Board approves 15‑month pilot letting SFPD access private camera feeds with new reporting rules

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Sept. 20 approved an ordinance directing the Police Department to adopt a surveillance‑technology policy that allows the department limited live access to privately owned security cameras and requires quarterly reporting and a city evaluation of the pilot program. The measure passed after amendments, 7‑4.

The ordinance requires the Police Department to restrict live monitoring of non‑city cameras to narrow circumstances and to submit quarterly reports; the board also attached a 15‑month sunset so supervisors can review whether the policy reduced crime or led to civil‑liberties harms. The board added a direction that the Budget and Legislative Analyst undertake an independent city evaluation of the pilot’s efficacy following the reporting period.

Supporters said the ordinance provides accountability and a limited, transparent path for the department to use privately owned footage in time‑sensitive situations. “Absent chapter 19B, we wouldn’t be having this conversation,” Supervisor Peskin told colleagues, describing the ordinance as an extension of the city’s transparency rules for surveillance technology.

Opponents warned the measure still allows too much live monitoring of public events and expressed concerns about police access to real‑time feeds outside clear emergency circumstances. “I do not believe police should be able to use live‑feed surveillance … absent exigent circumstances,” Supervisor Ronan said during the debate, urging narrower limits and independent review.

What the ordinance allows and restricts

- Live monitoring allowed in exigent circumstances to preserve life or safety. - Live monitoring also may be used for certain high‑profile public safety events and to assist ongoing criminal investigations; supervisors debated the scope of these latter provisions and voted on amendments to clarify reporting and oversight. - The Police Department must produce quarterly reports that list requests for live monitoring, whether a captain granted or denied requests and the stated justification, whether the non‑city entity cooperated, and the total costs to the department for each request. - The board directed the Budget and Legislative Analyst to evaluate the pilot program after the reporting period and recommend whether the policy should be extended, modified or allowed to expire. - The ordinance contains a sunset provision: the policy will expire 15 months after its effective date unless the board acts to extend it.

Board debate and amendments

Supporters framed the ordinance as the next step in an existing local transparency framework (Administrative Code Chapter 19B), which requires departments to publish use policies for surveillance tools. Supervisor Peskin, who led the board’s work on the underlying law, said the chapter had already exposed departmental practices and that this ordinance creates guardrails for a new form of access.

Opponents and privacy advocates said the ordinance as introduced was too broad because it permitted live monitoring in ways that could capture demonstrations, public gatherings and routine streetscapes. Supervisor Ronan proposed an amendment to remove the category allowing live monitoring for “significant events,” which failed on a 7‑4 roll call. That vote left in place the chief constraints the board had negotiated earlier: a limited set of allowed uses, a short pilot period and expanded reporting.

After more discussion, the board adopted an amendment that strengthened quarterly reporting requirements (adding cost accounting and localized incident metrics) and expressly directed the Budget and Legislative Analyst to review the results of the pilot. That combined amendment passed unanimously before the final ordinance vote on the amended policy.

Vote and next steps

The final roll call on the amended ordinance was 7 in favor, 4 opposed. The supervisors voting yes were Mandelmann, Mar, Melgar, Peskin, Safai, Stephanie, and Dorsey. The supervisors voting no were Preston, Ronan, Walton and Chan. The ordinance includes the 15‑month sunset and the reporting and evaluation requirements; the Police Department will begin reporting after the policy goes into effect and the board will use the BLA evaluation to decide whether to extend or revise the policy.

Why this matters

The ordinance is the city’s first explicit, board‑approved pilot authorizing limited live access to non‑city cameras with an explicit, near‑term review requirement. Civil‑liberties advocates had urged a categorical ban on live monitoring outside exigent circumstances; business and merchant groups and some supervisors argued stronger tools were needed to deter and investigate organized retail crime. The pilot and the required independent review are intended to provide empirical evidence for future policy choices.