St. Louis police present revised surveillance use plans; committee pauses for more public detail

The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department on Wednesday presented revised surveillance use plans covering camera systems, automated license-plate readers, cell-site simulators, mobile camera trailers, ShotSpotter and device-forensics tools, then answered questions from the Public Safety Committee and dozens of community speakers.

Monet, chief of staff to the police chief, told the committee the department began work on the plans in August, presented draft plans in December and posted revised versions to the police department website on Jan. 2. "These are updated. They're on our site," Monet said during her presentation.

The revisions break out several previously combined items into more-specific use plans: separate write‑ups for citywide cameras (including situational awareness cameras and mobile surveillance trailers), automated license-plate readers (ALPRs), forensics tools (listed as Cellebrite and Magnet/GrayKey‑type phone extraction tools and a vehicle infotainment extractor), cell-site simulators and ShotSpotter (the vendor now operating as SoundThinking). Monet said the department also added product descriptions, clarified authorized uses and spelled out prohibitions, and revised language about deployment conditions such as court‑approved warrants or exigent circumstances.

Why it matters: the session drew sustained public comment and detailed questions from aldermen about retention periods, vendor names and how data are shared. Residents and privacy and civil‑liberties groups said current drafts do not give the public a meaningful way to assess privacy and civil‑liberties risks.

Public commenters asked for manufacturer product descriptions and clearer cross‑references to existing departmental policies and special orders. "They did not submit a use plan that meets the minimum requirements from the law passed last year by the Board of Aldermen," Chris Wilcox, a 14th Ward resident, told the committee, urging rejection of the plans as drafted. Annie Rice of ArchCity Defenders and Sage Coram of the ACLU of Missouri also said notices and document links were inconsistent and made it hard for the public to find and review the revised plans in time.

Key technical points and department answers

- ALPR retention: Monet and department staff said still‑used ALPR plate images are retained for 90 days in practice; the transcript records an earlier ordinance reference to a longer, pre‑ACLU retention (described as 108 days in state guidance and an older six‑month reference in SO 527). Monet told Alderwoman Soniak the department reduced its ALPR retention to 90 days after ACLU review but acknowledged the older ordinance language still reflects the prior practice.

- ShotSpotter retention: the department said sensor data on devices are kept about 30 hours on the sensor and noted vendor‑side retention for algorithm training. That timeframe was cited repeatedly by department presenters and questioned by multiple commenters as insufficiently specific about what the vendor retains.

- Mobile camera trailers and fixed cameras: Monet and SLMPD staff described three camera categories (real‑time crime video surveillance, mobile surveillance trailers and situational‑awareness aerial cameras). Staff said mobile trailers are deployed at captain discretion based on crime trends or resident requests; a department speaker said there are roughly 47 mobile trailers and the fixed camera count presented by public commenters was about 646 city‑owned cameras.

- Forensics tools: Monet said Cellebrite and a Magnet/GrayKey‑type tool were separately documented with search‑warrant requirements; a third tool was described as for vehicle infotainment systems and also requires a warrant.

- Real Time Crime Center and Fusion Center: Monet stated the Real Time Crime Center is staffed by SLMPD employees only; the St. Louis Fusion Center is a multi‑agency information center that houses some SLMPD personnel but is not city‑run.

Community and legal concerns

Speakers from civil‑liberties groups, defense nonprofits and reproductive‑rights organizations raised common themes: they asked for explicit manufacturer and model information; better linkage of each plan to the specific departmental special orders that govern use; tighter and clearer retention and deletion procedures; named lists of external partners who may receive data; and stronger, auditable safeguards against discriminatory uses (particularly for facial recognition and mugshot‑matching tools).

"This plan was submitted without outlining the decade‑long program," Wilcox said, noting the Real Time Crime Center has operated for years without a prior public use plan. Sage Coram (ACLU of Missouri) flagged inconsistent language around cell‑site simulator deletion and Department of Justice practice guidance; she noted some passages state data are deleted immediately while others say operational data must be cleared "no less than once every 30 days." Several speakers asked for explicit assurances that data stored by third‑party vendors would be subject to the same deletion and access rules.

Committee response and next steps

Aldermen generally praised the department's effort to revise the drafts but echoed public commenters' requests for more detail. Alderman Shamine Clark Hubbard said residents ask for cameras in some neighborhoods but also demand accountability; Vice Chair Aldrich thanked Monet for the work and asked that updated plans be posted on the Board of Aldermen website as well as the police page to aid public review.

No formal votes were taken on the surveillance resolutions (Resolutions 186–193). The committee requested more documentation and clearer posting. Chair Narayan and aldermen signaled they would hold the items for follow‑up: staff were asked to provide manufacturer and contract details where available, to clarify retention and deletion procedures (including vendor practices), and to ensure links from the Board of Aldermen website point to the revised plans on the department site.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve minutes of Dec. 17, 2024: moved by Alderman Clark Hubbard, seconded by Alderman Oldenburg; tally recorded as six ayes and the motion was approved.

What remains open

Committee members and community groups identified several items that must be clarified before the committee considers moving any of the surveillance use plans forward: explicit vendor and model names for each technology, precise retention and deletion language that accounts for vendor copies, named recipients or partner agencies for any shared data, personnel and procurement/cost details (including initial purchase and personnel support costs), and explicit connections between each resolution and the departmental special orders the plans cite. Civil‑liberties advocates argued the public notice and web posting process must be adjusted so community members can find and compare the resolutions, the use plans and related policies in a single location.

Ending

The department said it will return with additional documentation and with corrected web posting. The committee did not adopt any of the surveillance resolutions Wednesday; members asked staff to circulate the clarifications and links and to schedule a return to the committee when those materials are available.

Sources: Committee meeting transcript and on‑record public testimony, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department staff remarks.