Open letter to Hattiesburg Mayor about radar, drones use by police
Dear
Barker:
Thank you for your proposal for the City of Hattiesburg to purchase new radar surveillance of speeding in school zones, something likely to elicit strong public support.
Your second proposal to purchase radar equipment to detect drivers not insured, will no doubt be popular among those who pay their insurance, though it will not likely lower their own car insurance costs. And the heavy fines (and possible imprisonment) of those least able to afford insurance will increase local poverty when the family loses access
Hattiesburg Mayor Toby to their car. An alternative might be not to seek imprisonment and for city clerks to work with violators on a gradual payment plan to allow them to keep access to their vehicles and not push the whole family into greater poverty.
The third proposal is to begin use of police drone surveillance. This is potentially useful in spotting criminal activity and can be of some assistance in emergency situations. But police use of drones risks exposing many city residents to unintended surveillance at any hour, which many would consider an invasion of privacy. It’s a slippery slope.
The third proposal, to begin use of police drone surveillance, while potentially useful, requires development of strict standards to respect citizen privacy and possible mis-arrests of innocent residents. Documented evidence of false arrests, incorrect facial recognition, and invasion of privacy is plentiful, as are examples where crimes have been detected more quickly. If used, there is a clear need for development of standards for use of drones by our police, which fits your consistent requirement that all new programs be evidenced-based and fair.
One option regarding drones is to simply not use them. They are costly and require additional taxpayer dollars. They require taking some police off regular patrols to be trained in using them. They have in some cities resulted in costly court cases against the city/police which can be costly. And coupled with faulty face recognition of darker skins by Artificial Intelligence, they can result in unfair and illegal imprisonment of minorities.
But if the city council moves ahead with approval of your proposal, there is a clear need for establishing transparent guidelines on the use of drones by our police.
Community participation in the establishment of such guidelines is available as shown below.
The following documents provide a balanced assessment of both the benefits and concerns of use drones by police.
Pros
According to data from the Chula Vista Police Department, it has sent drones to more than 16,000 calls in total, with an average response time of under two minutes. For reference, average response times using officers exceeded 20 minutes in 14 of 15 other departments included in a review by data analyst Jeff Asher earlier this year.
In one frequently cited example, 911 received a call about a man waving around a ‘gun’ in front of a taco restaurant. A Chula Vista police drone arrived
in 84 seconds, and before officers could make it onto the scene, the operator used the drone video to determine that the ‘gun’ was actually a cigarette lighter.
Cons
“Civil liberty advocates are less enchanted. American Civil Liberties Union Senior Policy Analyst Jay Stanley worries that these kinds of drone programs may normalize usage and “usher in an era of pervasive, suspcionless, mass aerial surveillance” and calls for “strict rules before deploying police drones. He notes far more invasive turns that police drone usage could take, including warrantless surveillance of specific people, crime “hotspots” or even whole neighborhoods or cities.
Stanley wonders if drone usage won’t just become “another weapon in the war on drugs, in over-policing, in the targeting of Black, low-income and other vulnerable communities, and otherwise amplify the problems with the deeply broken U.S. criminal legal system.”
A way forward: Police and community partnership on use of drones
The national office of the NAACP has expressed concerns about police use of drones. The NAACP suggests local chapters, (such as the Forrest County NAACP) work with local police to develop guidelines for use of drones. The local branch of the NAACP is ready to work in positive relationship with the City and the Hattiesburg Police Department, welcoming its new Chief, Hardy Sims.
The following statement by the national NAACP offers a positive starting point in establishing clear guidelines if the city moves forward with the plan to provide the Hattiesburg Police Department drone equipment:
● Drones operated by any government and/or law enforcement agency shall not be armed with any weapons or spray devices and that all drones have surveillance oversight to avoid intrusion in our civil rights.
● All information captured be retained for no longer than three months unless it involves the use of force, leads to detention, arrest or complaint filed.
● Recordings shall be released with the consent of the subject or individual involved. Blurring portions of video/ audio should be used to protect the underage or innocent.
● All videotaping should be time stamped and not allowed to be erased by officers. Officers should not be allowed to use their own devices as body camera or video equipment. All video footage shall be downloaded immediately to a central data base.
Clarence Magee is president of the Forrest County NAACP.