Scanned Document

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the City and County of San Francisco 14 (“the City”) violated the Ordinance when the SFPD acquired, borrowed, and used a private camera 15 network without prior approval from the City’s Board of Supervisors (“Board”). [...] Defendant operates, governs, and is responsible for the SFPD pursuant to the laws of 11 the State of California and San Francisco. [...] Leading up to the passage of the Ordinance, the author of the legislation, Supervisor 13 Aaron Peskin, repeatedly emphasized that one of the Ordinance’s goals was to protect marginalized 14 communities and political dissidents from high-tech police surveillance. [...] First, their privacy 23 and free speech rights were violated when the SFPD subjected their protest activity to unlawful 24 25 2 Nearly a month later, in an August 5 report to the Board of Supervisors, the SFPD Chief took the 26 position that, while the SFPD obtained a remote real-time link to the USBID’s network of surveillance cameras, the SFPD did not monitor this network. [...] In fact, the June 10 email from SFPD 27 sent at the time of the surveillance shows the SFPD monitored the camera network.