City Hall pulls back curtain on CPD surveillance tech
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Stock: Getty Images
Cincinnati Police pulled back the curtain Tuesday on how they watch the city and what happens to the data they collect.
Why it matters: The review comes as cities nationwide wrestle balancing increasingly powerful police technology with privacy and civil liberties.
Driving the news: City Council last month ordered the administration to outline its surveillance equipment, how and why it's used, how long data is kept and who can access it.
What they found: Much of Cincinnati's surveillance technology isn't new — license plate readers date to 2008, while some police vehicle cameras have been around even longer.
- Police say the technology has helped investigate homicides, theft and other crimes, while drones can sometimes handle calls without dispatching another police unit.
- Cincinnati owns all of the data it collects, the city's legal department said.
Zoom out: Cincinnati's review isn't happening in a vacuum.
- Hamilton County recently terminated its 75-camera Flock license plate reader program after residents raised concerns about access and data sharing.
- The sheriff's office said an internal audit found no misuse.
The backstory: Cincinnati doesn't use Flock, but Council member Anna Albi wanted the review to give residents a chance to hear directly from police and speak out.
- Several have done so in recent weeks, raising concerns ranging from privacy to potential misuse for immigration enforcement or monitoring women's health.
- On Tuesday, the Detroit News reported employees at five Michigan law enforcement agencies had used Flock data for immigration-related searches.
What they're saying: Interim police chief Adam Hennie said CPD doesn't use AI or facial recognition. When Albi asked whether CPD would provide license plate information to another state investigating someone for seeking an abortion, he gave an unequivocal no.
Friction point: Residents' concerns collided with warnings from police and some council members against limiting tools they say help solve crimes.
- Hennie prefers keeping city camera footage longer than the current 14 days, noting some investigations can take much longer.
- Council member Scotty Johnson, a former CPD officer, said investigators sometimes don't know which information matters until weeks or months after a crime.
- "We need to slow this train down when it comes to anything talking about limiting the police and making sure Cincinnati's safe," Johnson said.
The other side: Albi said that's precisely the balance the city needs to work through.
- "We want to catch that killer and get them off our streets, but we also need to protect people's civil liberties."
What's next: Albi says no specific action came out of Tuesday's meeting, but she'd like Cincinnati to codify its best practices and create an annual surveillance report similar to Dayton's.