Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After heated public comments, board approves $723,000 increase to sheriff’s Peregrine contract amid calls for stronger transparency
Summary
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved a $723,000 amendment to increase and extend the sheriff's contract with Peregrine to support data‑integration and reporting, following hours of public comment raising concerns about surveillance, ICE access and predictive policing; the sheriff and Peregrine representatives said the platform ingests agency data and lacks predictive or federal‑sharing capabilities.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved an amendment that increases the sheriff's office contract with Peregrine from $686,500 to $1,400,000 and extends the term through March 2028 after extended public comment and a lengthy question-and‑answer session.
The meeting record shows dozens of residents urged the board to reject the amendment, arguing the platform could enable mass surveillance, integrate license‑plate readers and other sensors, and offer federal agencies a backdoor to local data. "Mass surveillance does not keep us safe," one public commenter said during the item‑specific public comment period. Several speakers cited Palantir ties and warned of disproportionate harm to Black, Brown and immigrant communities.
Sheriff representatives and Peregrine staff responded at the hearing and in follow‑up answers: Sheriff stated Peregrine is a data‑integration and reporting platform that organizes information the agency already controls and that misuse of criminal‑justice information is statutorily punishable. Peregrine deployment staff said the product contains no predictive‑policing module, that data sharing requires a signed agency agreement and adheres to California law (including SB 54 prohibitions on immigration‑purpose sharing), and that audit trails and access controls are available.
Supervisors asked for greater transparency and for the county to standardize procurement safeguards for technology contracts. Supervisor Fortunato Bass said her staff had submitted questions and that some answers arrived late; she abstained on the final vote because she felt more time was needed to review the vendor agreement and responses. Supervisor Marquez, while expressing concern about immigrant privacy and federal access, voted yes and called for publicly accessible dashboards and audit summaries where feasible. The roll call recorded four yes votes and one abstention.
The board's action authorizes a two‑year extension and the additional funding described in the sheriff's board letter. County counsel and the sheriff said they would continue to refine data‑sharing agreements and explore public audit options while the sheriff's office manages access and operation of the system.
