Dying Longton Part Three: The Next Warrantless Surveillance City?

[CCarl]

The Next Warrantless Surveillance City?                     Copyright © MMXXII CCarl

This one will be entirely on you, City Council. It is a knee-jerk reaction to three men dying on West Fifth, closing in on a year ago. From my understanding of the events, those deaths were crimes of passion that no rational mind would have stopped. Nor would any number of surveillance cameras, nor other, usual modes of intervention. An armed citizenry might have stopped them, might not, or might have made the situation worse. Maybe if the shooter had been rehabilitated in prison, rather than hardened, but maybe not. There is no second guessing the situation that evolved that night, an instance when Natural Law, man's law, and moral codes all failed.

My apology for digging up family emotions, but warrantless surveillance cameras have NO place in our community as a result of those deaths, nor for any number of other reasons. The first reason is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States, which reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Is there anybody who does not understand the use of SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED in that amendment? I know, I know, the answer is yes, that some do believe 'shall not' in the English language is somehow not imperative. [But, it is.] The controllers in government seem to think that the fourth amendment is arguable, but that's what the legal system does, it creates argument about everything. Argument is the legal/political money tree. The controllers are wrong, the intention of the language is straight forward, no surveillance of persons or their property without a warrant.

For those interested in reading about the Constitutional issues of warrantless surveillance, here are three websites;  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance ; https://www.upcounsel.com/video-surveillance-laws-by-state#video-surveillance-laws-by-state ; and http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/federal-judge-rejects-video-surveillance-of-home-without-warrant-141216?news=855111 .

If the Fourth Amendment is somehow not enough reason, let me ask the Longton City Council, "How do you justify placing cameras along Kansas Avenue? What verifiable crimes have been committed there recently as justification, say the past year? The past two years? Five years?" My guess is the answers are none, none, and none, except maybe a speeding or drunk driving ticket. But correct me if I'm wrong. So really, what good will the cameras do? Will they show that no crime is being committed? Exactly. Then there is zero need for them to show us nothing.

Hey, City Council, did you allow a review period for the public to provide you input on the cameras' purchase, say sixty days? No, why not? That seems to be a reasonable and responsible timeline for a council that is organized to serve the residents of our community. Why the rush to purchase?

Hey, City Council, the minutes of the February 9, 2022 Council meeting say you approved $7280.40 to buy those cameras from ProTec. The minutes do not say how many cameras [why is that?], but I have been told five. That would be $1456.08 apiece. Yo, Council, I just priced deer cameras that work day and night, come on with motion, capture a 120-degree view, and are weather proof. Those suckers only run $40 to $70 apiece on the internet. How can you possibly justify $7280.40 to the taxpayer, when $350.00 would give you the same video coverage and capability? Why pay twenty times what is needed? Did you even attempt to justify the purchase to the taxpayer? I bet the answer is no. You should be held accountable for that failure to serve.

Hey, City Council, How many bids did you solicit for the purchase of those way expensive cameras? The usual minimal number is three to five competitive bids. Was ProTec's the lowest bid? I hope I do not find out that ProTec's was not the lowest bid. I hope I do not find out you solicited a bid only from ProTec. I say this because the minutes do not mention any competitive bids. If there were, the bids should be published for us to review. Talk to me, Council, I'm holding you accountable to the public.

Hey, City Council, what makes those cameras so much more costly than a deer camera? Is it the ProTec connection? Or is it more than that? Do the cameras come with software that uses some type of cloud storage that is also accessible at a touch of a key by the Elk County Sheriff's Department? Can a uniform sit back, sip some joe, push a key or two, and have facial recognition software running on a person walking down Kansas Avenue in real time? Is the megapixel resolution that good? Is that the police state and its unlawful warrantless surveillance you have signed us up for, City Council? Again, prove me wrong by being fully transparent about the cameras, just as if you were before a judge in a court room. Consider the taxpayers to be your judge and jury. After all, you work for us.

Hey, City Council, it appears from here that you really screwed the pooch. Excuse the idiom that means 'messed up big time', but it serves as a colorful summary point. Look Longtonites, now we have unlawful warrantless surveillance of people walking along Kansas Avenue on our door step, in a town of about two hundred and ninety people in a very rural setting, in the poorest county in the state. Can there be any justification for this? What crimes will it prevent? Any? We are not New York Chitty, we are not LAX, we are not the Texas-Mexico border, we are not even Independence, Kansas. We do not need to be surveilled, we do not need to have our privacy and our Natural Rights violated. Will those cameras prevent crime, or will those cameras be criminal?

If the reader agrees that this camera deal is a con, or your privacy will be violated, then voice your concern to Council, on this forum, and in person. Call a Council member, or several. Use their public contact info on the City's webpage. We can stop the surveillance state. Doing so is thinking and acting locally. It is within our power. The Council, and the Mayor, work for us. Make them respect us, and our tax dollars that fund them. Keep the public free from warrantless surveillance in public spaces.

If the City must have cameras, first let it sell the need for cameras to the public. Maybe the public will say no. If it says yes, then let the City buy competitively priced ones through a multiple bid process. Allow it to place the cameras only inside City-administered buildings. Inside, the cameras will record B&E, burglary, and similar potential crimes. Those cameras will not unlawfully surveil innocent residents walking downtown, residents who have an expectation of privacy. Those cameras do not need to be connected to the Sheriff's department. If those cameras should record a crime, the City can invite the Sheriff's department to observe the video. That is the way both Dollar Stores in Howard work, or so I have been told by one of the managers.


* Copy and distribution of this post is allowed with permission of the poster, via personal messaging. Readers will see a copyright symbol and date at the top of each of these posts. I hope to connect these posts to other 'Think Locally and Act Locally' websites, and foster a larger audience. It will help Cascity grow this Forum, and it will help our message grow.

[upoladeb]

thank you i will be asking around about this,i live out in the county pay my own trash,but spend plenty of money in longton

[Sweetz]

I had posted a reply to this topic but after reading it the next day it bothered me and I was able to come to my senses and find the delete button.  I only hope that I did not cast anyone in a bad light...if I did, consider the source and don't let it get under your skin.

I made some pretty wild speculations and assumptions which added absolutely nothing of value because I do not know all the facts about why those cameras were purchased and installed...let alone the details.

Please accept my apologies.  Next time I will go straight to the source and ASK.