Vallejo exploring use of red light cameras to catch traffic violations

VALLEJO - Vallejo’s Surveillance Advisory Board recommended that the City Council explore the use of red light cameras to photograph people accused of violating traffic laws, finding “no privacy concerns” with the technology. 

The Surveillance Advisory Board said in a special meeting Monday that city staff should further investigate different types of red light camera recording technology, designed to help apprehend people running red lights or violating other traffic laws, to present to the Vallejo City Council. The board will vote on a final recommendation in May.  

The finding comes following a request from Vice Mayor Peter Bregenzer to discuss privacy issues that might arise from the use of the technology, such as how long the footage of drivers might be retained and whether its use could result in racial profiling. 

The board on Monday considered a report from Vallejo police Capt. Jerome Bautista, and the fact that many police departments around California already use the technology. 

Bautista said in a previous presentation to the board that the technology would pile an administrative burden on the understaffed police department. He said it would cost about $4 million over five years to implement and $75,000 per month to service the technology. It would require administrative staff and at least one lieutenant and several officers to manage and maintain records of traffic footage, he said. 

Bregenzer has floated the technology as a way to assist law enforcement and address concerns about red light running. The cameras offer a way to monitor intersections 24 hours a day, taking high-resolution photos and videos of cars and drivers when they cross and recording the vehicle’s time, date and speed. 

However, critics in Oakland, which was among numerous cities that stopped using the technology a decade ago, have argued that its effectiveness in reducing collisions is unclear, it does not recoup its investment in ticket revenue, and there are privacy concerns.

The group Oakland Privacy told the news outlet the Oaklandside that the technology is often wielded unfairly against people of color and other vulnerable groups and questioned the wisdom of relying heavily on automated systems, rather than using more human judgment when it comes to making determinations between hazardous and non-hazardous traffic violations.

But Vallejo’s surveillance board, which is only tasked with addressing privacy concerns, found no significant privacy issues.

Bautista told the board that he researched six other agencies, including the Napa and Fremont police departments, which are currently using the system. He said all photos of vehicles are confidential and only available to law enforcement agencies, and drivers can view the footage obtained of them. For example, Napa uses the technology called Conduit, which can be accessed and managed by “trained traffic personnel,” he said.

The board members didn’t express many concerns about the technology’s potential privacy issues, although Steven Pasholk said he’s concerned about how long footage would be retained. Some cities hold onto footage for up to five years, according to Bautista. 

Chief Assistant City Attorney Randy Risner said that any footage accepted in a court as evidence would pass out of the city’s hands, and said he didn’t think there is any reason for law enforcement to hold onto footage that long.

However, the board members stopped short of recommending the City Council consider purchasing the technology, with member Brooke Reddell adding that she isn’t comfortable explicitly endorsing its use. 

Board member Anthoney Stewart added that he would rather ask the City Council to undertake “further exploration” of the technology, rather than recommending acquiring it. It will take a lot of time to actually find a vendor to acquire the technology, he said. 

Per his request, city staff made various revisions to the recommendation to emphasize that “no privacy concerns” were found, clearing the way for the council to explore the technology’s viability. Board member Mike Moreno asked the city attorney’s office to make the changes, which will head to the council at a later date.