Share This Article
Article Summary
Cincinnati City Council approved a motion requiring the city administration to provide a report on its use of surveillance technology within 30 days. The review covers cameras, drones and license plate readers, along with data retention and sharing practices. Council also continued consideration of an expanded chronic nuisance ordinance targeting repeated nuisance activity at commercial properties. The proposal has drawn concerns from Black and brown business owners and remains under Council review.
Cincinnati surveillance oversight targets city technology
This is after the Cincinnati City Council approved a motion requiring the administration to explain how the city uses surveillance technology.
Councilmembers Anna Albi, Seth Walsh and Jeff Cramerding sponsored the motion. The request covers cameras, drones and automated license plate readers used by the city.
The administration must provide information about several aspects of the technology, including:
- Where surveillance systems are currently deployed
- How the city retains collected data
- Whether the city shares data with other agencies or companies
- What agreements govern data sharing
The motion also asks the administration to draft an ordinance for future Council consideration. That proposal could establish limits on data storage and sharing.
It could also require an annual surveillance impact report and a formal surveillance-use policy. Council approval could also become necessary for certain surveillance-related contracts.
The Cincinnati City Council calendar for Sept. 10 lists the motion with a recommendation to adopt. The official legislation record identifies it as Motion 202602632.
The request comes as surveillance technology receives increased scrutiny across Greater Cincinnati.
WVXU reported that Albi said surveillance tools can help police investigate serious crimes while also raising questions about privacy. FOX19 NOW similarly reported that the motion seeks more information about how Cincinnati uses cameras, drones and license plate readers.
Cincinnati surveillance oversight comes amid Flock debate
The Cincinnati surveillance oversight effort also comes as communities throughout the region debate automated license plate readers.
Cincinnati’s situation differs from nearby jurisdictions using Flock Safety technology. WVXU reported that Cincinnati does not use Flock cameras, although the city does use license plate reader technology from Axon.
The Council’s motion does not target Flock specifically. Instead, it covers a broader range of surveillance systems operated or used by the city.
That distinction matters because several Greater Cincinnati communities have recently reconsidered Flock technology.
Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey announced a pause in the Sheriff’s Office’s use of Flock cameras earlier this month. The move followed concerns about safeguards surrounding the technology.
Cincinnati Council’s review could therefore provide more information about the city’s own surveillance practices as the regional debate continues.
The Cincinnati Exchange previously reported on Cincinnati’s review of police cameras, drones and license plate readers. The publication also covered the growing scrutiny of Flock cameras across Greater Cincinnati.
The city’s requested report could clarify how Cincinnati’s systems operate and what safeguards currently apply.
Chronic nuisance ordinance remains under review
Cincinnati Council is also continuing to consider an expansion of its chronic nuisance ordinance.
The proposal would expand the city’s existing chronic nuisance rules to cover commercial properties. It would create new tools for addressing crime and nuisance activity at businesses, including bars, restaurants and nightclubs.
The ordinance would also allow enforcement against businesses in addition to property owners.
According to the city’s legislation record, the proposal would modify Chapter 761 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code, which governs chronic nuisance premises. It also includes protections involving domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.
The proposal has already generated opposition from some Black and brown business owners.
During an August Council meeting, dozens of business owners asked Council to delay the measure and reconsider its potential impact. Signal Cincinnati reported that speakers raised concerns about whether the ordinance could disproportionately affect Black-owned businesses and businesses serving predominantly Black customers.
The concerns prompted Council to hold off on an earlier vote.
WVXU reported that Council heard public comments from Black business owners and a representative of the Cincinnati NAACP before holding the ordinance rather than voting on it. The outlet also reported that Vice Mayor Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney sought additional analysis of how the ordinance could affect businesses.
Business owners raise concerns over nuisance rules
Councilmember Mark Jeffreys has said business owners’ concerns influenced the discussion surrounding the ordinance.
Jeffreys said some Black business owners had raised concerns and that Council members had been meeting with people who operate restaurants and other establishments.
Those discussions have focused on understanding the concerns and finding a possible path forward.
The debate centers on how Cincinnati should respond to businesses associated with repeated crime without unfairly targeting legitimate businesses.
The proposed ordinance is intended to give the city additional tools to address chronic nuisance activity. At the same time, opponents have questioned how officials would apply those tools and whether enforcement could create unequal effects.
Signal Cincinnati documented public comments from business owners who described the proposed amendment as vague and urged Council to work with entrepreneurs before moving forward.
The city’s proposal also includes an appeals process and changes to existing civil offense provisions. The legislation would allow the city to pursue enforcement against businesses as well as property owners.
What happens next with the two issues?
The surveillance measure now moves into the reporting phase.
The administration has 30 days to present its overview of Cincinnati’s surveillance technology to a Council committee. The requested information could help Council members determine whether the city needs additional rules governing surveillance systems.
The motion also calls for the administration to prepare a proposed ordinance. That means the broader policy debate could continue after the initial report.
For the chronic nuisance ordinance, the process remains separate.
The official Council calendar for Sept. 10 listed the ordinance under the Public Safety & Quality of Life Committee with a recommendation to pass. However, the official legislation record available online does not show a completed final Council action dated Sept. 10.
That means the measure should not yet be described as enacted.
The proposal remains a subject of discussion as Council weighs public safety concerns against concerns raised by business owners.
Cincinnati’s handling of both issues reflects a broader debate over how the city uses government tools to address crime.
The surveillance motion focuses on transparency, data retention and information sharing. The nuisance ordinance focuses on enforcement against properties associated with repeated nuisance activity.
Both issues could lead to additional Council action as members review information and continue discussions with residents, businesses and city officials.
For now, Cincinnati residents can expect further scrutiny of the city’s surveillance systems, while the proposed chronic nuisance changes remain under consideration.
FAQs
What surveillance technology is Cincinnati reviewing?
The Council’s request covers city surveillance technology, including cameras, drones and automated license plate readers. Officials will provide information about deployment, data retention and data-sharing practices.
When is the surveillance report due?
The city administration has 30 days to provide the requested surveillance report. The report is intended to give Council more information about how the technology is used and managed.
What is the chronic nuisance ordinance?
The proposed ordinance would expand Cincinnati’s chronic nuisance rules to cover commercial properties such as bars, restaurants and nightclubs. It would give the city additional enforcement tools for properties associated with repeated nuisance activity.
Why has the nuisance ordinance drawn concerns?
Black and brown business owners have raised concerns about how the proposal could affect businesses. Council members have discussed those concerns while the ordinance remains under consideration.
