City councillors moved Monday to close off any possibility of further use of the ShotSpotter gunfire-detection system, but it was over the objections of a member who considered the policy order “unlawful.”
Councillors voted May 18 for the city manager to turn off the system and remove its microphones within 90 days. The necessary five-member majority out of nine said they saw no evidence that the system keeps anyone safe and might be turned into a tool for surveillance.
The issue’s return two weeks later came because of staff advice on the language of that voted motion that it left “some discretion” with the city manager, councillor Ayah Al-Zubi said. The new policy order was “to make it clear that it’s the council’s decision, that the council has the authority, not the city manager.”
Calling the question immediately to a vote – which passed with the same five-member majority – came over councillor Tim Flaherty’s attempts to argue that the order was unlawful because it doesn’t follow the language of the Surveillance Technology Ordinance ordinance. He pointed to the same section cited by Al-Zubi’s order.
“The City Council shall conduct an examination of the annual surveillance report, which to my knowledge hasn’t been done,” Flaherty said, going on to list a missing consideration of safeguards around privacy, civil rights and civil liberties; determination of how to balance that with the benefits of a technology; and vote to either recommend changes, ask for a report back from the city manager or disapprove further use of surveillance technology. “All of those conditions precedent to a vote must be taken according to the ordinance before a vote can be entertained by the City Council. So what’s the process?”
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui reiterated from Al-Zubi’s introduction of the order that staff advised on its phrasing, and that “the meetings that were supposed to happen did happen, factually.”
The council’s Public Safety Committee held hearings on ShotSpotter on June 2, 2025, and – with a newly elected Al-Zubi as chair – on April 29. The final item mentioned by Flaherty, a vote, took place May 18. Still, Flaherty, a lawyer, said that as he read the ordnance, “there must be a finding on each step of the process. There has been no finding by the City Council.”
His objections were blocked procedurally from being considered, though, and an immediate formal vote to reconsider Al-Zubi’s order was held for the purposes of having that reconsideration fail – to ensure that the order against ShotSpotter was locked down for immediate enactment.
For councillor Cathie Zusy, the permanence raised questions. “Let’s say we have a different president and we feel more comfortable with surveillance. How soon could we support bringing ShotSpotter back?” she asked.
If there’s a change of circumstances, city staff can ask for approval of a gunshot-detection system, city solicitor Megan Bayer said, “and if it’s different circumstances than the disapproval of the current use of the surveillance technology, the council could consider it.”
About The Author
