Trending
MORGANTOWN – Morgantown City Council has approved on first reading an ordinance regulating the use of surveillance systems by city employees and on city property.
The ordinance, if adopted, will amend Article 115 of city code pertaining to city property and create two new articles – Article 116 “Face Surveillance Systems," and Article 117 “Surveillance Technology.”
In short, the ordinance says the city will not install, nor allow any other person to install or maintain, any recording device on city property that engages in “face surveillance.”
It has the same prohibition for automated license plate reader cameras (ALPRs) like the controversial Flock Safety cameras deployed by the Monongalia County Sheriff's Department.
More broadly, the ordinance states the city nor any city official, will use, install or maintain, nor allow any other person or entity to use, install or maintain any “surveillance technology” on city property unless it is in accordance with the procedures spelled out in the law.
Surveillance technology includes but is not limited to cell site simulators, automatic license plate readers, gunshot detection systems, predictive policing technology, face surveillance systems, gait analysis software, characteristic tracking systems, video cameras that record audio or video and can transmit or be remotely accessed, and unmanned aircraft systems equipped with remote video capabilities.
The procedures by which such technology can be deployed include a public hearing and the approval of city council.
Any such request must come with a detailed use policy explaining what data will be collected, what measures the individual/department will take to keep collected data secure, and information on whether the data will be shared with any government or private entities. It must also include certification from any vendor pertaining to the collection, retention, access and purging of data gathered in the city.
In regard to preexisting uses - like vehicle mounted ALPR cameras utilized by the Morgantown Police Department - the department or official utilizing the technology must request the approval of city council within one year of the ordinance's passage.
Each use of surveillance technology approved by city council under the law will require an annual report from the relevant department defining its use, details of any data shared, copies of each audit conducted, reports detailing any breach or violation and the cost of the technology during the reporting period.
The law would not govern private property or property of other government agencies, including streets owned by the state.
Further, this process only applies to "real-time" use. There is an exception for surveillance, including face recognition, for non-real time investigative purposes.
The law first appeared before council Oct. 6, but no action was taken as city administration worked to strengthen sections of the code at the request of council members and the public.
"The two main changes from the ordinance initially introduced are that the requirements of Article 116 on face surveillance are mandatory in this ordinance. In the original version, they were established requirements, but they could be varied by council approval under Article 117," attorney Ryan Simonton said. "And the second main change is an update to the vendor certification requirements. These are requirements for vendors of any technology to certify to council capabilities of the system, such as destruction of data and retention and access policies."
That change, Simonton continued, is an attempt to protect "the city's ownership of the data that would be sent in from any system it would use to ensure that it is not able to be captured by a system provider and that the city does retain control over that use and has the ability to have it purged from the system."
The ordinance received unanimous support from council.
"This revised ordinance, in my opinion, is one that comes very close to prohibiting the use or application of this technology without firm consent from Morgantown City Council. I believe that listening to the public's response regarding this technology and its use has influenced and made a big impact on the decision to revise the pre-existing ordinance," Councilor Gail Taylor said. "So I feel more comfortable as a city council member with this version of the ordinance."