Listen to this article
Where a complaint was filed over the procurement of the ShotSpotter technology, the trial court erred in part when it granted summary disposition in the defendants’ favor on plaintiffs’ claim that defendants failed to release a Surveillance Technology Specification Report in accordance with the requirements of the Community Input Over Government Surveillance Ordinance.
“The City of Detroit uses surveillance technology to identify the location of gunshots in certain precincts. Given the inherent invasiveness of surveillance technology, the City adopted specific procedural requirements that must be met when procuring such technology. These requirements were not met here, and, accordingly, we reverse in part the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendants.
“Accordingly, the trial court erred in part when it granted summary disposition in defendants’ favor on plaintiffs’ claim that defendants failed to release the STSR in accordance with the CIOGS Ordinance requirements. Instead, summary disposition in this regard was warranted in favor of plaintiffs when the facts were undisputed that defendants failed to comply with their requirements to post the STSR before all the relevant hearings and meetings. The trial court did not address plaintiffs’ specific requests for relief, however, because it determined that summary disposition was proper in defendants’ favor. Nor did the trial court address defendants’ affirmative defenses of mootness and laches. These and any other pertinent matters are better left to the trial court to address on remand.
“Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Dissenting judge’s comments
K.F. Kelly, J. (dissenting). “I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to partially reverse the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendants. In the proceedings below, the trial court concluded that plaintiffs—who consist of residents and a nonprofit organization—had standing to challenge defendants’ decision to procure ‘ShotSpotter’ technology, but failed to demonstrate that defendants violated the law. Because I conclude that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the decision, I would ultimately affirm the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint.”
