During a recent city board meeting in Little Rock, significant concerns were raised regarding a proposed five-year contract with Axon Enterprise for a real-time crime center. Community members and board members alike expressed skepticism about the effectiveness and implications of increased surveillance in the city.

Several speakers, including Blake Tierney, highlighted the lack of concrete evidence supporting the efficacy of real-time crime centers in reducing crime rates. Tierney emphasized the need for data transparency from the Little Rock Police Department (LRPD) to assess the impact of previous investments in public safety. He called for a detailed report comparing crime statistics before and after the implementation of such technologies, arguing that anecdotal evidence is insufficient for justifying substantial financial commitments.

Concerns about privacy and civil liberties were echoed by multiple speakers, including Stephanie Gray, who warned that surveillance technologies disproportionately affect marginalized communities, particularly religious minorities and immigrants. Gray pointed to historical patterns of over-policing and surveillance of Muslim communities, urging the board to consider the potential risks associated with the proposed technology.

Community organizer Carina Espinosa voiced fears that the surveillance measures could be used to target undocumented immigrants, further exacerbating existing tensions within vulnerable populations. She stressed the importance of engaging with community members to understand their concerns rather than imposing top-down solutions.

Others, like Amy Britchard, raised issues about the financial implications of the contract, which would shift funding from seized assets to general revenue, potentially straining the city’s budget. Britchard argued that public safety funds should be redirected towards addressing root causes of crime, such as mental health resources and affordable housing.

Judge Wendell Griffin, a former judge and lawyer, criticized the reliance on anecdotal evidence for justifying the contract, asserting that there is no statistical proof that such surveillance systems enhance safety. He cautioned that the proposed measures could alienate the community and damage trust between residents and law enforcement.

As the board deliberates on the contract, community members are urging a reconsideration of the approach to public safety, advocating for investments in community-based solutions rather than surveillance technologies. The discussions reflect a broader debate about the balance between safety and civil liberties in urban governance.