[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6155652,"mediaKeyId","5474044-dccec21f7f6070be6dafa050bc793d85","parentId",5474044,"title","Board seeks clearer metrics and monthly logs for drones and ALPR","audioSeconds",362,"startMs",8838000,"endMs",9200000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5474044-dccec21f7f6070be6dafa050bc793d85&start=8838&end=9200","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5474044-dccec21f7f6070be6dafa050bc793d85/thumbnail_8838000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6155652/Vallejo/Solano-County/California/Board-seeks-clearer-metrics-and-monthly-logs-for-drones-and-ALPR","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155652-674446f10c5369f20d5a4981dc07d7bd/orig.mp4?Expires=1770417307&Signature=jdE71oIfJNebiLUSD7bXIDlnyarCh4ZBm6c1ZCtVgmaS9XHwfM0AzC5iJ94QfG-oIeUGu~XzuUBWcxUpVTTv9-qvYEWeFrW6oypE5p-XL7Efm0TYhno4ZFIupGJSWdCxCkvyy4q55yZYOcXxw5j3pK4evJfSVZRXRlS5y~fEo1yyIlEGtVQNm-12qsAFWyG4hbvmNr6-RFZWJP~8dqzBX6Uh7dNJ8VcSqJa63mlyFtd8iahFdcNY80lQ~MBOcUknqia2jZZzVV5EB4c5y~W6XUKY3BsQKVeCfZZ2pg0E-uBAF1R6FKY0x9trFVwA8nBzFZ3kwhorKiT5SFJ2Y8r4dw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Vallejo, CA","date","2025-07-24T00:00:00Z","article","The Surveillance Advisory Board used its information-item segment to press the Vallejo Police Department for clearer, regular reporting on surveillance tools including drones and ALPR.

Board members asked the department to provide monthly graphs and trend data — not just year-to-date totals — showing how often ALPR produced case leads, how many arrests or charges followed ALPR-assisted investigations, and month-by-month counts of ALPR-assisted incidents. Board members said that routinely published, month-by-month graphs would make it easier for the board and the public to evaluate whether the tools are driving investigations and resulting in arrests or other dispositions.

Lieutenant (Tai) and staff said the department posts a daily incident log on its website and that a crime analyst supports ad hoc data requests, but the department acknowledged capacity constraints: investigators and the crime-analyst unit handle many projects and staff time can limit how quickly complex historical analyses are produced. The department agreed to explore producing monthly ALPR and drone-usage reports that include counts of cases where the technology directly supported an arrest or significant investigative lead.

The board also requested that the department provide login and usage logs for monitored systems, and that random internal audits of drone logs be considered as part of a future work plan. Several board members said random audits and routine reporting should be part of an overall work plan and recommended adding those items to a prospective ad hoc committee’s charges.

Ending: Staff said it will attempt to provide a monthly ALPR breakdown and usage metrics and will return with recommendations on audit cadence and additional reporting for the board to review at a future meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Surveillance Advisory Board SPECIAL Meeting - July 24, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Board members asked the police department to provide monthly, analyzable statistics for drone deployments and ALPR (automated license-plate reader) assistance, and requested the department produce a list of the crime-analysis metrics it uses to evaluate programs.","taxTitle","Vallejo, Solano County, California","taxId",5493,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6155657,"Surveillance board backs immediate use of LiveView mobile towers under temporary San Francisco policy",2904,5876000,8780000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5474044-dccec21f7f6070be6dafa050bc793d85&start=5876&end=8780","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5474044-dccec21f7f6070be6dafa050bc793d85/thumbnail_5876000.jpg","/articles/6155657/Vallejo/Solano-County/California/Surveillance-board-backs-immediate-use-of-LiveView-mobile-towers-under-temporary-San-Francisco-policy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155657-5249d1809f44cfa55bc8f8fb5844b14c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770416053&Signature=Yd2rYA-2SbuOJ0OTRoLKiem5BygDXIItVdlk9HIsEOBj1kySLSRFxb6xPdzLLYhTCnkubLFw4bQwS4PC-s9~ktxgt8ddPTHXSCdX7xQfasMpaTAj~3PEMK1KKPkFRuspMbnHvANuDGNlwxhUNeP8lVYZjUG15cXHEg8plooK3dIRptpyBS3miuvqgOSerpOvL8YSt2UoLfiTs7ucpJrLACAp-VOwUntOo7MaN8xpzS2YiEi33X37rQdhGTUmffItn6QdFZD08cxDC1AIB1Gaxghu2EgWuFtBhupLkHb1Q5FRbY-MT0TkhPuuTYNA5SoXJf2bcfH1eOzpJ57qSrc6yQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Vallejo Surveillance Advisory Board voted unanimously on July 21 to permit the Vallejo Police Department to proceed with procuring LiveView Technology (LVT) mobile security towers for short-term deployment and to use the San Francisco Police Department’s mobile tower policy as a temporary framework while the board develops a local policy.

Captain Batista and vendor representatives from LiveView Technology presented LVT’s mobile tower capabilities, including 24/7 video recording, thermal cameras, a 32× optical zoom PTZ, floodlights, strobe lights and a two-way speaker for “talk down” warnings. LVT representatives said video retention is a default 30 days, the units do not record audio, and video storage is routed to Amazon Web Services with primary storage in US West (Oregon) and secondary options in US East (North Virginia and Ohio). LVT said its platform is SOC 2 Type II audited and that the company can supply security and compliance documentation under an NDA; the company also offers a third‑party alert-monitoring service that the department intends to use.

Board members and the city attorney asked detailed questions about data security, sub‑processors, retention, access logs and whether third-party monitoring uses non‑U.S. personnel. LVT representatives said they will provide a list of processors/subprocessors, produce SOC 2 documentation under an NDA, and stated that third‑party monitoring would not be done by non‑U.S. residents in Vallejo’s case. LVT said its units run NDAA‑compliant cameras for municipal deployments, that default video retention is 30 days, and that footage overwritten after 30 days is not retained unless pulled into evidence. LVT stated it does not use customer video for AI training without explicit release.

The department told the board the towers were directed by the July 1 city council special meeting as urgent short‑term measures to deter summertime violence in hotspot areas (the department cited several recent shooting incidents in the Country Club Crest area and said at least two towers were scheduled for delivery the next day). Staff said the vendor selection was expedited after a survey of units already deployed in Vallejo’s commercial corridors found a preponderance of LVT units in use by private parties.

Board members requested several compliance and operational artifacts before full city deployment: a vendor processor/subprocessor inventory and physical storage locations; copies of LVT’s SOC 2 Type II and penetration‑testing reports; written post‑orders for how third‑party monitors will respond to alerts; a clear written memorandum of understanding for retailers or private owners to share LVT camera feeds with the police department; documentation that the units will not perform facial recognition; and a draft city policy that restricts uses and access. The board also requested monthly usage logs that show alerts, login/access logs and dispositions tied to CAD/incident numbers where possible.

The board voted to proceed with procurement under the temporary San Francisco policy and asked staff to form an ad hoc committee to draft a Vallejo mobile-tower usage policy. Board Members Stewart, Cohen Thompson and Board Member Bros volunteered to serve on the ad hoc committee (subcommittee membership is limited to less than a quorum). The municipal city attorney confirmed the board may recommend policy and that the city council retains authority over procurement.

Ending: The board’s motion authorizes department procurement activity to continue and sets conditions for policy work, documentation, and ongoing reporting. The board emphasized the need for transparency, processor inventories, and a local usage policy to be drafted by the ad hoc committee before any longer-term, city-funded deployment.

","The board approved deployment of LiveView (LVT) mobile security towers and asked the police department to adopt San Francisco’s mobile-tower policy as an interim standard while the board forms an ad hoc committee to draft a Vallejo-specific usage policy.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6155662,"Surveillance board approves continued Flock Raven use while demanding police performance data",5116,744000,5860000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5474044-dccec21f7f6070be6dafa050bc793d85&start=744&end=5860","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5474044-dccec21f7f6070be6dafa050bc793d85/thumbnail_744000.jpg","/articles/6155662/Vallejo/Solano-County/California/Surveillance-board-approves-continued-Flock-Raven-use-while-demanding-police-performance-data","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155662-22f324a10b827b52d944c6b9c460df1d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770417258&Signature=Cv2jO0fqFZP3O7QxH2omMKXeDEqjt5jZiOdZqU~XyG23s1n-Pgt~o7XAx0z4zhYqeBVm4iG7IZR2HqWpoco8jlq-5PXlUvO41UPVsrgUsOGy2ylE0TsaeMjwmwd2hVs5~ZVvvHgbAHE-WxqI~jdJAqbqt~Gnjohe-UNkn9LWmdL-9jstyfHUClgEuTbdmZ96pBLJYgkUaJjHHpmo8heASTONVA7ZsAK2YhgchNteE62ojgmTjD6KfNG8fac425z2d0FEDipjiAk51d4lxJBSNV--eIg3u0OsqfEXMPUegCsAPxBS0b3lcSarXfd9t35-e2TK6mnWzWHjMg6Iem1jDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Vallejo Surveillance Advisory Board voted 4–2 on July 21 to recommend that the police department proceed toward procuring the Flock Raven gunshot-detection system while the board receives additional evaluative data and holds a special meeting in August to review the department’s metrics.

The vote followed a lengthy presentation by Captain Batista of the Vallejo Police Department and sustained questioning from board members about how the department plans to measure the system’s effectiveness beyond anecdotal cases. Captain Batista described four cases where Raven alerts helped officers locate victims or suspects and said the department views Raven as a “reactive” tool that supplements existing tactics. “Raven will give you an approximate, very good location to where [a shooting] actually occurred,” Captain Batista told the board.

Board members pressed for quantifiable performance metrics. Board Member Stewart asked for comparisons between a baseline period before the beta test and the year of Raven testing, including response times, arrests stemming from Raven alerts and the number of Raven alerts that resulted in no corroborating evidence. Board Member Russell Owen emphasized the need for security documentation and measurement plans; several members expressed concern that Raven coverage is not citywide and that placement bias (Raven units placed where gun violence is already high) could skew analyses.

City staff said funding sources identified for procurement include Measure P and other department funds; staff also said the department has begun beta testing and will request a time-limited extension of the vendor’s free beta if needed to allow the board’s review. The board’s passed motion allows the department to continue procurement work with the vendor while requiring the police department to deliver a written assessment of metrics the department will use to judge Raven’s effectiveness and to present that assessment at an August special meeting of the board. If the board, after reviewing the requested evaluation, recommends against procurement, that recommendation will be transmitted to the city council for consideration.

The board’s discussion recalled the body’s 2022 deliberations: the staff report in the packet notes the board did not endorse Raven then and that the city council allowed a free beta to proceed. Several board members said the current council and the previous council are different bodies and the board’s recommendation should still be recorded for city council consideration.

The motion that passed was moved by Board Member Stewart and seconded (second not specified in the transcript). The roll call on the final, conditional motion recorded these votes: Russell Owen — No; Cohen Thompson — Yes; Stewart — Yes; Chair Lee — Yes; Vice Chair Moreno — No; Board Member Ross — Yes. The motion carried, 4–2.

Board members specified the types of data they expect in the department’s follow-up: (1) a one-year comparison of pre‑Raven and Raven-era incidents for the same calendar period, (2) response time statistics for incidents with Raven alerts versus incidents without Raven alerts, (3) counts of arrests or case leads attributable to Raven alerts, (4) a log correlating computer-aided-dispatch incident numbers with Raven alerts, and (5) documentation of how dispatch integrates Raven alerts into incident records. The board also asked staff to provide the police department’s list of investigative metrics and to confirm whether a crime analyst is available to perform the requested analyses.

The board asked that Captain Batista request a short extension of the vendor’s free beta period if needed to avoid a lapse in coverage while procurement paperwork is completed. The department indicated it will continue to publish Raven usage reports on its regular agenda items and will return with the requested statistical analysis at the special August meeting.

The board’s action is advisory; city council retains final authority over any procurement. The board’s staff packet notes the item will be forwarded to city council in September if procurement proceeds.

The board also clarified its role under the municipal ordinance: the city attorney read Ordinance 2.27.030, which directs the board “to advise the city council on best practices to protect the safety, privacy, and civil rights of Vallejo residents in connection with the acquisition, borrowing, and or use of city departments of surveillance technology that collects, analyzes, processes, or stores information about Vallejo residents.”

The board requested that the police department provide a written list of the exact performance metrics and an exportable dataset linking Raven alerts to CAD incident numbers ahead of the August meeting. If the department cannot produce those metrics internally, the board discussed possible outside assistance and noted that the department’s crime-analyst capacity is limited.

Ending: The conditional approval lets the police department continue procurement work while the board receives the promised metrics and holds a special August meeting to review the department’s evaluation. The board will forward its August recommendation to the city council ahead of any September procurement action.

","The Vallejo Surveillance Advisory Board voted to allow the police department to proceed with procuring the Flock Raven gunshot-detection system while requiring the department to provide evaluative metrics and hold a special meeting in August to review results and methodology.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board seeks clearer metrics and monthly logs for drones and ALPR

Surveillance board backs immediate use of LiveView mobile towers under temporary San Francisco policy

Surveillance board approves continued Flock Raven use while demanding police performance data