(Press release) Yolo County ACLU* board member Dean Johansson – now a candidate for Yolo County District Attorney – played a leadership role in developing the surveillance ordinance passed unanimously Tuesday, March 20, 2018, by the Davis City Council.
The ordinance – which regulates city departments’ use of surveillance technology, building in safeguards to protect civil liberties – was the result of a year and a half of collaboration between the Yolo County ACLU, ACLU of Northern California, Davis City Council, Police Chief Darren Pytel, and Brian Hofer, Chair of the City of Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission.
Other community groups, including the Davis Human Relations Commission, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, ACLU People Power, and the National Lawyers Guild supported the development and passage of the ordinance.
The ordinance was passed just one week after Berkeley became the first city in California to adopt an ordinance regulating the use of surveillance technologies. Santa Clara County was the first municipality to do so in June 2016.
Mr. Johansson released this statement:
“I am pleased that the City of Davis has approved an ordinance providing for meaningful oversight of the use of surveillance technologies by city departments, particularly the police department. I have long advocated that we as community members need to be proactive about addressing the potential for surveillance technologies to be used in intrusive and unconstitutional ways, given how the rapid development of technologies enables unprecedented forms of surveillance.
"The concerns I raised in the September 2017 City Council meeting have largely been addressed, though we must have continued vigilance around these issues. In particular, we must continue to ensure that the ordinance’s allowance for the police department to bypass the public approval process in ‘exigent circumstances’ is not abused.
“The regulation of surveillance technologies is particularly pressing now given the targeting of immigrant communities, Muslim communities, and racial justice activists by the Trump administration. I am proud that the City of Davis is establishing itself as a leader in protecting our civil liberties.”
Mr. Johansson had voiced concerns to the City Council in September following a presentation given to the Council by Police Chief Darren Pytel, noting that the recommendations made by Pytel would result in an ineffectual ordinance. In public comment Tuesday, March 20, he commended Chief Pytel for his role in addressing community concerns and drafting the adopted ordinance.
Mr. Johansson's candidacy continues a recent national trend where reformer district attorneys are winning seats against hard-line DAs – civil rights attorney Larry Krasner won Philadelphia’s DA job last November promising major reforms. Mr. Johansson said he is patterning his campaign after Krasner's.
Mr. Johansson is a former district attorney in Sacramento and Tulare counties, and has been a public defender in Yolo County (for the past 10 years) and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. He was a private practice lawyer for 10 years, focusing on civil rights law. Johansson is a graduate of UC Berkeley and McGeorge School of Law, and an adjunct professor at the UC Davis School of Law.
The City of Davis ordinance states:
“The purpose and intent of this Article is to impose safeguards to protect civil liberties and civil rights before any surveillance technology is deployed. The City Council finds that any decision to use surveillance technology must be balanced with the need to: investigate and prevent crimes; protect crime victims and society from those who commit crimes; protect civil rights and civil liberties, including privacy and free expression; and the costs to the City. The City Council finds that proper transparency, oversight and accountability for the acquisition and use of surveillance technology is fundamental to protecting the rights and civil liberties, including privacy and free expression, of all people. The City Council finds it essential to have an informed public debate as early as possible about whether to acquire and use surveillance technology. The City Council finds that if surveillance technology is approved, there must be continued oversight and annual evaluation to ensure that safeguards are being followed and that the surveillance technology’s benefits outweigh its costs.”
The ordinance further stipulates that any department wishing to “use, acquire, or share data involving a surveillance technology” must first submit documentation about the technologies to be used and the purposes and impacts to the City Council as a discussion item at a regular City Council meeting. Thirty days following that meeting, a public hearing will be held to determine whether the department will be allowed to take the proposed action. The department will subsequently submit Annual Surveillance Reports, and the impact of its use of surveillance technology will be subject to continued oversight and regulation. The ordinance allows for departments to bypass this process in “exigent circumstances”; however, when these circumstances conclude the department is required to report its use to the City Council, and either dispose of the technology or seek approval for its acquisition.
Berkeley:
Santa Clara:
https://www.aclunc.org/blog/santa-clara-county-passes-landmark-law-shut-down-secret-surveillance
* Organizations are mentioned for identification purposes, and no official endorsement should be implied
Davisite 
Leave a comment