Tag: Michigan Court of Appeals

A state appeals court handed a partial victory to critics of Detroit’s controversial ShotSpotter surveillance system, ruling that city officials violated a transparency ordinance when they approved contracts for the gunshot detection technology without properly notifying the public.

In a published decision released Thursday, a divided Michigan Court of Appeals panel found that the Detroit Police Department failed to comply with the city’s Community Input Over Government Surveillance (CIOGS) ordinance, which requires the public release of a detailed report on surveillance technology at least 14 days before it is discussed by the City Council. The court reversed part of a lower court ruling that had dismissed the case and sent it back for further proceedings.

“The City of Detroit uses surveillance technology to identify the location of gunshots in certain precincts,” Judge Brock Swartzle wrote for the majority. “Given the inherent invasiveness of surveillance technology, the City adopted specific procedural requirements that must be met when procuring such technology. These requirements were not met here.”

Critics argue ShotSpotter, which relies on a network of sensors to detect gunshots, is unproven, invasive, and racially discriminatory. The city counters that it saves lives and helps police find suspects more quickly.

The ruling means the Wayne County Circuit Court must revisit whether the city’s ShotSpotter contracts are valid and whether the plaintiffs — five Detroiters and the James and Grace Lee Boggs Center to Nurture Community Leadership — are entitled to any relief.

The appeals court found that the Detroit Police Department did not post the legally required Surveillance Technology Specification Report (STSR) until September 28, 2022 after several key council committee meetings had already taken place and just one day after the council voted to renew an existing $1.5 million contract with ShotSpotter. The council later approved a $7 million expansion two weeks later.

“Thus, the record confirms that defendants repeatedly violated the requirement under § 17-5-452(c) that the STSR ‘be made available on the City’s website at least 14 days prior to holding any of the hearings or meetings,’” the court wrote. “The trial court erred in concluding otherwise when it granted summary disposition in favor of defendants.”

The panel also rejected the city’s argument that it was exempt from the ordinance because ShotSpotter had already been in use before the law took effect in 2021. The court ruled that the so-called “grandfather clause” only applies to surveillance technology that was previously approved under the ordinance, and the ShotSpotter system was not.

The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by the Detroit Justice Center, Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, and attorney Jack Schulz. They argued that the city violated its own ordinance by failing to be transparent and involve the community in approving the technology.

“Much congrats to each of our clients for standing up in this case on behalf of all residents of the city,” John Philo, executive and legal director for Sugar Law Center, said. “While more limited in scope than hoped for, the court’s decision is an important recognition that citizens’ oversight and input ordinances matter and cannot simply be ignored by government officials.”

ShotSpotter operates through a network of microphones that detect loud noises and notify police of suspected gunfire. Detroit police have praised it as a tool that helps officers respond to shootings faster.

“ShotSpotter has been an invaluable investigative tool that is helping to make our city safer,” Detroit Police Department Assistant Chief Franklin Hayes said in a statement to Metro Times. “In areas where ShotSpotter is deployed, we have seen significant reductions in gunfire. So far this year, we have recovered 244 firearms and made 131 arrests as a result of ShotSpotter cases.”

Hayes said the technology also “helps save lives.”

“Just this week, DPD responded to a ShotSpotter alert of multiple shots fired, for which no 911 calls were placed,” Hayes said. “When officers arrived, they found a critically injured victim who likely would have succumbed to his injuries at the scene had ShotSpotter technology not alerted DPD to the incident and to its location.” 

Community advocates and civil rights groups argue that the system sends officers charging into predominantly Black neighborhoods on high alert, even though the majority of alerts turn out to be false alarms. An analysis by Chicago’s Office of Inspector General found that ShotSpotter alerts “rarely produce evidence of a gun-related crime” and led police to increase stop-and-frisk encounters in areas already over-policed. About 89% of ShotSpotter alerts in Chicago resulted in no evidence of gunfire or any crime.

Opponents also note that several cities — including San Antonio, Charlotte, Trenton, Troy, and Grand Rapids — have canceled or rejected ShotSpotter contracts amid concerns about its reliability and cost.

The appeals court remanded the Detroit case to Wayne County Circuit Court to determine potential remedies and address the city’s defenses, including claims that the lawsuit is moot because the contracts have already been implemented.

“With surveillance and similar technology ever encroaching into every recess of modern life, procedural safeguards cannot be ignored or downplayed by government actors as mere technicalities,” the court wrote. “To ensure that technology serves the people, and not the other way around, strict compliance with procedural safeguards like the CIOGS Ordinance may well be needed. And, unfortunately, such compliance was lacking here.”

In a statement, Detroit Corporation Counsel Conrad Mallett noted that the court’s opinion does not impact the use of ShotSpotter in the city.

“The Court of Appeals opinion does not void the use of this technology, which is still in place,” Mallett said. “In its opinion the Court of Appeals recognized the City of Detroit’s defenses to the lawsuit that may result in another dismissal by the trial court.”

Related