Critics of Detroit’s gunshot detection system have pointed to a lack of transparency as a concern since the city first signed a $1.5 million contract for the audio surveillance program in 2020.
Many of those concerns have centered on transparency to the public — but some parts of the program are not even transparent to the Detroit Police Department, as officials admit they don’t know where the sensors for ShotSpotter are located.
Regardless, Deputy Chief Mark Bliss insists that fact does not impact the department’s oversight of the program.
But some aren’t convinced by Bliss’s argument, saying that without knowing where the sensors are, it’s hard to know how well the city knows what’s going on within its own program.
“The city actually isn’t in a position to verify that there isn’t a problem with where the sensors are located,” said Eric Williams, the Detroit Justice Center’s managing director. “For example, the city can say, well, we don’t know if it’s too close to someone’s house or apartment, or in a place where it could be potentially problematic. The city doesn’t know that information.”
Linda Bernard, a member of the city’s Board of Police Commissioners, the supervisory body for the police department, agreed that the secretive nature of the ShotSpotter program concerned her, though she emphasized the importance of preventing gunfire in the city.
“We can’t provide oversight about something if we don’t know what it is,” Bernard said. “And we don’t know what it is or where it is.”
(Katherine Dailey/Michigan Advance)
The process for determining the locations of the sensors is simple, at least on paper. In short, Bliss explained, the police department informed ShotSpotter staff which areas they want to cover — high gunfire areas — and then the company determined where exactly to place the sensors.
“The sensors are placed by ShotSpotter when we identify an area, because ShotSpotter has to look at the acoustics and what’s the best, most accurate way for placement to get the best type of acoustics,” he said.
“When we looked at where to place ShotSpotter, we did an analysis on gun crime,” he added. “And that’s where we put the sensors. Where are we getting a lot of non-fatal shootings or homicides or shots fired?”
When asked why DPD was not informed about the location of those sensors even after ShotSpotter determined their best locations, Bliss said that 911 calls coming from the community act as a form of checks and balances — if the department gets a call that there is gunfire in an area that should be covered without a corresponding ShotSpotter alert, they know that there may be a malfunctioning sensor or other issue that needs to be addressed.
SoundThinking told the Advance in a statement that the company does not disclose precise locations of sensors to any customer, including the Detroit Police Department.
“Keeping sensor locations confidential protects the privacy of community members who host sensors and reduces the risk of tampering, vandalism, or attempts to evade detection,” the company wrote.
“Importantly, this policy does not impact oversight of the program by the Police Department or the City in any way. Detroit defines each ShotSpotter coverage area and the boundaries of those areas,” SoundThinking’s statement continued. “The exact placement of individual sensors within those boundaries is not operationally relevant to DPD or the City and does not affect their ability to evaluate performance, direct policy, or exercise oversight.”
A Growing Chorus of Skepticism—Including From the Bench
ShotSpotter, used in over 180 cities according to the company’s webpage, has been the target of wide-ranging criticism, both in Detroit and nationwide.
For example, Chicago last year allowed its contract with ShotSpotter to lapse after a series of systemic failures. A 2021 report from the city’s Inspector General showed that the technology was failing to lead to an increase in investigative stops or evidence of gun crimes. And in August, the city settled a lawsuit for $90,000 that alleged the city’s police department used ShotSpotter alerts as a pretext for unlawful stops, especially in Black and brown communities.
In Detroit, where the technology has been in place in the 8th and 9th Precincts since 2020, critics of the program have raised similar concerns.
Most recently, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in October that the city violated the Community Input Over Government Surveillance ordinance in 2022 when they failed to post required oversight reports until after the city had already voted to extend the first contract and just two weeks before voting to expand the technology into other parts of the city.
“With surveillance and similar technology ever encroaching into every recess of modern life, procedural safeguards cannot be ignored or downplayed by government actors as mere technicalities,” Judge Brock A. Swartzle wrote in the court’s opinion. “To ensure that technology serves the people, and not the other way around, strict compliance with procedural safeguards like the CIOGS Ordinance may well be needed. And, unfortunately, such compliance was lacking here.”
In the wake of that decision, Williams raised further concerns about the lack of transparency and a lack of accountability for Detroit residents — including transparency on where the sensors are.
“Those are obligations that the city has. That’s not optional. That was one of the things that came out of the appellate decision. DPD [Detroit Police Department] has to follow the law,” he said of the court’s decision. “I do not see how DPD could fully comply with the ordinance, if, for example, they don’t even know specifically where the sensors are.”
The ordinance does not specifically require the disclosure of the locations of surveillance sensors such as those used in ShotSpotter. But Kleinman emphasized that, though not violating the letter of the law, the fact that the city does not have access to the locations raises concerns.
“Responsible oversight of surveillance technology includes knowing where it is,” she said.
The city’s $7 million contract for the program is up for renewal in June 2026, before which point advocates like Williams hope there will be increased disclosure from the city on its effectiveness in lowering gun crime in Detroit.
In the upcoming contract renegotiation process, Bernard added that she believed that access to information like the locations of sensors could be used as a negotiation tactic.
“When it comes to their customers, I think they should be more forthcoming, and maybe that would be a bargaining point for us in terms of a new contract with them,” Bernard said. “I think that that effort should be made, because it will improve our ability to make the residents of the city of Detroit safe, and that’s our objective.”
This story first appeared in Michigan Advance. Read the original here.
