN OF CONSENT TO MAKE SURE I
IS APPROPRIATE. WITHOUT DIRECT
FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF IT,
THAT'S MY BEST UNDERSTANDING OF
IT.
>> [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
>> YES MA'AM.
>> OKAY, I'M NOT SEEING ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS. WOULD YOU
PLEASE PROCEED TO THE NEXT
TECHNOLOGY.
>> THE NEXT TECHNOLOGY IS
COMPUTER CELL PHONE AND MOBILE
DEVICE EXTRACTION TOOLS. THESE
ARE USED TO PULL PRIVATE
INFORMATION FROM THE DEVICES OF
INDIVIDUALS. THE DIFFERENT
EXTRACTION TOOLS SPD UTILIZES
WORK SIMILARLY TO ONE ANOTHER.
IS PHYSICALLY CONNECTED TO A
COMPUTER WORKSTATION WITH A
SPECIALIZED SOFTWARE. OR TO A
STANDALONE DEVICE WITH A SIMILA
SOFTWARE INSTALLED. THE SOFTWAR
IS ABLE TO BYPASS, DECIPHER OR
DISABLE THE PASSWORD. AND
EXTRACT FILES CONTAINING DATA
FROM THE MOBILE DEVICES. SPD
UTILIZES ELECTRONIC DEVICE
EXTRACTION AND IMAGING
TECHNOLOGIES TO RECOVER DIGITA
INFORMATION OR DATA FROM
COMPUTERS, CELL PHONES AND
MOBILE DEVICES AS PART OF A
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. THESE
TECHNOLOGIES ARE UTILIZED ONLY
WITH CONSENT OR PURSUANT TO
SEARCH ONE AUTHORITY. EXTRACTIO
TOOLS ALLOW INVESTIGATORS TO
LEGALLY COLLECT INFORMATION FOR
ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS THAT MAY
BE USED TO PROSECUTE CRIMES.
THESE TOOLS ALLOW INVESTIGATORS
TO EXTRACT DATA QUICKLY AND
SECURELY FROM A WIDE VARIETY OF
DEVICES AND PRESERVE EVIDENCE
FROM THESE DEVICES IN A
FORENSICALLY SOUND CONDITION,
WHICH CAN THEN BE PRESENTED IN
COURT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. DATA
EXTRACTION DEVICES ARE UTILIZED
ONLY AFTER BEING CONSENTED OR A
COURT ISSUED WARRANT HAS BEEN
MET. EXTRACTION TOOLS EXCLUDING
COMPUTER IMAGING, COLLECT
INFORMATION FROM ELECTRONIC
DEVICES INCLUDING CONTACT LISTS
CALL LOGS, MESSAGES, AND GPS
LOCATIONS. COMPUTER IMAGING --
>> 1027, I'M SORRY I'M SEEING
COLLEAGUES LOOKING, TRYING TO
TRACK. I'M SORRY I SHOULD HAVE
MENTIONED THIS EARLIER. THE
ORDER OF TWO AND THREE AS
REVERSED HERE, SO WE ARE
TECHNICALLY LOOKING AT ITEM 3 O
THE AGENDA. IT IS SECOND IN YOU
PRESENTATION, SO I'M SORRY IF
THAT HAS BEEN CONFUSING PEOPLE
THAT ARE TRYING TO TRACK ALONG.
THANK YOU, PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> SORRY ABOUT THAT, FOLKS. THE
COMPUTER IMAGING CONTRACTS. DAT
COLLECTED IS PROVIDED TO THE
REQUESTING OFFICER OR DETECTIVE
FOR INCLUSION. IT IS STORED
FOLLOWING EVIDENCE GUIDELINES.
FOR THE PROTECTIONS, ALL DEVICE
UTILIZATION IS DOCUMENTED AND
SUBJECT TO OFFICE OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDITS AND TH
FEDERAL MONITOR AT ANY TIME. AL
INFORMATION MUST BE GATHERED AN
RECORDED IN A MATTER CONSISTENT
WITH SPD POLICY 6.060 SUCH THA
IT DOES NOT REASONABLY INFRINGE
UPON AND ARE READ THE COURT
AGAIN BECAUSE I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT, WELCOME INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS, LIBERTIES AND FREEDOM
SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, INCLUDING
AMONG OTHERS, THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, PRESS, ASSOCIATION AND
ASSEMBLY, LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE
THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, AND
THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES OR VIOLATE AN
INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
>> ONCE AGAIN THIS LISTS THE
DIFFERENT STATE LAWS AND
DEPARTMENT POLICIES THAT GOVERN
THE USE OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES
AND ENSURE THEIR PROPER USAGE.
REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND FORGIVE ME I HAVE -- I
BELIEVE I HAVE MOST OF THEM
HERE. THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION
WAS SIMILAR TO THE ONE IN CAMER
SYSTEMS REGARDING RESTRICTING
THE USE TO SERIOUS AND VIOLENT
OFFENSES. THE PROBLEM IS THE
SAME AS WAS POSTED PREVIOUSLY.
THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION WAS
DISCLOSING THE MAKE AND MODEL O
THE DEVICES THAT ARE USED. ONCE
AGAIN, THE SAME INJECTION
EXISTS. WOULD ALLOW THEM TO
DEVELOP COUNTERMEASURES. THERE'
A RECOMMENDATION HERE THAT SPD
BE PROHIBITED FROM CITING
NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS. WITH
VENDORS. THE SURVEILLANCE
ORDINANCE ITSELF REQUIRES US TO
DISCLOSE THE USE OF THIS
TECHNOLOGY, SO IT WOULD PROHIBI
US FROM BEING ABLE TO ENGAGE IN
SUCH A NONDISCLOSURE.
>> CAPTAIN BRITT. I'M GOING TO
STOP YOU BECAUSE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT JUAREZ HAS A QUESTION
>> I WAS GETTING A LITTLE
CONFUSED. SO WE ARE DOING NUMBE
THREE, WHICH IS NUMBER TWO. WE
ARE STILL NUMBER THREE, THE CEL
PHONE. OKAY GREAT. JUST SLOW
DOWN A MINUTE HERE. FIRST OF
ALL, THANK YOU LISA KAYE FOR AL
THE INFORMATION AND MADAM CHAIR
FOR PULLING ALL THIS TOGETHER.
SO IN GENERAL, MAYBE WE CAN DO
THIS ON THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING
ON THIS. WE ARE FOCUSING ON THE
DATA COLLECTION, THE STORAGE,
WHO POSSESSES OR MAINTAINS THE
INFORMATION. WHETHER OR NOT THE
INFORMATION STAYS ON THE
SOFTWARE OR WITHIN SPD FILES.
SO, I UNDERSTAND, AND THIS MAY
BE IN GENERAL AS YOU ARE GOING
FORWARD, THERE IS A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN LIKE NUMBER FOUR IS GEO
TIME AND NUMBER SIX IS TRACKING
DEVICE. NUMBER THREE I'M LOOKIN
AT WHICH IS ACTUALLY NUMBER TWO
BUT ANYWAY, NOT CRASH DATA BUT
THE CELL PHONE STUFF. ALL OF
THAT WHEN YOU SAY IS IT KEPT --
IT IS NOT KEPT ON THE SOFTWARE?
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO TELL US AS
YOU ARE GOING TO EACH SECTION,
EACH DEVICE, WHAT IS KEPT? I'M
ASSUMING IT IS NOT KEPT ON THE
SOFTWARE, BUT IS KEPT WITHIN SD
WITHIN INVESTIGATION FILES?
>> CERTAINLY, MA'AM.
>> OKAY SO THAT WAY, AND JUST S
I'M CLEAR, SO WHEN WE -- IF YOU
TO GET UP THAT WAY I KNOW THAT
OKAY, IT IS NOT ON THE SOFTWARE
IT IS IN SPD POSSESSION . THEN,
IT'S IN THE INVESTIGATIVE FILES
LIMITED TO THAT EVENT. SO THAT
JUST HELPS ME CLARIFY MY
THINKING. I KNOW WE HAVE SIX
MEMOS AND THEN STOP ON OTHER
FOLKS AS WELL. IF YOU COULD DO
THAT THAT WOULD BE REAL HELPFUL
>> CERTAINLY, MA'AM.
>> THANK YOU.
>> IN THE CASE OF THE CELL PHON
COMPUTER AND MOBILE DEVICE
EXTRACTION TOOLS, THE
INFORMATION IS EXTRACTED FROM
THE DEVICE DIRECTLY ONTO AN SPD
COMPUTER. THEN IT IS LOADED TO
FLASH DRIVE, WHICH IS GIVEN TO
THE INVESTIGATOR, WHICH HAS BEE
UPLOADED EITHER TO THAT
INVESTIGATOR'S COMPUTER FOR
ANALYSIS, OR STORED WITHIN OUR
DIGITAL EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS. DEPENDING ON THE SIZE
OF THE FILE AND THE ABILITY TO
UPLOAD TO OUR STORAGE SYSTEMS I
THAT REGARD. THE TOOL ITSELF
DOES NOT STORE INFORMATION, AND
IT DOES NOT TRANSMIT THAT
INFORMATION ANYWHERE OUTSIDE OF
SPD. IT IS KEPT LOCALLY ON THA
DRIVE. I'LL FINISH UP HERE AND
THEN I CAN GET TO SOME OF THE
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. THE
MONTHLY REPORT OF DEPLOYMENT OF
THIS DEVICE. IT IS POSSIBLE TO
DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S A LIMITED
GROUP OF PEOPLE, OR A LIMITED
NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE
USE OF THIS TOOL. IT COULD BE
CONSIDERED BURDENSOME ON ALREAD
CAPPED DETECTIVES BUT WOULD BE
PART OF WHAT THE OFFICE OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL WOULD REQUIRE
DURING THE AUDITS OF THIS
TECHNOLOGY. WE WILL COMPLY OF
COURSE WITH THAT REQUIREMENT.
THE DESTRUCTION OF INFORMATION
ON RELATED. THE EXTRACTED DATA
IS GIVEN TO THE INVESTIGATING
DETECTIVE. THE INFORMATION IS
STORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE POLICIES AN
PRACTICES. I KNOW THAT SEEMS
VAGUE, BUT IT'S THE BEST ANSWER
I CAN GIVE IN THIS CASE. THERE
ARE STATE LAWS AS IT GOVERNS TH
DESTRUCTION OF INFORMATION THAT
IS GATHERED BY THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT. WE WILL NEED TO MAK
SURE THAT LEGALLY SPEAKING WE
HAVE THE ABILITY TO DESTROY
CERTAIN THINGS. CERTAINLY IF WE
HAVE NO INVESTIGATIVE INTEREST
IN IT, WE WOULD CERTAINLY WANT
TO GET RID OF THAT INFORMATION.
WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN HANGING
ONTO THINGS THAT NO FURTHER OUR
INVESTIGATION, BUT WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE A FALL.
I'M OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS.
>> AND SCROLLING THROUGH HERE,
PLEASE SPEAK UP IF I AM MISSING
YOU. COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> [ LAUGHTER ] THANK YOU SO
MUCH. SO THIS IS -- THIS WAS A
QUESTION THAT I HAD ASKED
EARLIER, AND RATHER THAN JUST
HAVING YOU REPEAT THE ANSWER,
I'M GOING TO ASK START OF MY
NEXT ITERATION OF THE ANSWER TO
THE QUESTION. AGAIN, GOING BACK
TO COLLECTING DATA THAT CONFIRM
THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS ACTING I
ACCORDANCE WITH THESE POLICIES.
AGAIN BIAS POLICING AS AN
EXAMPLE. YOU MENTION THE WAY
THAT WOULD BE CONFIRMED IS
WORKING WITH THE OFFICE OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL. TO DEVELOP
METRICS, AND THEN REPORTING TO
THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL ON THOSE METRICS. THE
ORDINANCE REQUIRES I BELIEVE
THAT THE DEPARTMENT PROPOSE
METRICS. I DON'T BELIEVE THE
DEPARTMENT HAS. SO, CAN YOU JUS
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY THA
MIGHT BE, AND WHY YOU ARE NOT
INCLUDING THAT PART OF THE
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ORDINANCE
AT THIS POINT, AND WHY YOU ARE
INSTEAD SUGGESTING THAT THEY BE
DEFERRED UNTIL THE TIME THAT YO
ARE WORKING WITH THE CITY
AUDITOR? I MEAN, SORRY, THE
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
AUDIT. THAT IS ONE QUESTION. -
THEN, THE OTHER QUESTION IS,
ABOUT ACCESSORY TECHNOLOGY. IS
THERE ACCESSORY TECHNOLOGY TO
THE EXTRACTION TOOLS, FOR
INSTANCE, THE ABILITY TO SEARCH
PHOTOS BY FACE? BUILD NETWORK
MAPS FROM CONTACT INFORMATION,
WHICH I THINK IS SORT OF --
CONTACT INFORMATION IS A LITTLE
DIFFERENT, BUT JUST IN GENERAL.
ACCESSORY TECHNOLOGY TO THE
EXTRACTION TOOLS. ARE THEY ALSO
COVERED BY THE PARTICULAR
SERVICE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY?
>> I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE
COMPANIES THAT DEVELOP THE
TECHNOLOGY THAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT HERE HAVE SOME OF THOSE
ACCESSORIES. SPD IS NOT
CURRENTLY USING ANY OF THOSE
ACCESSORIES. THAT BEING SAID
SOME OF THE THINGS YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT LIKE LINK ANALYSI
BETWEEN CONTACTS IS COVERED
UNDER A DIFFERENT S.I.R.. IT I
ALREADY APPROVED BY CITY
COUNCIL. INFORMATION GATHERED
FROM THESE TOOLS COULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE USE OF THOSE
OTHER TECHNOLOGIES IF IT
FURTHERS AN INVESTIGATIVE
EFFORT. BUT THOSE HAVE ALREADY
BEEN APPROVED UNDER A DIFFERENT
S.I.R.. AS IT RELATES TO THE
ACCESSORIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE
FROM SOME OF THE DIFFERENT
COMPANIES THAT PROVIDE THESE
TOOLS, SPD DOES NOT CURRENTLY
SUBSCRIBE TO ANY OF THOSE
CAPABILITIES OR SERVICES AT THI
TIME.
>> IF YOU DID, YOU WOULD HAVE T
COME BACK.
>> YES MA'AM. THAT WOULD BE A
FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT. WE WOULD HAV
TO GO THROUGH THE AMENDED S.I.R
PROCESS. THE SECOND QUESTION
REGARDING THE METRICS. THERE IS
NOTHING NEFARIOUS. IN THE PAST
YOU, YOURSELF I BELIEVE I'VE
BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDING
AMENDMENTS TO THE PRIOR S.I.R..
FORGIVE ME BUT IN MY HEAD I
COUNTED ON YOU DOING THE SAME I
THIS PARTICULAR CASE. SO PERHAP
THAT WAS MY OVERSIGHT AND I
APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. SPD WILL
CERTAINLY WORK TO ESTABLISH THE
METRICS THAT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE TO MEET ANY OF THE
REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BY
COUNCIL. WE NOODLE THESE THINGS
CONSTANTLY ABOUT HOW WE CAN BES
PROVIDE THAT ANSWER. A LOT OF
CASES IT IS JUST A MATTER OF TH
DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE PEOPLE TO
WHOM THIS TECHNOLOGY IS BEING
SUBJECTED. SO, THAT WOULD BE A
PART OF THAT AUDIT THAT WE WOUL
MEET. I'M CERTAINLY MORE THAN
OPEN TO WORKING ON THOSE METRIC
YOU REQUIRE.
>> VERY APPRECIATED, THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR, JUST ONE LAST
QUESTION ON THIS ONE IF I MADE.
>> I WANTED TO MAKE A POINT TO
THAT. THE EQUITY METRICS. I HAV
BEEN THINK ABOUT THIS. THEN,
I'LL GET TO YOU AFTER THAT. I
HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT
SHOULD THOSE METRICS BE EVER
SINCE WE STARTED -- WELL, SINCE
I ENTERED INTO THIS PROCESS WIT
GROUP A. THERE IS AN ARGUMNT TO
BE SAID THAT IT WOULD ALSO
INCORPORATE THE VICTIMS OF CRIM
THAT ARE ALSO IMPACTED IN
ADDITION TO THE PERPETRATORS. O
THE PART OF THE VICTIMS I
NOTICED IN THE MINUTES FROM JUL
13th. THIS WAS THE SURVEILLANCE
WORKING GROUP MINUTES. ONE IS A
MEMBER AND SHE WAS BRINGING UP
THE BENEFITS FOR HER WORK AS AN
ADVOCATE. AS A VICTIM ADVOCATE.
THIS WAS A VERY IMPORTANT TOOL
FOR INVESTIGATING AND
PROSECUTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
SEXUAL ASSAULT AND STALKING
CRIMES. WITHOUT ACCESS TO IT,
THE MAJORITY OF THESE CASES
WOULD BE SEVERELY IMPACTED.
SOMETHING TO ALSO THINK ABOUT
WHEN DEVELOPING THOSE METRICS
GOING FORWARD. THANK YOU FOR
PREVIEWING THAT REQUEST. OKAY,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. MY
QUESTION RELATES TO WHAT
POLICIES YOU HAVE IN PLACE TO
LIMIT INTERACTION WITH THE
CONTENT OF WHAT IS EXTRACTED
WHILE CONDUCTING YOUR
INVESTIGATION OBVIOUSLY. A LOT
OF THIS INFORMATION IS SENSITIV
AND PERSONAL INFORMATION ON
PEOPLE'S PHONES AND COMPUTERS.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT IT IS
THE DEPARTMENT DOES TO LIMIT TH
ACCESS TO THE CONTENT TO ONLY
THOSE INVOLVED IN THE
INVESTIGATION.
>> THE FIRST THING REGARDING
THIS IS THAT THE INFORMATION
THAT IS GATHERED IS ONLY TO BE
USED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
PURPOSES ONLY. THAT'S COVERED
UNDER POLICY. SECONDARILY, THE
NATURE OF THE INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE PHONE IS
SUBJECT TO LIMITATION BY
JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT WHEN THE
WARRANT IS APPLIED FOR. THE
JUDGE HAS THE ABILITY TO LIMIT
THE SCOPE OF WHAT CAN BE
EXTRACTED AND SEARCHED ON THE
PHONE. AT WHICH POINT WE WOULD
ONLY BE ALLOWED TO EXTRACT OR
GATHER THAT WHICH IS AUTHORIZED
BY WARRANT. IF A JUDGE SAYS I
CAN'T HAVE A CERTAIN SOMETHING
THAT IS WITHIN THE PHONE, THEN
CAN'T EXTRACT THAT CERTAIN
THING, OR I HAVE TO REMOVE THAT
FROM THE SEARCH PARAMETERS WHEN
GOING INTO EXTRACTING
INFORMATION. OTHERWISE,
INFORMATION THAT IS GATHERED
FROM THE PHONE IS USED FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES. THAT MAY
NOT BE A WHOLLY SATISFACTORY
ANSWER. I UNDERSTAND IT PROBABL
DOESN'T GET WHERE YOU'RE TRYING
TO GO, BUT THE JUDGES ARE ABLE
TO LIMIT THE SCOPE AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT IS RESPONSIBLE TO
USE THE INFORMATION
APPROPRIATELY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SO I WAS UNDER -- ASKING
MYSELF THAT. THAT IS SOMETHING
THAT IS MENTIONED IN THESE
MINUTES. SO FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD
YOU SEARCH TEXTS BY DATE RANGE
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? IS THAT
SOMETHING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
OR PHOTOS OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT? I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A
SENSE OF HOW THAT WOULD WORK.
>> IF I WERE TO APPLY FOR A WAN
THE JUDGE HAS THE ABILITY TO
LIMIT THAT SCHOOL. IF I WERE TO
SAY I WANT TO GO IN AND SEARCH
EVERYTHING IN THIS PHONE BECAUS
I THINK THIS PERSON DID THIS
THING ON THIS ONE DATE ON THIS
ONE TIME BECAUSE THE PROBABLE
CAUSE STATEMENT IN THE WARRANT
HAS TO STILL OUT WHAT I'M
LOOKING FOR, WHY AM LOOKING FOR
IT, WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
THE JUDGE HAS THE ABILITY TO SA
YOU CAN HAVE THAT, OR NO, THE
INFORMATION PRIOR TO THIS DATE
WOULD NOT BE RELATED TO YOUR
CASE, SO THE JUDGES HAVE THE
ABILITY TO LIMIT OUR ABILITY.
THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE CAN SEARCH
ANYTHING THAT WE ARE EXTRACTED
FROM THAT AND LATER TRIED TO BE
USED IN TRIAL, WOULD BE THROWN
OUT IN PRETRIAL HEARINGS AS
INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS
GAINED WITHOUT A WARRANT. SO
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT LAYERS OF
JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT THAT GO INTO
WHAT WE GATHER AND WHAT WE CAN
USE.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS ON THIS? COMMENTS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON. SORRY,
CHAIR NELSON. AS A ASIDE TO WHA
YOU'RE MENTIONING PREVIOUSLY
ABOUT VICTIMS, IT'S ALSO WORTH
NOTING THAT THESE TOOLS ARE USE
HEAVILY IN INTERNET CRIMES
AGAINST CHILDREN INVESTIGATION.
RELATED TO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AN
HAVE AIDED IN THE INVESTIGATION
AND CAPTURE AND PROSECUTION OF
SOME PRETTY DISGUSTING
PREDATORS.
>> GOT IT. THANK YOU FOR THAT
REMINDED. I REMEMBER READING
THAT IN EITHER LISA'S MEMO OR
THE S.I.R. ITSELF, THANKS.
>> OKAY, LET'S GO ON.
>> ITEM 2. COMING UP THIRD. [
LAUGHTER ] I'LL PAUSE FOR A
MOMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYBODY KNOWS WE ARE SPEAKING
ABOUT CRASH DATA RETRIEVAL
TOOLS. MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY
CAN GET TO THE NOTES WE HAVE FO
THAT CRASH DATA RETRIEVAL TOOLS
ARE IMPORTANT TECHNOLOGY USED
IN. NEARLY ALL PASSENGER VEHICL
SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE
2013 HAVE AN ONBOARD RECORDER.
IT AUTOMATIC RECORDS IMPORTANT
TECHNICAL INFORMATION DURING A
CRITICAL EVENT SUCH AS A
COLLISION. THESE UNITS ONLY
RECORD INFORMATION WHEN CERTAIN
EVENTS OCCUR SUCH AS WHEN
AIRBAGS DEPLOYED OR WHEN SENSOR
DETECT A COLLISION AND DO NOT
HAVE INTERFACES WHICH DISPLAY
THE INFORMATION. THESE TOOLS
ALLOW INVESTIGATORS TO DOWNLOAD
AND VIEW THIS INFORMATION. AS P
UTILIZES THE TOOLS IN
RECONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC
COLLISIONS. THIS ALLOWS
INVESTIGATORS ACCESS TO
INFORMATION RECORDED BY VEHICLE
AROUND THE TIME OF CRITICAL
EVENTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH
VEHICLE COLLISIONS. THE
PSYCHOLOGY IS REQUIRED TO
DOWNLOAD AND VIEW ANY DATA
REQUIRED BY THE UNITS. NEXT
SLIDE PLEASE.
>> CDR TOOLS COLLECT INFORMATIO
STORED IN VEHICLE UNITS. THESE
ARE UTILIZED ONLY AFTER LEGAL
STANDARDS OF CONSENT AND/OR
COURT ISSUED WANTS HAVE BEEN ME
IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A
TRAFFIC COLLISION. SPD USES THE
TOOLS WHEN IT INVESTIGATES
COLLISIONS USING SPECIFIC
CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THE DEATH
OF ANY PERSON, LIFE-THREATENING
INJURY, HIT AND RUN COLLISION,
COLLISIONS INVOLVING SUBSTANTIA
BODILY INJURY WHERE IT APPEARS
THE DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT OR
UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL
OR OTHER DRUGS. VEHICULAR
HOMICIDE, FELONY ELUDING, FELON
DUI, AND OTHER VEHICULAR CRIMES
CDR TOOLS ARE UTILIZED ONLY
AFTER LEGAL STANDARDS OF CONSEN
AND/OR COURT ISSUED WANTS HAVE
BEEN MET. AS REQUIRED BY THE
WASHINGTON PRIVACY ACT. USE OF
TOOLS IS CONSTRAINED TO THE
CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY CONSEN
AND/OR COURT ORDER WHICH
PROVIDES THE LEGAL AUTHORITY AN
THE SCOPE OF COLLECTION. ALL US
OF CDR TOOLS ARE DOCUMENTED AND
SUBJECT TO AUDIT BY THE OFFICE
OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. AND
THE FEDERAL MONITOR ACT. NEXT
SLIDE WILL CONTAIN THE LIST OF
DIFFERENT POLICIES AND LAWS THA
APPLY TO THE USE OF THIS
TECHNOLOGY.
>> THERE WERE THREE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
SURVEILLANCE WORKER. THE FIRST
WAS A LIMITATION OF THE
WARRANTS. THE SCOPE OF THE
WARRANT AS WE SPOKE PREVIOUSLY
IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIARY APPROVA
AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF THE
JUDGE. THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
TELL US WHAT THEY CAN AND NOT
COLLECT. WE HAVE TO MAKE A CASE
FOR WHY WE NEED TO COLLECT
CERTAIN INFORMATION. THE FOURTH
RECOMMENDATION IS THE SAME THAT
WAS ON TWO OF OUR PREVIOUS
TECHNOLOGIES WHICH IS MAKING TH
EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE. SPD DOESN'
OBJECT TO THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
OF THIS. IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T
BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE
OTHER TWO. THE PROBLEM HERE IS
THAT CRASH DATA RETRIEVAL AND
THE EDR TECHNOLOGY WITHIN
VEHICLES ADAPTS SO QUICKLY WITH
DIFFERENT YEAR MAKE AND MODELS
OF VEHICLES. IF I SIMPLY LIST
IF I SIMPLY LIST THE TOOLS THAT
ARE USED IN COUNCIL SAYS YES,
YOU CAN USE THOSE TOOLS, IF NEX
YEAR HONDA DEVELOPS A DIFFERENT
EDR INTERFACE AND I NEED A
DIFFERENT TOOL, I WILL NEED TO
COME BACK AND BE UPDATING THE
LIST. RATHER WE ARE ASKING THAT
WE BE ALLOWED TO USE THIS
ABILITY AND APPLY THE
APPROPRIATE TOOLS. IF REQUIRED
WE CAN CERTAINLY GET A LIST
TOGETHER OF THE CURRENTLY USED
DEVICES THAT ALLOW US TO FULFIL
THIS REQUIREMENT. AS FOR THE
AUDIT LOG, BECAUSE OUR SLOT IS
THE ONLY UNIT THAT USES THIS,
THEY CAN'T KEEP A LOG OF THE
USAGE OF THESE TOOLS. I'M OPEN
TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE
ABOUT THIS TECHNOLOGY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU. AS IT RELATES TO
THE THE PROTECTIONS INHERENT T
THE ONE SEEKING PROCESS, THE
JUDGE HAS THE AUTHORITY AND
ABILITY TO LIMIT THE SCOPE. BUT
I SENSE THAT WHAT -- IN SOME
CASES WE ARE BEING ASKED IS NOT
TO RELY ON THE JUDGE'S LIMITING
THE SCOPE OF THE WARRANT BUT TO
ADD OR EXPECT THAT THE
DEPARTMENT LIMIT WHAT IT IS
ASKING FOR. RATHER THAN RELYING
ON SORT OF THAT OVERSIGHT OF TH
JUDGE TO KNOW THE APPROPRIATE
WAY LIMIT THE SCOPE ACCORDING T
WHAT THE INVESTIGATION IS. AS
IT RELATES TO THIS TECHNOLOGY,
HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT A CRASH
DATA RETRIEVAL DOES NOT BECOME
SORT OF A WARRANT REQUEST OR
SORT OF A CURSORY SEARCH OF CAR
WHAT YOU WANT IS THE CRASH DATA
AND INSTEAD YOU ASKED FOR
SOMETHING MORE BROAD. CAN WE
INSTEAD CAN WE INSTEAD LIMIT
WHAT YOU ASKED FOR TO BE FOCUSE
ONLY ON THE CRASH DATA, UNLESS
YOU HAVE ANOTHER REASON YOU WAN
TO SEARCH THE VEHICLE?
>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE
AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT
DOES. THE DETECTIVE THAT IS
FILING FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT
HAS TO ARTICULATE WHAT DATA THE
WANT, AND WHY THEY WANT IT. FOR
EXAMPLE, AND I THINK I CAN READ
BETWEEN THE LINES HERE AND GET
TO WHAT I THINK WE ARE REALLY
TALKING ABOUT. INVESTIGATORS
NEED THE INFORMATION RELATED TO
WHAT LED UP TO AND CAUSED THE
COLLISION. THEY DON'T NEED THE
GPS DATA ABOUT WHERE THIS
VEHICLE HAS BEEN THE LAST 45 TO
60 DAYS NECESSARILY. IF THE
INVESTIGATOR DID HAVE GROUNDS T
NEED THAT INFORMATION, THEY
WOULD NEED TO INCLUDE THAT IN
THE AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH ONE AN
EXPLAIN TO THE JUDGE WHY THEY
WOULD NEED THAT INFORMATION, AN
THE JUDGE WOULD NEED TO
IMPLICITLY ALLOW THAT. THE OTHE
LIMITATION THAT I THINK EXISTS
IN PLACE IN THIS REGARD IS THE
NATURE OF THE CRASH DATA
RETRIEVAL SYSTEM ITSELF. IT
RECORDS INFORMATION BRIEFLY
PRIOR TO THE COLLISION. IT
PROVIDES THAT TO THE
INVESTIGATORS. IT IS NOT JUST A
CONSTANT HERE IS EVERYTHING THI
VEHICLE HAS DONE FOR 100 YEARS.
THERE ARE CARS THAT HAVE
INCREDIBLE COMPUTERS ON THEM
THAT DO ALL SORTS OF THINGS.
TESLAS AND OTHER VEHICLES THAT
HAVE COMPUTERS SMARTER THAN WHA
THE FIRST MAN ON THE MOON. THE
CRASH DATA RETRIEVAL INFORMATIO
IS ACTUALLY RATHER SIMPLISTIC.
IT IS THE TELEMETRY OF THE
VEHICLE. WHAT WAS THE THROTTLE
DOING, THE BREAK? WHAT CONTROLS
WERE ENACTED AT THAT TIME? THE
NATURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY ITSELF
DOES LIMIT THAT. I UNDERSTAND
YOU DON'T WANT TO RELY ON JUST
THE JUDGE TO LIMIT THAT, BUT TH
AFFIDAVIT PROCESS ITSELF IS WHA
LIMITS THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OVERREACH INTO WHAT WE DON'T
HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO GRAB. OR
TO GATHER.
>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT.
>> GO AHEAD PLEASE.
>>
>> I KNOW WE ARE JUMPING FROM
TWO TO FOUR NOW ON THE LIST OF
TECHNOLOGIES. GEO TIME IS
GEOSPATIAL ANALYSIS SOFTWARE
THAT ALLOWS THE VISUAL ANALYSIS
AND EVENTS OVER TIME. UTILIZING
GEO DATA SUCH AS LATITUDE AND
LONGITUDE, PROCURE DURING
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.
INVESTIGATORS UGO TIME TO CREAT
SPECIALIZED TWO AND
THREE-DIMENSIONAL MAPS OF CALL
RECORDS AND LOCATIONS. THESE
MAPS ALLOW INVESTIGATORS TO SEE
PATTERNS IN THE EXISTING DATA
THAT MIGHT NOT BE INTERPRETED
THROUGH OTHER METHODS. I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME TO PAUSE
HERE AND JUST KIND OF GO OFF TH
SCRIPT FOR A MOMENT AND MAKE
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS DOES NOT
GATHER CELL SITE LOCATION DATA.
THIS DOES NOT GATHER LATITUDE
AND LONGITUDE. THIS SIMPLY
ALLOWS INVESTIGATOR TO INPUT
THAT DATA INTO GEO TIME TO
DISPLAY IT IN A MANNER THAT
TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE PASSAGE
OF TIME. SO WE CAN SEE THE DATA
IN A FOUR DIMENSIONAL IF WE WIL
PROCESS TO UNDERSTAND. WHY DO W
USE THIS TECHNOLOGY? VISUALIZIN
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROVIDES
INVESTIGATORS A MORE THOROUGH
UNDERSTANDING OF COMPLICATED
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS. GEO
TIME REDUCES THE TIME AND EFFOR
REQUIRED OF INVESTIGATORS TO
ANALYZE LARGE AMOUNTS OF DATA
WHICH TRANSLATES INTO A BETTER
AND MORE EFFICIENT WORK PRODUCT
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
>> GEO TIME DOES NOT COLLECT
INFORMATION OR DATA. I'M GOING
TO SAY THAT AGAIN JUST BECAUSE
KNOW IT IS A SERIOUS SOURCE OF
CONCERN. IT DOES NOT COLLECT
INFORMATION OR DATA. IT IS A
TOOL USED TO AGGREGATE AND
ANALYZE DATA MANUALLY INPUT BY
INVESTIGATORS, AND EXPORTS
COMPLEX GEOSPATIAL MAPS WHICH
USERS SAVE AND TO LOCALLY STORE
INVESTIGATION FILES. NO
INFORMATION IS SAVED INSIDE THE
GEO TIME TOOL. GEO TIME IS ONLY
USED DURING THE INVESTIGATION O
CRIMES ALL USE OF GEO TIME MUST
ALSO COMPLY WITH SPD POLICY
12.050 CRIMINAL JUSTICE
INFORMATION SYSTEMS, AND MAY
ONLY BE USED FOR LEGITIMATE
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES
USE OF YOUR TIME IS GOVERNED BY
THE CELIA OF SEATTLE
INTELLIGENCE ORDINANCE. AND ANY
FUTURE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS
AS WELL. THE NEXT SLIDE CONTAIN
ALL OF THE DIFFERENT
RECOMMENDATIONS. SORRY FOR ALL
THE DIFFERENT LISTS OF DIFFEREN
POLICIES AND LAWS THAT APPLY TO
THE USE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY. I
HAVE A LIST OF SEVERAL DIFFEREN
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
SURVEILLANCE WORKER.
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER FOUR WAS
TO LIMIT THE DATA INPUT TO DATA
COLLECTED BY A WARRANT. I
UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THIS
REQUEST, BUT I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
INFORMATION FROM A POLICE
REPORT. FOR EXAMPLE WHEN A
PERSON CALLS AND SAYS MY
BUSINESS WAS ROBBED, THAT
INFORMATION IS COLLECTED IN A
POLICE REPORT, BUT NOT IN A
WARRANT. I UNDERSTAND THE INTEN
BEHIND THIS RECOMMENDATION, BUT
I DON'T THINK IT TAKES INTO
ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT MUCH OF
THE INFORMATION COLLECTED,
ESPECIALLY DURING THE
PRELIMINARY PARTS OF A POLICE
INVESTIGATION, DOES NOT COME
WITH A WANT. IT COMES WITH A
PERSON CALLING ON THIS DATE ON
THIS TIME AT THIS LOCATION A
CRIME OCCURRED. THAT IS BITS OF
INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE
ENTERED IN THE GEO TIME BUT WAS
NOT COLLECTED BY A WARRANT. I A
NOT TRYING TO SOUND LIKE I'M
TRYING TO GET AUGMENTATIVE WITH
THE SURVEILLANCE WORKER. WE ARE
TRYING TO SPLIT HAIRS HERE. I
THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT
WE BE CAREFUL WITH THE APARTMEN
OF A WARRANT AND THE INFORMATIO
THAT IS ENTERED INTO. THAT BEIN
SAID, ALL INFORMATION ENTERED
INTO GEO TIME NOT TO BE LEGALLY
GATHERED. I THINK THAT WOULD BE
A REASONABLE RECOMMENDATION AND
OF COURSE THAT IS ALREADY WITHI
THE POLICIES AND THE INFORMATIO
LAID OUT IN THE S.I.R..
>> CAN YOU GIVE A REAL EXAMPLE
OF THE KIND OF -- LIKE YOU ARE
NOT ENTERING LATITUDE AND
LONGITUDE? ARE YOU ENTERING
THINGS LIKE ADDRESS?
>> WE COULD ENTER ADDRESS. WE
CAN ALSO ENTER LATITUDE AND
LONGITUDE IF FOR EXAMPLE I HAD
WANT FOR PERSONS CELL PHONE
LOCATION DURING A PERIOD OF
TIME, WHICH IS A REASONABLE
INVESTIGATIVE TOOL AND A JUDGE
APPROVES THE WARRANT AND WE
RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION. I MAY
VERY WELL GET LATITUDE AND
LONGITUDE BACK FROM THE CELL
PHONE PROVIDER AS PART OF THE
WARRANT RETURN. I MAY VERY WELL
ENTER ADDRESS. I VERY MARY WELL
ENTER LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE. I
HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO LAY IT
ONTO A MAP AND PRESENT IT IN A
TIMELY FASHION. THE EXAMPLE THE
USE ON THEIR WEBSITE IS ACTUALL
VERY GOOD. THERE IS A PERSON
WHOSE SELF ON THINGS WITHIN A
BLOCK OF WHERE THEY ARE BELIEVE
TO HAVE COMMITTED AN ARMED
ROBBERY DURING THE SAME
TIMEFRAME. THAT WOULD BE AN
EXCELLENT INVESTIGATIVE TOOL
THAT WOULD HELP THEM PROVE THE
CASE, OR BASICALLY ASSERT BEYON
A REASONABLE DOUBT WHEN IT COME
TIME TO PRESENT IN COURT. THAT'
THE KIND OF INFORMATION THAT
COULD BE USED INTO THE SYSTEM.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> YES, AND I SEE THAT LISA HAS
A HAND UP
>> YES MA'AM.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO CALL ME --
[ LAUGHTER ] I THINK ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT WAS RAISED IN TH
S.I.R. THAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT
THAT OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE
ASKED ABOUT RELATIVE TO WHAT
KIND OF INPUT IS ENTERED INTO
GEO TIME IS WHETHER YOU ARE
GATHERING INFORMATION WITH
SOCIAL MEDIA. WHAT PEOPLE WERE
HAVING A HARD TIME WHEN I WAS
BRIEFING THEM ON THIS, YOU HAD
MENTIONED THE DETECTIVE WHO RUN
THIS WASN'T IN TOWN. I WASN'T
ABLE TO LEARN TOO MUCH ABOUT
THIS. PEOPLE WERE KIND OF
WONDERING WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIK
TO USE THIS TOOL? WHAT ARE THE
SOURCES FOR THE DATA? [
INDISCERNIBLE - OVERLAPPING
SPEAKERS ]
>> I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF
>> YOU ARE FINE.
>> SPD DOES NOT CURRENTLY USE
ANY SOCIAL MEDIA CRAWLER
TECHNOLOGY. WE ARE NOT SENDING
OUT INFORMATION. HOWEVER, IF A
PERSON SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS AR
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AND OPEN
SOURCE, A DETECTIVE VERY WELL
MIGHT GATHER INFORMATION AND BE
ABLE TO CREATE AND INPUT INTO
GEO TIME. FOR EXAMPLE IF A
PERSON -- I'M GOING TO DATE
MYSELF. IF A PERSON ON THEIR
FACEBOOK PAGE WERE TO CHECK IN
AND A CERTAIN RESTAURANT IN THA
PERIOD OF TIME IS OF INTEREST T
THE INVESTIGATION, THE
INVESTIGATOR MAY VERY WELL NOTE
IN GEO TIME THAT A FACEBOOK
CHECK IN AT THIS LOCATION AT
THIS DAY AND TIME COULD BE
INCLUDED IN THE GEO TIME
SOFTWARE. YES, SOCIAL MEDIA
INFORMATION IS INFORMATION THAT
DETECTIVES CAN RELY UPON, BUT
ONLY WHEN IT IS OPEN SOURCE AND
GATHERED DIRECTLY BY
>> THERE IS A FOLLOW-UP.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUAREZ?
>> I GUESS IT COULD BE A
FOLLOW-UP . ALL OF THE
INFORMATION WE GOT FROM
EVERYBODY OUTLINING ALL OF THIS
IN SOME OF THE CIVIL LIBERTY
IMPACTS , LET ME ASK YOU THIS,
MR. BRITT . SO, THE GEOTIME OU
SOFTWARE IS USED DURING CRIMINA
INVESTIGATIONS . IT'S -- IT'S
LEGALLY GATHERED FOR REAL-TIME
I AM GUESSING FOR ONGOING
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT TH
POLICE WOULD USE AND ULTIMATELY
FORWARD TO THE PROSECUTOR , NOT
CITY ATTORNEYS. WE ARE TALKING
FELONIES OR MISDEMEANORS AND
FELONIES ?
>> GENERALLY SPEAKING IT WOULD
BE USED FOR FELONIES BECAUSE TH
DETECTIVES WITH THE LICENSES
INVESTIGATE FELONIES
EXCLUSIVELY. THAT BEING SAID,
COULD SEE CASES WHERE IF THIS
TECHNOLOGY COULD HELP A PERSON
INVESTIGATING A STRING OF
MISDEMEANORS, THEY MIGHT WANT T
USE THIS AND IT COULD BE A
USEFUL TECHNOLOGY FOR THEM AS
WELL. IT IS GENERALLY FOR THE
KING COUNTY PROSECUTOR .
>> MY NEXT QUESTION IS HOW OR
CAN THIS BE USED BY DEFENSE
COUNCIL ? THIS IS FOR THE KIN
COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE. YO
WERE SAYING DURING AN
INVESTIGATION IF THAT WOULD
PROVIDE SOMEBODY WITH AN ALIBI
. I AM TRYING TO THINK OF OTHER
WAYS BESIDES THIS INFORMATION
IS BEING USED BESIDES TO
PROSECUTE OR INVESTIGATE.
>> THIS INFORMATION AND THE USE
OF THIS SOFTWARE TO OVERLAY TH
INFORMATION IS MEANT TO GIVE A
DETECTIVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDIN
OF WHAT THEY ARE SEEING IN THE
OVERALL NATURE OF ALL OF THE
INFORMATION THAT IS BEING
GATHERED . IS A RATHER COMPLEX
INVESTIGATIONS, SO LET'S SAY
THERE IS A STRING OF ROBBERIES
THAT HAVE A VERY SIMILAR MODUS
OPERAND I AND THEY HAVE A
SUSPECT THAT THEY HAVE IN MIND
FOR THIS, THEY VERY WELL BE ABL
TO LAY INFORMATION IN THERE AND
SAY I AM REASONABLY CERTAIN YO
CAN DO THESE TWO. IT IS VERY
POSSIBLE USING THE GEOTIME
SOFTWARE MAY EXCLUDE THIS
PERSON AS A SUSPECT IN THIS
INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THEIR
WHEREABOUTS MAY PROVE THEY WERE
NOWHERE NEAR THAT PARTICULAR
CRIME . I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEA
TO CUT YOU OFF, MADAM PRESIDENT
BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT
PRIOR TO A DEFENSE ATTORNEY
USING IT THAT OUR INVESTIGATORS
WOULD HAVE USED IT TO EXCLUDE
THEM AS A SUSPECT BEFORE SENDIN
IT TO THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE .
>> RIGHT. MY SECOND QUESTION WA
IS ALL OF THIS IN GEOTIME? YOU
SAY YOU HAVE MAINTAINED THE
MATERIAL FOR THIS INVESTIGATION
WHICH WOULD BE IN THE
POSSESSION OF THE PROSECUTOR,
SPD, THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
DISCOVERY ON THE DEFENSE SIDE?
>> 100% . YES, MA'AM .
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> WE WANT TO BACK UP FOR JUST
A MOMENT, PLEASE. THANK YOU.
>> RECOMMENDATION NUMBER EIGHT,
IMPACTS OF ANY GEOTIME OUTPUTS
UNFORTUNATELY I AM NOT SURE
WHAT THEY MEAN BY THAT . I WOUL
BE HAPPY TO ENGAGE WITH FOLKS T
CHAT ABOUT THAT . UNFORTUNATELY
I DON'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION
BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY
WHAT THEY MEANT BY THAT.
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER NINE, TO
VALIDATE DATA BEFORE IT IS
ENTERED INTO GEOTIME . ALL DATA
USED IN GEOTIME IS SUBJECT TO
VALIDATION AS IS ALL
INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS. IF THE
CASE GOES TO PROSECUTION IT IS
EVALUATED FOR VALIDITY AND
PRETRIAL HEARINGS PRIOR TO THE
INTRODUCTION INTO COURT AND SO
THERE IS JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT
INTO THAT PART AS WELL. NUMBER
10, ANALYZE ACCURACY AND
ANALYTICAL DATA GENERATED BY
GEOTIME . AGAIN, WITH ANY
INVESTIGATIVE EFFORT,
INVESTIGATOR WILL LOOK AT THE
RESULTS AND DETERMINE IF IT IS
ACCURATE OR VALID, AND IF IT IS
INTRODUCED IN COURT , IT WOULD
BE SUBJECT TO THE JUDICIAL
SCRUTINY AS WELL. NUMBER 11,
DELETE DATA FROM GEOTIME AFTER
OUTPUTS ARE EXPORTED AND AS
MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, NO
INFORMATION IS SAVED IN THE
GEOTIME POOL. RECIPIENTS OF AN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES PERTAINING TO
SHARED GEOTIME DATA . NO OUTSID
AGENCY HAS ACCESS TO THE GEOTIM
TOOL USED BY SPD AND ANY
FILESHARING OR INFORMATION
SHARING FROM OUR RECORDS UNIT
TO OTHER AGENCIES IN THE JOINT
INVESTIGATIONS OR MUTUAL AID
PROCESSES IS ALREADY DOCUMENTED
WITHIN OUR RECORDS UNIT . KEEP
AN AUDIT LOG OF USER ACTIONS.
ALL TECHNOLOGY USED BY SPD,
GEOTIME IS SUBJECT TO AUDIT SO
WE WOULD NEED TO MAINTAIN A LOG
AND COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS
FOR THAT. RESTRICTING VENDOR
OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DATA INPUT
AND OUTPUTS PROPERLY STORE SUC
DATA. ONCE AGAIN, NO INFORMATIO
IS SAVED IN THE GEOTIME TOOL AN
ANY OUTPUTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
STORAGE REQUIREMENTS. DISCLOSE
THE USAGE PER YEAR. THAT WOULD
FALL UNDER THE AUDIT
REQUIREMENTS AND WE WOULD
DEFINITELY COMPLY WITH THAT AND
PROHIBITING SPD FOR CITING
NONDISCLOSURE UNIT WITH THE
VENDOR. AS DISCUSSED, THE SORT
OF ADALINE'S ORDINANCE ITSELF
WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO
NONDISCLOSURES AS IT RELATES TO
THESE TYPES OF TECHNOLOGIES. I
AM OPEN TO LINGERING QUESTIONS
THAT MAY EXIST.
>> GO AHEAD, LISA.
>> THANK YOU . CAPTAIN, ON
NUMBER 17 WHEN THEY ARE ASKIN
VENDOR OWNERSHIP BE RESTRICTED
, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DOES THE
VENDOR HAVE ACCESS TO ANYTHING
YOU'VE PUT INTO GEOTIME ? OR
INTO THAT DATA?
>> NO, MA'AM . OUR CURRENT
INSTANCES OF GEOTIME ARE LIMITE
ON THE DEVICES USED ON THE
MACHINES HERE. NOTHING SHIPS
OUT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE. IN FACT,
SOME OF THESE ANALYSES ARE DONE
ON COMPUTERS THAT AREN'T EVEN
NETWORKED TO MAKE SURE THAT DAT
IS SECURE. THE GEOTIME COMPANY
DOESN'T HAVE INSIGHT INTO WHAT
IS BEING INPUTTED INTO THEIR
TOOL.
>> THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS ?
>> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THEY DON'T
HAVE ACCESS AND I CAN CERTAINLY
FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, ANY OTHER FURTHER
QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE
PROCEED.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM . THE NEXT
TECHNOLOGY, REMOTELY OPERATED
VEHICLES . I APPRECIATE THE
CHAIR'S MENTIONED AHEAD OF TIME
THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE DRONES .
THAT IS A WHOLE SEPARATE TOPIC
THAT WE WILL SAVE FOR ANOTHER
DAY, I'M SURE. REMOTELY OPERATE
VEHICLES ARE UNARMED REMOTE
CONTROL VEHICLES UTILIZED BY
CO-THE SPD S.W.A.T. TEAM .
OPERATING HANDHELD CONTROLLERS
FROM A POSITION NEARBY. SOME AR
OPERATED BY SPD HAVE A REMOTELY
CONTROLLED ARM CAPABLE OF
PERFORMING TASKS SAFELY. THE
USE ALLOWS TACTICAL UNITS TO
ADDRESS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS
SITUATIONS. BY ENTERING AN
ENVIRONMENT WITH ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION OBTAINED USING
REMOTE CAMERAS OR HIGHLY
RENDERED SAFE AND SPECIFIC
PACKAGE, MEMBERS ARE SAFER.
THESE ARE USED TO PERFORM
NECESSARY UNDERWATER SEARCH AND
RECOVERY FUNCTIONS THAT WOULD
NOT BE POSSIBLE WITH MANNED
DIVING . NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
KNOW IMAGES OR DATA ARE STORED
OR RETAINED BY ROVs USED BY
S.W.A.T. OR ARSON OR BOMB
UNITS. ROVs STORE VIDEO AND
SONAR IMAGERY DURING EACH
DEPLOYMENT. ONLY IMAGES DIRECTL
RELATED TO THE SPECIFIC SEARCH
AND RECOVERY ARE MANUALLY
EXPORTED FROM THE HARD DRIVE ,
IF REQUESTED BY DETECTIVES FOR
FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION . FOR
THE PROTECTIONS, THERE IS NO
LEGAL STANDARD OR CONDITION FOR
THE USE OF THESE ROVs IN PUBLIC
AREAS SUCH AS HOTEL HALLWAYS OR
PUBLIC WATERWAYS . HOWEVER IF
THE USE OF THE OUR OVI IS TO
OCCUR INSIDE A PROTECTED AREA
SUCH AS INSIDE A PERSON'S HOME
OR PROPERTY, ABSENT
CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONSENT
ASSIGNED WARRANT IS OBTAINED
FROM A JUDGE. THERE IS A LIST
OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
AND STATE LAWS ON THE NEXT SLID
THERE THAT GOVERN THE USE OF
THIS TECHNOLOGY , IF WE COULD G
TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. WE ARE GETTING USED
TO SEEING THAT LIST, WHICH IS
GOOD . FOR THE SURVEILLANCE WOR
GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDATION THREE WAS
PROHIBIT RECORDING VIA CELL
PHONE . I WILL CERTAINLY
EVALUATE THE POLICY AND WORK
WITH OUR POLICY SHOP TO SEE IF
THAT IS A FEASIBLE ADDITION TO
POLICY. IT SEEMS LIKE A
REASONABLE ADDITION. NUMBER SIX
NONE INVESTIGATIVE DATA. THIS
RECOMMENDATION MAY BE SUBJECT T
RETENTION POLICY SET FORTH BY
STATE LAW. WE WILL EVALUATE THA
AND SEE IF WE CAN COMPLY .
NUMBER SEVEN, THE RECORDING OR
THE INFORMATION GATHERED FOR
SPD EQUIPMENT. IN THE EVENT
WHEN S.W.A.T. OR ARSON AND BOM
ASSIST OTHER AGENCIES WITH
EXPLOSIVE DEVICES OR THE
SWIMMER'S BODY RETRIEVALS, THIS
REQUIREMENT WOULD NEGATE THE
MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS. FOR
EXAMPLE, IF SPD GOES AND ASSIS
KIRKLAND PD WITH FINDING A
MISSING SWIMMER OFF THEIR
SHORELINE, WE WOULD NEED TO BE
ABLE TO GIVE THEM THE
INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE ROV
. NUMBER EIGHT, LOG OF USAGE AN
ACCESS. MULTIPLE UNITS WITHIN
SPD OPERATE VARIOUS ROVs IN
VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTS. IT WOULD
REQUIRE A BUREAUCRATIC LEVEL OF
INSERTION TO GATHER ALL OF THA
INFORMATION INTO A SINGLE
LOCATION. SPD WILL WORK TO
REQUIRE WITH THAT. NUMBER NINE
MONTHLY REPORT TO THE PUBLIC.
THERE IS NO NICE WAY FOR ME TO
SAY THIS, BUT WHAT IT BASICALLY
COMES DOWN TO, THIS
RECOMMENDATION CREATES A PUBLIC
RECORDING ON THE DEPARTMENT THA
IS ALREADY UNDERSTAFFED. THE
UNIT IS HEAVILY TASKED WITH
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE REQUESTS, SO
TO CREATE A MONTHLY REPORT FROM
VARIOUS UNITS WOULD BE QUITE
BURDENSOME ON THE DEPARTMENT. I
AM OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT
EXIST REGARDING THESE
TECHNOLOGIES.
>> OKAY, I AM SCANNING TO SEE
IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. I A
NOT SEEING ANY. ALL RIGHT.
LET'S MOVE ON THROUGH, PLEASE.
>> THE LAST TECHNOLOGY FOR US
TO TALK ABOUT TODAY -- I
BELIEVE IT IS THE LAST ONE.
CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG. THANK
YOU. TRACKING DEVICES. THERE AR
CELLULAR DEVICES SPD USES TO
MONITOR THE MOVEMENTS OF
VEHICLES. THESE ARE LOCATION
TRACKING DEVICES THAT RECORD
LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE SUCH AS
HIGH-TEMPERATURE ALERTS , DEVIC
REMOVAL, POWER SHUTDOWN, AND
BATTERY LEVELS. THE PRIMARY
BENEFIT OF THESE TRACKING
SYSTEMS IS IN THE GATHERING OF
EVIDENCE USED IN THE RESOLUTION
OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS,
PROPER GATHERING OR CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY BY POLICE SUPPORTS
SPD'S MISSION TO ENFORCE THE LA
AND PROMOTE PUBLIC SAFETY.
TRACKERS ALLOW SPD TO TRACK
VEHICLES ELECTRONICALLY AND CAN
ALLOW SPD TO LOCATE INDIVIDUAL
AND VEHICLES IN AN
INVESTIGATION. THE CONFIDENTIA
INFORMANT OR WITHIN THE SCOPE O
A JUDICIALLY ISSUED SEARCH
WARRANT . NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
TRACKING DEVICES ARE ONLY
UTILIZED WITH EXPRESSED CONSENT
OR SEARCH WARRANT AUTHORITY.
DEVICES REPORT LATITUDE AND
LONGITUDE ON A PREDETERMINED
SCHEDULE . DATA COLLECTED FROM
THE TRACKING DEVICES IS
PROVIDED TO THE REQUESTING
OFFICER FOR THE INVESTIGATION
FILE AND HISTORIC FOLLOWING
EVIDENCE GUIDELINES. ALL
DEPLOYMENTS ARE DOCUMENTED BY
THE UNIT AND SUBJECT TO AUDIT B
THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL . ALL INFORMATION MUST
BE GATHERED AND REPORTED IN A
MANNER CONSISTENT WITH 6.060
SUCH THAT IT DOES NOT REASONABL
AFFECT RIGHTS , LIBERTIES,
UNDER THE UNITED STATES, THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON , FREEDOM O
SPEECH, LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE ,
THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, AND
THE RIGHT TO POSITION GOVERNMEN
TO WRITE AN INDIVIDUAL'S
RIGHT TO PRIVACY. THE NEXT
SLIDE ARE THE VARIOUS POLICIES
AND LAWS. NEXT SLIDE , PLEASE?
THANK YOU. ONCE AGAIN, THIS
NEVER LEAVES SPD . IT WAS
PUSHED FORWARD IT TO THE ROVs .
THIS WOULD NEGATION SOME OF
THE OTHER GROUPS THAT WE WORK
WITH IN THESE REGARDS. FORGIVE
ME . NUMBER FOUR, DISCLOSING TH
MAKE AND MODEL. DISCLOSING THE
MAKE AND MODEL OF THE TRACKING
DEVICES WOULD ALLOW THE SUBJECT
OF INVESTIGATIONS TO DEVELOP
CERTAIN COUNTERMEASURES THAT
COULD INHIBIT THE
INVESTIGATION. NUMBER FIVE, THE
MONTHLY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF
DEPLOYMENTS. THIS
RECOMMENDATION HAS REAL
POTENTIAL TO ENDANGER
INVESTIGATIONS AS INVESTIGATION
OFTEN EXTEND BEYOND THE MONTHLY
PERIOD. NUMBER 10, ALL DATA
COLLECTED DURING INVESTIGATIONS
IS VALIDATED FOR ACCURACY BY
THE INVESTIGATOR. IT IS AGAIN
VALIDATED IN PRETRIAL HEARING
OVERSEEN BY A JUDGE. IT IS
IMPORTANT TO MENTION BECAUSE I
KNOW EVERYONE GETS CONCERNED
ABOUT TRACKING DEVICES . THESE
DEVICES ARE ONLY PLACED WITH
CONSENT AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE
PERSON WHO IS HAVING THEM
PLACED, OR WITH A JUDICIALLY
ISSUED WARRANT , WHICH REQUIRED
THE DETECTIVE TO FILE THE
AFFIDAVIT THAT EXPLAINED WHAT
THEY WANTED TO DO, WHEN THEY
WANTED TO DO IT, AND WHY THEY
BELIEVE IT WOULD FORWARD THEIR
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS. THEN THE
JUDGE WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE OR
DENY IT ENTIRELY DEPENDING ON
THE NATURE OF THE AFFIDAVIT. W
RECENTLY -- AND IT'S WORTH
MENTIONING -- WE RECENTLY
REQUESTED AN AMENDMENT TO THIS
IT WAS ADMINISTRATIVE BY NATURE
THE BEGINNING OF 2020, PROVIDER
AND HE WAS ANNOUNCED THE
EXISTING 3G CELL NETWORKS WOULD
BE DECOMMISSIONED IN 2022. MANY
EXISTING TRACKING DEVICES WERE
TIED TO THE OLD 3G NETWORK AND
SPD FILE PAPERWORK WITH THE
PRIVACY OFFICE AT SEATTLE I.T.
TO UPGRADE THE EXISTING 3G
TRACKERS TO THE 5G NETWORK TO
ENSURE CONTINUED FUNCTIONALITY
THEY DID NOT ADD ANY
FUNCTIONALITY THAT DIDN'T
ALREADY EXIST ON THE 3G NETWORK
. AND I AM OPEN TO ANY QUESTION
ON THESE TECHNOLOGIES.
>> GO AHEAD, LISA.
>> THANK YOU. CAPTAIN BRITT , I
THINK I MENTIONED TO THE
COUNCILMEMBERS WHETHER THESE
TRACKERS ARE USED OR COULD BE
USED TO TRACK FLEEING VEHICLES?
AS A WAY TO REDUCE THE NEED
FOR HIGH-SPEED CHASES.
>> I AM GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT
UP. I KNOW THAT COUNCILMEMBER
IN QUESTION PROBABLY SAW THE
RECENT REPORT ABOUT A TECHNOLOG
CALLED STAR CHASE. IT IS A
TECHNOLOGY THAT IS NOT PART OF
THIS DISCUSSION BUT I WILL TALK
ABOUT IT BRIEFLY ANYWAY. IT IS
LAUNCHER THAT CAN BE HANDHELD O
MOUNTED TO A VEHICLE . WHEN
PULLING IT BEHIND A STOLEN CAR,
IT CAN LAUNCH A TRACKER ONTO TH
VEHICLE AND RATHER HAVING TO
CHASE IT THROUGH THE STREETS
CREATING A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC
OFFICERS CAN SIMPLY TRACK IT
ELECTRONICALLY AND RECOVER IT.
SPD DOES NOT USE STARCHASE . WE
DO NOT HAVE TECHNOLOGY THAT
GIVES US THE CAPABILITY TO
ATTACH A DEVICE TO A VEHICLE
ACTIVELY FLEEING . SPD IS
CERTAINLY INTERESTED IN
EVALUATING STARCHASE IN A FUTUR
STATE AND WE WILL ENGAGE WITH
COUNCIL AND THE REQUIRED
APPROVAL PROCESSES WITHIN THE
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE PRIOR TO
THE PROCUREMENT . LEGALLY
SPEAKING, A TRACKER CAN BE
ATTACHED TO A FLEEING VEHICLE
INVOLVED IN A CRIME AS LONG AS
PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS, BUT
RIGHT NOW SPD DOES NOT HAVE THA
TECHNICAL CAPABILITY. I HOPE I
ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
>> IS THAT BRAND-NEW TECHNOLOGY
? THAT BRINGS UP ANOTHER
QUESTION, WHICH IS HAVE YOU --
TECHNOLOGY CHANGES VERY QUICKLY
AND SO , HAVE YOU PUT IN OR
REQUESTED THE PURCHASE OF ANY
-- TECHNOLOGY THAT COULD BE
DEEMED SURVEILLANCE CAPABLE ,
SINCE IN THE PAST COUPLE OF
YEARS, OR AT LEAST SINCE THIS
HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED?
>> WE HAVE BEEN VERY CONSCIOUS
OF THE SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT
. I HAVE NOT REQUESTED THE
PURCHASE OF NEW SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY THAT IS NOT COVERED
BY EXISTING SIRS THAT HAVE
BEEN APPROVED. WE ATTENDED A
DEMONSTRATION TO SEE IF IT WAS
WORTHWHILE. WE WANTED TO FIND
OUT HOW IT WORKED IN THE RAIN .
WE ARE EXPLORING THE IDEA BUT
WE ARE NOT PUTTING IN A PURCHAS
REQUEST UNTIL WE HAVE CLEARED
THE PRIVACY REQUIREMENT HURDLES
THAT ARE PLACED BEFORE US WITHI
THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE.
>> BY THAT TIME -- OKAY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS ? FOLLOW UP ON THIS O
ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGIES COVERED
TODAY? LET'S SEE . I AM NOT
SEEING ANY. OH, I AM SORRY.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> I WAS USING MY REAL HAND
INSTEAD OF MY VIRTUAL HAND. MY
FAULT. JUST A QUICK QUESTION
AROUND HOW SPD CAN GO ABOUT
ENSURING -- NOT COLLECTING DAT
THAT MIGHT BE SORT OF
CIRCUMSTANTIALLY LOCATED IN
THE SAME PLACE AS THE SUBJECT O
YOUR INVESTIGATION? FOR
INSTANCE, OFTEN MANY FAMILY
MEMBERS WILL SHARE A VEHICLE
AND IF THE TRACKING DEVICE
RESULTS IN DATA THAT IS
COLLECTED ABOUT SOMEONE NOT
UNDER INVESTIGATION OF A CRIME,
HOW DO YOU LIMIT THAT?
>> WELL, THE NATURE OF THE
OWNERSHIP AND USAGE OF THE
VEHICLE WOULD BE PART OF THE
AFFIDAVIT SEARCH WARRANT FILED
WITH THE JUDGE. ANY INFORMATION
THAT IS NOT GERMANE TO THE CASE
WOULD BE EXCLUDED. WE DON'T
HAVE AN INVESTIGATIVE INTEREST
IN FINDING OUT WHERE THE SUBJEC
OF AN INVESTIGATION 'S TEENAGE
CHILD TAKES THE CAR ON A FRIDAY
NIGHT. THAT INFORMATION WOULDN'
BE USEFUL TO US. WHILE POSSIBLY
COLLECTED IT IS NOT GERMANE TO
THE CASE AND THEREFORE WOULD BE
OF INTEREST TO US .
>> YOU CAN'T KEEP IT FROM BEING
COLLECTED BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T
KNOW IN THE COLLECTION PROCESS
>> CORRECT. WHICH IS WHY WE
NEED TO DISCLOSE DURING THE
AFFIDAVIT PROCESS WHO HAS
OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE. IS IT
SOLE OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE? I
IT A VEHICLE SHARED AMONG FAMIL
MEMBERS? THE JUDGE HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO SAY YES, YOU CAN
COLLECT THIS, OR NO, I AM TOO
CONCERNED ABOUT THE INFORMATION
COLLECTED. COME UP WITH A
DIFFERENT METHOD.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WOULD A TRACKING DEVICE
TECHNOLOGY -- NEVERMIND. I WAS
GOING TO ASK ABOUT A CASE WHER
THERE HAD BEEN A LOT OF
PUBLICIZED STORIES ABOUT DRUG
SEIZURES ON THE WEST COAST AND
THE COORDINATION -- MULTISTATE
COORDINATION. I WAS GOING TO
ASK IF THIS TECHNOLOGY WAS USED
OFTEN IN INTERSTATE
INVESTIGATIONS, BUT NEVERMIND.
PROBABLY NOT SUPPOSED TO
DISCLOSE THAT.
>> I THINK IT IS WORTH
MENTIONING, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD , I THINK IT IS WORTH
NOTING THE USE OF GEOTIME
SOFTWARE IN CONJUNCTION WITH
TRACKING DEVICES WOULD HELP
MITIGATE THAT VERY CONCERN THAT
YOU RAISED ABOUT PERIPHERAL DAT
COLLECTED THAT IS NOT GERMANE T
THE CASE. GEOTIME WOULD ALLOW
US TO IDENTIFY AND ELIMINATE
THOSE PARTICULAR DATA POINTS
THAT WOULD NOT BE PRETTY TO TH
INVESTIGATION OR APPROPRIATE TO
INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS, SO WE CA
EXCLUDE THAT DATA AS
APPROPRIATE. THE USE OF THESE
TECHNOLOGIES CAN ALLEVIATE THAT
VERY CONCERN.
>> PRESIDENT JUAREZ?
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
THESE ARE OVERARCHING QUESTIONS
. ALL SIX OF THE ITEMS IN FRONT
OF US WITH THE ANALYSIS FROM OU
OWN LISE KAYE AND GOING THROUG
SOME OF THE CONCERNS IN WHAT
WAS OFFERED UP , SO I KNOW WE
WENT THROUGH EACH DEVICE . WE
TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER
OR NOT THE DEVICE IS, YOU KNOW,
LEGALLY GATHERED BY A JUDICIAL
WARRANT . THEN WE TALKED ABOUT
KIND OF LIKE THE SOFTWARE AND
THEN WHEN IT IS MAINTAINED BY
SPD OR THE KING COUNTY
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OR THE
DETECTIVE AND THE LENGTH OF THA
BEING WHAT I'M HEARING IS IF I
IS RETAINED BY NONE OF THE
SOFTWARE BUT BY THE DETECTIVE O
THE KING COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S
OFFICE OR SPD, IT IS FOR THE
LENGTH OF THE INVESTIGATION? ON
OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS THAT
COULD BE, WHAT, A WEEK OR 10
YEARS? IS THERE A WAY -- AM I
OVERSTEPPING HERE AND ASKING IF
THERE IS A WAY TO MINIMIZE
THAT? IS THAT JUST WHAT IT IS,
THE LENGTH OF THE INVESTIGATION
BECAUSE THAT IS A LOT OF TIME T
MAINTAIN FOREVER, I GUESS .
>> IT SURE IS, MADAM PRESIDENT
ONE THING WE RUN INTO, THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATION
INVESTIGATIONS . IT IS NOT JUST
THE LENGTH OF THE INVESTIGATION
STATE LAW GOVERNS THE RETIREMEN
RELATED TO SPECIFIC CRIMES AND
INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS . FOR
EXAMPLE, IF A PERSON IS TRIED
AND CONVICTED, WE ACTUALLY HAVE
TO RETAIN THAT INFORMATION
BEYOND THE CONVICTION BECAUSE O
THE NATURE OF THE APPEALS
PROCESS AND THE INFORMATION THA
IS GATHERED HAS TO BE AVAILABL
TO PROSECUTORS AND FUTURE
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AS IT RELATES
TO THEIR APPEALS . THE RETENTIO
IS SPECIFIC TO THE TYPE OF CRIM
THAT SPD IS BOUND BY LAW TO
ABIDE BY THOSE .
>> I AM JUST MINDFUL OF THE
BACKDROP OF THE CIVIL LIBERTIES
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISE
IN REGARDS TO GEOTIME . LIKE YO
SAY, THERE ARE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS . THERE ARE TIMES
INVESTIGATIONS GO ON AND
CERTAINLY MORE GATHERINGS . THA
IS WHERE MY FOCUS HAS BEEN , ON
THAT. SO THANK YOU FOR ANSWERIN
THAT.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. I HOPE I
DID.
>> THERE IS A LOT .
>> MY PLEASURE.
>> I REMEMBER THAT CAME UP LAS
TIME AND I THOUGHT YEAH, YOU'R
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT . THE APPEAL
PROCESS CAN GO ON. THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE,
MIGHT CHANGE. ANYWAY ,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, YES .
>> IN SOME OF THE OTHER
TECHNOLOGIES, WHILE THERE IS A
STATE STATUTE THAT IDENTIFIES
WHAT ARE THE RETENTION POLICIES
IN SOME INSTANCES , WE WERE
HEARING THAT THE DEPARTMENT --
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS
SPD OR AS. , BUT THEY WERE
PLANNING ON KEEPING THE DATA FO
A PERIOD OF TIME. WE MAY HAVE
POSED AMENDMENTS THAT ALIGNED
THE CITY RETENTION POLICIES WIT
WHAT IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.
ARE THERE -- DO YOU HAVE ANY
EXAMPLES OF WHEN THESE
TECHNOLOGIES MIGHT HAVE
INTERNAL CITY RETENTION POLICIE
THAT ARE LONGER THAN THAT
REQUIRED BY STATE LAW?
>> YES, MA'AM. WITHOUT GETTING
INTO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES BECAUSE
THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OFFHAND ,
AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, SPD I
BOUND BY THE RETENTION
REQUIREMENTS TO HOLD THEM FOR A
MINIMUM PERIOD . WE WOULD LOVE
TO LIE ON THE MINIMUM AND GO B
THAT IN MOST CASES.
UNFORTUNATELY MOST OF OUR
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS
INCLUDING OPA, THE COMMUNITY
POLICE COMMISSION HAVE WANTED U
TO RETAIN CERTAIN TECHNOLOGIES.
SPECIFICALLY BODY WORN VIDEO ,
FOR LONGER PERIODS THAN THE
STATE-MANDATED RETENTION PERIOD
FOR ONGOING INTERNAL
INVESTIGATIONS INTO OFFICER
MISCONDUCT OR SPD EMPLOYEES.
THERE IS A RETENTION WORKGROUP
THAT GETS TOGETHER AND WE ARE
TRYING TO BRING ALL OF THIS INT
A MORE REASONED FASHION.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUAREZ
BROUGHT UP THE SHEER MOUNTAIN
OF DATA WE ARE SPEAKING TO HERE
AND EITHER BROUGHT UP ABOUT TH
CIVIL LIBERTY CONCERNS WITH
RETAINING THINGS BEYOND THE
REQUIRED PERIOD , BUT WE HAVE
SEVERAL STAKEHOLDERS THAT WE
ARE TRYING TO WORK WITH TO GET
A MORE CONCRETE FORMAT OF HOW
WE RETAIN THIS DATA.
UNFORTUNATELY IT IS NOT BLACK
AND WHITE . WE HAVE CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION AND INTERNAL
INVESTIGATION .
>> IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.
>> YES, MA'AM . IT SURE DOES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, SO THAT CONCLUDES THE
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION FOR
TODAY . I WOULD LIKE TO TURN
BACK TO OUR PARTNERS OVER HERE
AT SEATTLE I.T. AND ASK IF YOU
HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR
ANYTHING YOU WANT TO LEAVE US
WITH?
>> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME
THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TODAY
AND THANK YOU FOR THE
DISCUSSION.
>> I AM MINDFUL THERE ARE MORE
TECHNOLOGIES . IS THAT THE CASE
? WHAT REMAINS IN GROUP B , IF
ANY?
>> THERE ARE TWO REMAINING
TECHNOLOGIES THAT COUNCIL
GRANTED AN EXTENSION FOR IN
GROUP B FOR MARCH 1st , I
BELIEVE . THOSE ARE HOSTAGE
NEGOTIATION THROW BONES .
>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT , EVERYBODY. THANK YO
VERY MUCH FOR A PRETTY SMOOTH
DISCUSSION OF A LOT OF
TECHNOLOGIES . IT IS 11:26 ON
FEBRUARY 8th AND THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT , TECHNOLOGY, AND
CITY LIGHT -- OH, GO AHEAD.
>> AND I JUST WANTED LISE KAYE
TO GO OVER HER PROCESS FOR
DEVELOPING AMENDMENTS. I THINK
WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE SOME
DEADLINES.
>> I FORGOT TO INVITE HER TO
TALK ABOUT THAT. GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD . WE HAVE
A SHORT AMENDMENT TIME FOR
THOSE. I AM ASKING THAT YOU, IF
YOU HAVE AMENDMENTS, LET ME KNO
BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS THIS
FRIDAY. YOU CAN JUST SAY I AM
SORT OF THINKING ABOUT THIS AND
IT GETS ME WORKING WITH ANY
LEGAL VIEW THAT COMES INTO PLA
ANY ANALYSIS THAT NEEDS TO BE
DONE TO CRAFT THE AMENDMENT.
THAT IS THE DEADLINE, CLOSE OF
BUSINESS THIS FRIDAY FOR
AMENDMENTS. MADAM CHAIR ?
>> OKAY, WELL I ALSO WANT TO
THANK MY COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU,
PRESIDENT JUAREZ AND
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD . WITHOUT
YOU, WE WOULD BE SETBACKS I
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR DILIGENC
COMING. WITH THAT, IT IS NO
11:27 ON FEBRUARY 8th AND WE AR
ADJOURNED.
>> THANK YOU .
>> THANK YOU, LISE KAYE.