14th & Broadway
Oakland
CA
The resolution to fund and expand ShotSpotter will come before the full Oakland City Council Tuesday, October 15th at 3:30pm. That means there is still time to urge your city council member to vote against the resolution.
The Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission recommended to the Council that the Shotspotter contract not be renewed, because of lack of evidence that it is effective, noting that the monies could be used for things that are known to be effective in reducing crime. The Council, however, is leaning towards ignoring that recommendation, a recommendation made by the Commission the Council, well, commissioned, to make such technical evaluations.
ShotSpotter, produced by SoundThinking, is an acoustic gunshot detection system (AGDS). Its many sensors and microphones constitute a mass surveillance network that does more harm than good to residents of cities across the U.S., including Oakland.
Write to Council members before Tuesday and urge them to say NO to ShotSpotter.
Why ShotSpotter Does Not Belong in Oakland’s Communities
Other U.S. cities, including Chicago and New York, are questioning or outright discontinuing their contracts with SoundThinking because the technology does not live up to its claims of improved public safety or police effectiveness. Houston’s mayor plans to end the city’s contract with SoundThinking, calling their technology a “gimmick” that did not improve the city’s public safety. After a one-year pilot program, Durham, North Carolina’s city council voted against continuing their contract after an audit showed abysmal results. Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Committee (PAC) voted against funding ShotSpotter on April 4th, 2024.
The technology attempts to triangulate the location of gunshots and decrease officer response time to shooting incidents. The Oakland Police Department (OPD) touts ShotSpotter as a crime deterrent that reduces gun violence and keeps communities safer. A growing body of evidence indicates that ShotSpotter fails to achieve any of its supposed benefits.
OPD reports there were 8,318 unique gunshot incidents detected by ShotSpotter in 2023. Of these incidents, only four lead to an arrest. According to OPD’s incident reports, 73% of gun violations were for negligent discharge of a firearm, not a violent crime. OPD Captain Lewis has confirmed “many of the ShotSpotter firearm recoveries are from gun owners doing ‘target practice in their backyard.'” ShotSpotter artificially bloats OPD’s workload, diverting them away from actual community needs.
OPD’s average time to respond to the most serious 911 calls for help has increased. The same increase has occurred in Chicago, Cleveland, and St. Louis. This trend can be partly explained by the artificial workload ShotSpotter creates for officers. For example, in St. Louis, AGDS added 3,400 new calls per average year in addition to 2,800 citizen-initiated calls – a 67% increase in service calls. OPD categorizes ShotSpotter alerts as a Priority I call (immediate dispatch). Therefore, officers are being diverted from urgent and potentially life threatening emergencies to address ShotSpotter alerts that have a decent chance of being nothing more than a loud noise.
ShotSpotter often sends police officers to chase false positive alerts. The technology is notorious for reporting fireworks, automobile backfires, and construction noises as gunshots. False reportage is not only a waste of time. It leads directly to civil liberties abuses and false arrests, as was the case for 65-year old Michael Williams. In his case and others, court documents reveal that law enforcement frequently requests that ShotSpotter’s analysts modify alerts to support their narrative of events.
U.S. Senators have urged the Department of Homeland Security to investigate funding of ShotSpotter for civil rights violations and discriminatory policing. In Chicago, the 12 districts with ShotSpotter installations are those with the highest populations of Black and Latinx residents. In NYC, 70% of acoustic sensors were placed in precincts with majority Black or Latinx residents. The same racist pattern holds for Kansas City, MO; Cleveland, OH; Atlanta, GA; and Boston, MA.
In Oakland, ShotSpotter has been deployed in four geographic phases. The first two phases of deployment were in predominantly Black, Latinx, and Asian communities, which is easily observed by comparing OPD’s map of ShotSpotter deployment (see page 6) with a race, ethnicity, and diversity map of Oakland. A Stanford University study found that OPD officers display a stark racial disparity in who they search, detain, and arrest. Placement of ShotSpotter sensors consistently follows patterns of historical over-policing, and Oakland is no exception.
The money wasted on ShotSpotter would best serve Oakland residents if redirected toward other community needs. Please write to your city council members to tell them that ShotSpotter is a wasteful and dangerous surveillance technology.