Little Rock board hears hours of public comment on ShotSpotter, pauses debate over ordinance

The Little Rock City Board of Directors spent more than three hours of public comment and debate on April 1 over renewing and expanding a gunshot-detection contract with SoundThinking (commonly called ShotSpotter), associated drone purchases and broader surveillance policies.

Supporters, including the Pulaski County prosecuting office and the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce, told the board the technology helps investigators and first responders reach scenes more quickly and has supported prosecutions. Opponents — neighborhood residents, civil liberties advocates, volunteer shelter workers and academic researchers — urged the board to refuse renewal, citing studies they said show high false‑alarm rates, racialized deployment and the risk of escalating police contact.

Why it matters: the ordinance under discussion would authorize continued use and a modest expansion of ShotSpotter’s coverage and related purchases. Board members raised legal and procedural questions about how the issue came back to the agenda, whether the item qualified as a sole‑source purchase, and what policy safeguards the city will require before adopting further surveillance systems.

Speakers described competing priorities: those concerned about violent crime and victims said any tool that helps investigators is valuable, while civil‑rights advocates said the city should invest in prevention and demand independent evaluation of the vendor’s data before contracting further. Amy Pritchard, an attorney and longtime city housing and policing reform advocate, said she had repeatedly sought records and policy discussions and described “intentional obfuscation” around related surveillance contracts and data sharing.

"This isn't oversight, that's blind trust," Pritchard told the board, asking officials to "withdraw this ordinance, reintroduce it properly, and let the people see what you're building." She said public policies and audits need to come first.

The city’s prosecutor and law enforcement supporters said ShotSpotter has been useful to investigations. In remarks describing case outcomes, a representative of the prosecuting office said the department has used ShotSpotter data in prosecutions and that the technology has assisted in building evidence for serious charges. "When a shot is fired, there's no prevention left," the prosecutor said, arguing that the system gives victims and responders a better chance.

Police Chief Hilton answered council questions about how ShotSpotter alerts are handled: the system routes acoustic detections to the vendor’s screening center, which verifies alerts and then forwards them to 911 as priority calls; the department treats the system as an investigative tool rather than a preventive solution. Chief Hilton said losing the service would remove a resource investigators use, and that officers’ morale and recruiting can be affected when investigative tools are removed.

Board members pressed two overlapping process questions: (1) whether the vote to remove the item from the agenda earlier this year (an expungement/reconsideration) followed the city code and Robert’s Rules, and (2) whether the ShotSpotter contract is properly characterized as sole source because of proprietary sensors and the installed network.

Director Phillips said he would seek an ordinance to require more transparency, including surveillance impact reports, annual summaries of deployments and a community advisory committee, and he asked the city attorney and staff to provide clearer documentation of the sole‑source claim and the voting/expungement rules. The city attorney said the existing contract infrastructure and proprietary sensors are the practical reason the city relied on a sole‑source justification and that replacing the system wholesale would be substantially more expensive.

"Further, regardless of prior statements, representations, or course of dealing by any ShotSpotter representative, we do not warrant or represent ... that the service or its use will result in prevention of crime ... or that the ShotSpotter supply network will remain in operation at all times," Director Phillips read from the 2018 contract as part of his criticism of vendor claims.

Outcome and next steps: board members debated motions on deferral and on calling the question; votes on procedural motions occurred in the meeting record but the transcript does not contain a final roll‑call approving a renewed multi‑year contract. Director Phillips moved to defer item 18 (the ordinance concerning the ShotSpotter renewal) and later said he would introduce follow‑up ordinances requiring independent evaluation, surveillance impact reports and community oversight if the technology remains in use.

Board members indicated sufficient interest in stronger oversight measures; several said they planned to draft or support ordinances to require publicly available audits, annual surveillance reports and community engagement before the system is expanded to additional wards.

"We need policy to build trust," Director Phillips said. "Independent evaluations is one way to do that." Ending: The board recessed later in the meeting for executive session and returned to other business; further votes on the ShotSpotter contract and related drone purchases were deferred for additional procedural and policy work according to several directors' remarks.