Public Safety Committee hears revised SLMPD surveillance use plans; committee defers votes amid transparency, retention and bias concerns

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen Public Safety Committee on Jan. 10 heard a presentation from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department on revised surveillance use plans covering Resolutions 186–193, including policies for cell-site simulators, facial/mugshot recognition, digital forensics tools, ShotSpotter (sound detection), citywide and mobile cameras, GPS tracking tools and automated license-plate readers. SLMPD staff described technical and policy edits and said the department posted revised plans online on Jan. 2.

The committee did not vote on any of the resolutions after the presentation and extensive public comment. Chair Narayan said the committee would hold the items in committee and requested follow-up work, including routing updated materials to the City Clerk for public access.

Why it matters: The proposals, required under the city’s civilian oversight ordinance (the CCOPS ordinance), would codify how SLMPD uses a range of surveillance tools. Voting now would put multi-year rules in place for technologies that civil liberties groups, privacy advocates and community residents say need clearer vendor details, retention limits and oversight safeguards.

SLMPD presentation and scope

Monet, identified in the meeting as SLMPD chief of staff, told the committee the department started drafting the plans in August, posted revised versions to the department website on Jan. 2 and incorporated public feedback and examples from other cities. “We started working on these plans back in August,” Monet said, and later added that revisions address public concerns and “product descriptions” and more granular policies on authorized uses and prohibitions.

Monet reiterated that some technologies require search warrants or court authorization. She said Cellebrite and a second phone-extraction tool require search warrants; a vehicle-forensics product (described in the revised plan) likewise requires possession of the vehicle and a warrant. She said the Real Time Crime Center is staffed by SLMPD employees (not a jointly run operation) while the St. Louis Fusion Center is a multi-agency information-sharing hub in which SLMPD has a cell.

Public comment: main themes

More than a dozen individual commenters and representatives of organizations urged the committee to reject, delay or substantially revise the plans. Key, recurring concerns were:

- Vendor and product transparency: Multiple speakers said the plans omit specific manufacturer product descriptions and contract details that the public needs to assess capabilities and third-party data practices. The ACLU, ArchCity Defenders and independent speakers urged SLMPD to list manufacturers, model names and vendor data-use terms in the plans.

- Data retention and deletion practices: Commenters noted inconsistent language in the plans. SLMPD’s materials state some data is automatically deleted, but federal Department of Justice guidance cited elsewhere in the plans allows operational data to remain for up to 30 days in some circumstances. Speakers asked the committee to shorten retention windows and to specify how deletion is performed and audited.

- Discriminatory impact and algorithmic bias: Community groups and technologists warned facial/mugshot-recognition and algorithmic tools (mugshot-matching subscriptions cited by SLMPD) have known disparate error rates by race and called for stronger prohibitions or bans. "This technology has documented evidence of producing discriminatory impact," said speakers from the ACLU and other organizations during public comment.

- Real Time Crime Center and private feeds: Commenters and some committee members pressed for a separate, explicit use plan for the Real Time Crime Center and for disclosure of private camera feeds (special taxing districts and private cameras) that the center reportedly ingests.

- ShotSpotter / SoundThinking: Several speakers questioned accuracy and cost-effectiveness of acoustic gunshot detection, cited published studies and local reports showing low success in locating crimes, and pressed SLMPD to justify ongoing spending. SLMPD staff said ShotSpotter sensor data are retained by the vendor for a short window (the department said sensors store ~30 hours locally), and the department described adjustments to product descriptions in the revised plans.

- Automated license-plate readers (ALPRs): Speakers and committee members discussed the scope of ALPR deployment (SLMPD noted 404 fixed ALPR units in the city and 14 in-car readers already in service), and questioned a 90-day retention period for plate-image records. Public commenters asked the committee to reduce retention absent an active investigation.

Representative comments

- Chris Wilcox (14th Ward resident): "I urge the committee to reject SLMPD's use plan for its surveillance technology," arguing the submission did not meet the ordinance’s requirements and did not describe decade-long practices.

- Annie Rice (ArchCity Defenders): "The way that this meeting was noticed and the way that these use plans... does not meet the requirements of the ordinance," and she asked that the Board of Aldermen website link to the updated plans and the related resolutions.

- Sage Coram (ACLU of Missouri): Noted the draft improved some product descriptions but urged explicit manufacturer disclosures and asked for clarity on data-sharing with partner agencies and the fusion center.

Committee reaction and next steps

Committee members thanked SLMPD for revisions but repeatedly asked for more detail. Alderman Sonier praised SLMPD staff for work on the drafts but pressed for clarification about whether split-out technologies require separate resolutions under city law. Alderman Aldrich and others urged SLMPD to route the revised plans to the City Clerk and the Board of Aldermen web pages so community members can find them more easily. Several aldermen signaled they were not prepared to vote at this meeting.

Formal committee action at the meeting was limited to routine business: the committee approved the Dec. 17, 2024 minutes and later voted to adjourn. Chair Narayan said the surveillance resolutions would be held in committee pending additional information and improved public posting.

What remained unresolved

The committee asked SLMPD for a set of clarifications before any vote: a vendor/manufacturer list and model descriptions for each technology, explicit documentation of data-retention and deletion procedures, clear statements about any data-sharing agreements or MOUs with other agencies or vendors, and an explicit use plan or separate disclosure for the Real Time Crime Center’s role and any private-camera feeds. Several speakers also urged sharper, shorter retention limits (ALPRs, mobile cameras, sensor data) and stronger commitments to avoid discriminatory impacts from facial or mugshot-recognition technologies.

The committee recorded no formal votes on Resolutions 186–193 during the hearing. Members indicated they would reconvene or seek updated materials before advancing any of the surveillance resolutions.

Ending

The committee took no approvals on the surveillance resolutions and asked agency staff to provide the requested clarifications and to make the revised materials clearly available on the Board of Aldermen web pages. The committee adjourned after routine motions. The department, community groups and aldermen are expected to continue the process before the Board of Aldermen considers final votes.