Say No to ShotSpotter: An Open Letter from Portland Community Members
August 16 2022
Dear City of Portland, Commissioners, and Mayor Wheeler,
We represent a broad coalition of Portland-based organizations. Many of us come from communities disproportionately affected by gun violence, both within our community and at the hands of police. As such, we feel compelled to express our horror at the Focused Intervention Team Community Oversight Group (FITCOG)’s recommendation that Portland police implement ShotSpotter. The fact that an oversight body would call for the adoption of a technology that can contribute to significant issues related to our constitutional and other legal rights — including the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and due process of law — is deeply concerning, especially considering they did not consult communities in Portland who would be actually affected by the implementation of this technology.
First, we want to offer condolences to all those affected by gun-related tragedies. Although Portland’s homicide rate pales in comparison to most major cities, we recognize that even one life lost to violence is one too many. Our hearts are with every victim of violence and their loved ones. Gun violence can have a devastating impact on communities, especially communities of color and low-income communities where the impact is compounded by systemic inequities such as less access to healthcare and social services.
We understand that many people feel powerless to curb gun violence which can cause some to seek ways to feel more in control. FITCOG’s ShotSpotter recommendation seems based on this urgent drive to do something. However, we need to move beyond reactionary non-solutions as they often exacerbate the very issues they are meant to solve. Given PPB’s extensive history of racism and harm towards other marginalized communities, we must be careful about applying law enforcement approaches as quick fixes to complex social problems, as we have repeatedly seen such approaches exacerbate harms towards historically disenfranchised communities.
The reality is that ShotSpotter is a danger to people who are already vulnerable to violence. Embedding surveillance systems within marginalized communities reinforces cycles of systemic racism and classism in policing. Alerts are likely to cause police to rush, guns-blazing, their adrenaline spiking, into what they believe to be a life-threatening situation, putting a target on those who have the misfortune of being in the area. We’re already seeing the devastating impact of this mindset in other cities. In an audit last year, the Chicago Inspector General found that ShotSpotter alerts were changing how police viewed communities and interacted with individuals. A ShotSpotter alert even led to the death of a 13 year-old child. How can we ask any parent to make such a sacrifice, just so some can feel safe without creating actual safety?
At the end of the day, that’s what implementing ShotSpotter is about — creating a false feeling of safety, not actual safety. There are some who would sleep better at night knowing that the police are ready to pounce on certain communities at a moment’s notice, over something more likely a car backfiring than a gunshot, given that 90% of the time ShotSpotter alerts do not result in an incident report. This false sense of security is based on racist tropes that resemble the “superpredator” myth that had devastating impacts on communities of color in the 80’s and 90’s. The arguments in ShotSpotter’s presentations at FITCOG meetings included similar racist tropes: that communities of color are prone to violence, and the solution to this violence is for police to exert more control over these communities. That is a basis for their recommendation, and they’re the first to admit it: getting more police to specific neighborhoods faster is the ultimate goal. When community members questioned this assumption, FITCOG members wouldn’t hear otherwise, falling back on the narrative of “doing something!” Portland Police officers complain of being too poorly resourced to respond to emergency calls now. If they can’t respond to current calls, piling on a load of false positives will only exacerbate the burden on officers once ShotSpotter is implemented.
When FITCOG dismisses the concerns of the communities they claim to represent, they also dismiss a wide breadth of sociological research. Amongst scholars, there is widespread consensus that cycles of violence of all kinds, including gun violence, are best interrupted by addressing social determinants of health and centering the needs of people most impacted by violence. There are myriad more crises that deserve more attention and resources than ShotSpotter, including housing instability. Interactions with law enforcement only exacerbate public health crises, leading to poverty, job loss, lack of housing, neighborhood instability, violence, trauma, disability, and death. The enthusiasm for ShotSpotter demonstrates a disturbing eagerness to offer more police surveillance, misconduct, and violence instead of actual solutions to structural inequality.
Despite evidence to the contrary, FITCOG chose to embrace ShotSpotter’s marketing claims as fact. Yet, there is no independent, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that ShotSpotter can reliably tell the difference between gunshots versus other loud noises like firecrackers, tires blowing out, etc. ShotSpotter has never released an independent scientific study of its “false alert” rate, nor allowed for an independent audit of its system. In their presentations to FITCOG, ShotSpotter executives failed to mention that they subsidized the supposed “research” supporting their claims. The fact that an oversight committee did not attempt to independently verify the dubious efficacy claims made by this for-profit corporation is beyond disconcerting, and given that ShotSpotter would benefit to the tune of millions of dollars from Portland taxpayers if implemented, almost suggests malfeasance.
At FITCOG meetings, officers lamented their inability to solve homicides, which led to more (in their words) violent criminals on the streets. It’s implausible to think that ShotSpotter would help with this. In fact, state attorneys have already had to drop criminal charges or decline to use ShotSpotter evidence because ShotSpotter refuses to defend the reliability of their own product in court. It’s unclear why FIT officers have such confidence in ShotSpotter given that the company itself lacks the confidence that their own product will stand up to legal analysis or challenge.
PPB, FITCOG, and ShotSpotter claim they’re advocating a “both and” approach to gun violence: implementing public health solutions while beefing up law enforcement. This is absurd, like expecting us to drink both the poison and the cure. When it comes to use of force, PPB is notorious and only moving further from compliance with a US Department of Justice settlement agreement about their patterns of unlawful use of force. And the FIT team is no exception. Their legacy is marred by incidents like the shooting of Bruce Browne, a Black man who risked his life to wrestle a gun away from a would-be assailant. To implement ShotSpotter without addressing PPB’s culture of violence, racism, ableism, classism, and lack of accountability would be giving already trigger-happy police another incentive to shoot first and ask questions later in communities already vulnerable to violence.
At the end of the day, ShotSpotter profits off the fear of gun violence to sell a technology that has not been properly vetted. The millions of dollars ShotSpotter is attempting to extract from Portland taxpayers should go to real solutions to gun violence, not window-dressing that will end up only exacerbating the issue at hand.
Signed,
Organizational Signatories
ACLU of Oregon
Campaign Zero
Carceral Tech Resistance Network
Freedom to Thrive
Oregon Justice Resource Center
PDX Privacy
PDX.Vote
Portland Jobs with Justice
PRADA PDX
Sisters of the Road
We Out Here Magazine
Individual Signatories
Heidie Ambrose
Dria Caron
Rebecca Chernay
Evelyn Gail Cushing
Jake Dockter, Portland Community Activist
Mx. Katie Douglas
Amanda Elmer
Celina Flores
Thalia Garcia
Eric Gold
Margaret Hawthorne
Aubrey Hashem Lamb, Concerned Citizen
Kevin Higgins
Rebecka Hoffman, Oregon Department of Human Services
Seemab Hussaini, Police Accountability Activist/Organizer
Mai Jones
Sofia Knutson
Chris LeDoux
Andrea Leoncavallo
Kathleen Mahoney, Attorney at Law
Jason Mendel
Gerald McCorkle
Doug McVay
Yola Owens
Julie Pagano
Jenna Rae
Samuel Ross
Colleen Smyth
Maren Salomon
Leviathan Spiritwalker, No More Dead Friends PDX
Kayla Stratton
Nick Trapani
Alex Tryon, NE Portland Resident for 15 Years
Virginia Ulrich
Matthew Van Natta
Raz Veja
Nicholas Whalen
Joel Wick
Elena Windsor
Lisa Wright
Add your organization or name: https://bit.ly/SSSPDX-signon.