Cambridge residents and government officials have raised the question about whether ShotSpotter would have allowed first responders to more quickly reach the victim of a shooting on July 4, possibly saving his life. Local police unions released a joint statement on Monday stating that the City Council’s vote to remove ShotSpotter was to blame for the death of city employee Xavier Bautista, asserting “… there was no opportunity for the victim to receive emergency aid for approximately 60 minutes.”
However, Spencer Piston, a political science professor at Boston University, said the system was unlikely to have picked up the gunshot had it still been in use. Its terms of service say it adopts a fireworks suppression mode for 48 hours before and after Independence Day, as well as New Year’s Eve. That may mean it would have identified the shot as a firework and not reported it.
Still, supporters of ShotSpotter, an acoustic detection system that monitors for gunfire-like sounds, have seized on the incident to call for its re-establishment. The technology had been in use in Cambridge since 2014. Councillor Tim Flaherty, the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association, former mayor Anthony Galluccio and the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association are among the people and organizations that have said ShotSpotter could have meant help arrived before Bautista died.
Flaherty, one of two city councillors to vote against removing ShotSpotter, said knowing about the fireworks suppression didn’t change his opinion “not even a little bit.”
“It’s still activated, it worked in Boston,” Flaherty said. “It doesn’t fail to notify.”
There were multiple shootings in Boston over Independence Day weekend. Cambridge Day was not able to verify whether ShotSpotter was involved in Boston police response. Last year, Cambridge also had an instance of gunfire on the Fourth of July, but ShotSpotter was not mentioned in the scanner reports for the incident.
Galluccio said City Council had overreacted to concerns about the technology being used by federal agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “We’re reacting so strongly to anything [Trump] does that we victimize our own community,” he said.
Calling for patience
City councillors who voted to remove the technology called for a full investigation before revisiting ShotSpotter.
“Based on what we know today, I don’t believe we can draw definitive conclusions about what occurred or whether any one technology would have changed the outcome,” Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui wrote in a statement to Cambridge Day. “Right now, my focus is on supporting Xavier’s family, our city employees, and our community as we grieve this devastating loss.”
City Councillor Marc McGovern sent Cambridge Day a statement that said while “it is understandable that people are asking whether [ShotSpotter] would have made a difference, the investigation is still in its early stages, and we simply do not have enough information to know whether ShotSpotter would have detected the gunfire or, if it had, whether it would have changed the outcome.” He added, “My heart is broken for (Bautista’s) family and our community.”
Both officials bemoaned gun violence in Cambridge.
Widespread debate
The debate about ShotSpotter’s usage has been ongoing throughout the United States. A number of other cities have removed ShotSpotter, citing concerns over accuracy, policing of Black and brown neighborhoods, and data transparency and ownership. A University of Chicago study found Chicago police responded on average four times quicker to emergencies after ShotSpotter was uninstalled. SoundThinking, which produces ShotStopper, has close ties with the Department of Homeland Security, which has funded the technology’s adoption in many places.
Concerns about the possibility of audio recordings being shared in criminal prosecution or with DHS were raised in the two city council meetings in May that ultimately led to the removal of ShotSpotter. “It leaves the city government open to massive liability risks,” Piston said.
In response to these concerns, the Cambridge Police Department stated the data gathered by ShotSpotter is overwritten every 30 hours. Still, Piston noted that ShotSpotter’s contract states it is able to use the data for any purpose. Conversations? It has been introduced as evidence in trials, including a 2017 case in Massachusetts, Commonwealth v. Denison.
The court ruled that the recording violated the Massachusetts Wiretap Act and could be not allowed as evidence
Flaherty said Cambrige could adopt a strict monitoring regime. “Whatever those privacy concerns are, they can be ameliorated by modifications and strict oversight, and annual auditing and accounting of its use,” he said.
The ruling makes it appear that every recorded conversation from ShotSpotter was in violation of the Wiretap Act, said Piston. But Flaherty said it shows “fear that evidence obtained from ShotSpotter would be used in a criminal prosecution is unfounded.”
Flaherty, Galluccio and vice mayor Burhan Azeem, who voted present for the removal of ShotSpotter, acknowledged concerns that ShotSpotter was placed predominantly in Black and brown communities. However, they said residents who had spoken with them had wanted the devices.
Rebecca Goodman contributed to this story. This story is part of a partnership between Cambridge Day and the Boston University Department of Journalism.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
So the logic is that because it wouldn’t have worked on 4 out of 365 days per year, we shouldn’t be worried about it? Got it.
However, if the city had cameras on the street, perhaps we could have seen who did this.
We have a city council which simply does not want to do the most reasonable and common sense thing… have cameras on the streets so that there is a chance to capture incidents such as this.
There is no privacy when you are walking on Cambridge streets. It is foolish to think there is.
Again the company behind the technology CANNOT BE TRUSTED and works against the Public good for minority neighborhoods and in ‘Sanctuary Cities’. The same is true of the FLOCK cameras that are being actively pushed in every state by Trump’s Cronies and appointees to ICE, Homeland Security, etc.
We still lack information from the investigation, as has been said. No conclusions should be made or decisions from a single incident. The False positive rate overall nationally of this technology is quite high, and the danger it poses is obvious.