海角换妻 towns and cities are spending millions of dollars of federal stimulus funds to install police surveillance systems in local communities, enabling law enforcement officials to more easily track people鈥檚 movements and potentially solve crimes.
Public records show that at least five municipalities in the state have allocated millions of dollars provided through the American Rescue Plan Act to equip local police departments with a variety of surveillance technology, which has .
The purchases of the new surveillance equipment were widely supported by local elected leaders in many towns, but in some instances, the spending prompted questions among local residents about whether the federal funding could be put to better use.
In the end, for surveillance cameras, which will continuously record footage in parts of the city.
Norwich budgeted $350,000 to . for similar cameras systems, which will be positioned at 鈥渟trategic spots鈥� throughout the town.
The town council in Newington dedicated $283,000 to automatic license plate readers, which will record the license plate number and image for every vehicle that passes through eight major intersections in town.
And in New Haven, the and another $1.2 million on the city鈥檚 ShotSpotter network, which is supposed to help officers recognize and pinpoint the location of gunfire.
Those types of surveillance tools are not new to 海角换妻 law enforcement. Several of the state鈥檚 largest police departments have widely adopted similar technology over the past decade.
But the federal money flooding into 海角换妻鈥檚 towns and cities at the moment is likely to make such surveillance systems more common throughout the state, especially in smaller municipalities where annual police budgets are not as large.
Patrick Daley, the police chief in Norwich, said his department had plans to add more surveillance cameras already, but it would have taken the town years to finance those purchases without the federal money.
The same is true in Newington.
鈥淚f that money wasn鈥檛 there for us, we wouldn鈥檛 have been able to do this,鈥� said Bill Jameson, a lieutenant with the Newington Police Department. 鈥淭hat would have been a lot for the town to approve.鈥�
Municipal leaders and law enforcement officials who attended public hearings in recent months argued that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on surveillance equipment will help make their communities safer and the work of police officers easier.
Enabling police departments to record non-stop video footage in public spaces and to capture data on hundreds of thousands of vehicles, they said, will help officers locate witnesses to crimes, identify suspects in shootings, investigate burglaries and apprehend stolen vehicles 鈥� an issue that state lawmakers were fixated on during the 2022 legislative session.
鈥淲hat we are seeing is the town making investments in public safety,鈥� Liam Sweeney, a Democratic Councilman in West Hartford, said during a town meeting in December. 鈥淭his is a really strong way to get things moving with these funds and a great way to serve and protect the community with it.鈥�
鈥淎dding more cameras would help reduce the crime in our town and give the citizens some respite,鈥� Tim Manke, a Republican councilman in Newington, added during a public hearing in January.
Using the federal stimulus funds to buy police surveillance equipment is within the guidelines of the American Rescue Plan Act. In fact, President Joe Biden鈥檚 administration earlier this year and noted that $450 million had already been spent on policing tools nationally.
But not everyone is as keen on the idea of expanding the surveillance powers of local police.
Transforming communities
The American Civil Liberties Union and similar organizations have raised concerns in recent months about the proliferation of police surveillance tools throughout the state.
Claudine Constant, the public policy and advocacy director for the ACLU of 海角换妻, argued that the purchase of surveillance cameras and license plate readers was a 鈥渒nee-jerk reaction鈥� to people鈥檚 worries about crime.
Constant, who previously served on the Hartford City Council, questioned whether adding or expanding surveillance networks is the most effective strategy in making communities safer.
The American Rescue Plan Act, Constant pointed out, gave local leaders broad leeway in how to use millions of dollars in federal funding to improve their communities. That money, she argued, would be more effective if it was used to counteract poverty, unemployment and housing insecurity 鈥� all of which can contribute to crime in a community.
鈥淲hat we really need to be doing is looking at the root causes of why things break down in our communities, and it鈥檚 because people aren鈥檛 appropriately supported,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hey don鈥檛 have access to quality, well-paying jobs. They don鈥檛 have access to stable, affordable housing. They don鈥檛 have access to quality public schools.鈥�
鈥淚f we really stop and listen to what people need, it鈥檚 not investing in more police power,鈥� she said.
The same point was made by a handful of residents in New London last fall as local leaders in that city considered how to spend the $26.2 million in federal funding it received.
Several people who referred to a community survey that had been conducted in New London last year. The results of that survey, they said, showed city residents had other priorities for the federal money, outside of buying police surveillance cameras.
Frida Berrigan, who ran for mayor in New London as a third-party candidate in 2019, told the city council that only 14% of the people who responded to the unofficial survey agreed that more police funding would make their lives better.
鈥淭his process to distribute the ARPA funding needs to be truly responsive to the needs of New London,鈥� Berrigan told the city鈥檚 leaders.
Maya Sheppard, an organizer for a social justice group in New London, voiced similar concerns about the city鈥檚 decision to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the new police technology.
鈥淥nce again, we are in a moment that could actually transform how our community could live, and we cannot afford to fumble it 鈥� not by adding more funding to a police department that already received an increase just a few months ago,鈥� she said.
New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker recognized that some people may be wary about the expanded use of surveillance tools and their effects on people鈥檚 privacy and civil liberties. He heard some of those concerns as New Haven鈥檚 Board of Alders debated his request for more security cameras earlier this year.
But Elicker said the mix of surveillance cameras and license plate readers he asked for in New Haven is a necessary step to confronting violence in the city of roughly 134,000 people.
Elicker pointed out that Hartford and Bridgeport already have sophisticated surveillance systems that allow officers in those cities to more thoroughly investigate shootings and other serious crimes. And he argued the police department in New Haven 鈥� 海角换妻鈥檚 third-largest city 鈥� needs the same capabilities.
鈥淭his is a permanent investment in public safety in New Haven,鈥� Elicker said. 鈥淐ameras are not going to solve the world鈥檚 problems around public safety, but cameras, I believe, are a very important tool for us being able to solve crimes.鈥�
In the past two years, New Haven has seen an uptick in homicides, and last year the city recorded its .
鈥淕iven the uptick in violence that we鈥檙e seeing around the nation, it doesn鈥檛 surprise me that other municipalities are thinking about this as well,鈥� Elicker added. 鈥淚t鈥檚 an important component to our ability to keep the community safe.鈥�
Reviving a debate over privacy
The expanded use of the surveillance equipment in 海角换妻 could reignite a political debate over how the state regulates some of those tools.
Consider the automatic license plate readers, which will soon be sweeping up information on vehicles travelling through several busy intersections in Newington.
Unlike other states, 海角换妻 has no laws limiting when or how police can use the information from those cameras. Also, agencies are not required to delete the data they collect from those devices after a set period of time.
Officials with the ACLU believe that is a serious problem, and they鈥檝e argued that allowing police departments to keep months鈥� or years鈥� worth of data detailing the travel patterns of thousands of vehicles threatens people鈥檚 privacy and their constitutional rights.
That concern is even more pronounced, they argue, when police departments combine their surveillance systems together.
The ACLU tried to convince state lawmakers a decade ago to set limits on the license plate readers after requesting and reviewing more than 3.1 million images that had been collected by several local police departments in 海角换妻.
The group specifically asked the legislature to require police departments to discard the license plate data after 14 days, unless the information was part of an ongoing investigation or prosecution. The ACLU argued that type of policy would still allow police to use the technology for crime-fighting purposes while protecting against the potential misuse of those systems.
The legislation that the ACLU recommended in 2012 and 2013 went nowhere, however. And the bills met stiff resistance from the law enforcement community, even though Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire and
The arguing the legislation would have set 鈥渁rbitrary and unreasonable limits鈥� on how police and prosecutors could use the license plate data.
鈥淲hile the division is certainly cognizant of the potential privacy concerns that may be raised with regard to the use of automated license plate recognition devices, those concerns by no means outweigh the value such devices have in the investigation and prosecution of serious crime,鈥� the agency told lawmakers.
During public meetings this year, several police chiefs and local elected officials sought to forestall any ongoing concerns that their new surveillance tools would infringe on people鈥檚 privacy.
Leon Davidoff, a Democratic councilman in West Hartford, assured town residents that the new security cameras that will be installed by the police department would only be used for investigating alleged crimes.
鈥淚t鈥檚 not a Big Brother thing, where we are monitoring our citizens鈥� movements day to day,鈥� he said.
Vernon Riddick, West Hartford鈥檚 Police chief, made a similar point during another hearing. The surveillance cameras may record footage around the clock, but that doesn鈥檛 mean that someone is monitoring it at all times, he said.
鈥淭he important thing is it is not constant surveillance 24/7,鈥� Riddick said.