The Anaheim Police Department spent years secretly acquiring and deploying intrusive cell phone surveillance technology. Then they spent years fighting the ACLU's efforts to learn more about it. Today, we are releasing the complete set of documents that a court ordered Anaheim to release. Those documents show that Anaheim used a little-known "covert purchase" procedure to hide acquisitions valued at approximately $700,000, loaned its surveillance equipment out to jurisdictions all over Orange County and neighboring Riverside County, and claimed it would use the devices to catch "terrorists" when in fact they were later used to investigate a much broader array of crimes.

After more than two years of litigation, a court finally ordered Anaheim to remove many of the redactions in the documents we requested. The information shows Anaheim’s obsession with secrecy, and its troubling effects.

In March 2015, we sued Anaheim for records about cell site simulators, often referred to as "Stingrays." By mimicking a cell tower, the device tricks nearby cell phones — not just a single targeted device — into communicating with it, and thus scoops up information from innocent bystanders. Using these covert devices, the government can learn where a person is located, even if they are in the privacy of their own home.

Anaheim initially refused to provide any information, and then only after we sued did it produce a heavily redacted set of documents. Those records showed that the small city of 350,000 people, home to Disneyland, had acquired a cell phone surveillance arsenal that could be deployed to invade the privacy of the area's residents and visitors (the Magic Kingdom hosts 16 million people each year).

Anaheim purchased a cell site simulator from a company called DRT in 2009 for $239,000; a newer model from Harris Corporation in 2011 for $337,697; an upgrade to its Harris device in 2013 for $107,768; and yet another device from another company KEYW in 2013 for $9,728. Police spent all this money out of public view and without engaging in an open debate over the ongoing costs or potential civil liberties impact of the program.

But the secretive actions of the Anaheim police department didn't just impact Anaheim. The city loaned out its spyware to jurisdictions all over Orange County (pop. 3 million) and even neighboring Riverside County (pop. 2.2 million). Residents in these counties didn't get the chance to object — instead, a few administrators in Anaheim made closed-door decisions that affected the privacy of 5.2 million people all over Southern California.

And although Anaheim police initially claimed they would use these surveillance devices to "apprehend terrorists," in practice they deployed them for everything from armed robbery to grand theft. The police could easily find new applications for the tools — leading to more data collection and potentially raising new privacy and free speech concerns — without worrying about pushback from residents, who were left in the dark. Maybe the public would have been fine with Anaheim acquiring these devices, and using it all over Southern California for ordinary, non-terrorism related crimes. But Anaheim Police never invited the public to weigh in on these important decisions.

All of these acquisitions — amounting to almost $700,000 worth of surveillance equipment — were made as "covert purchases" under a program that allows the police department to shield its purchasing activity from the public, and prevents Anaheim residents from learning basic information about how police are spending public resources. This invites misuse of funds and of invasive surveillance technology (in fact, Anaheim was so "covert" that it couldn't even find its own contracts).

Anaheim's residents deserve better. They deserve to know more about how their police acquire and use surveillance technology. Anaheim communities deserve more control over whether police use surveillance and greater accountability for the police.

In Oakland, for example, residents have pushed forward with a local ordinance that would require transparency and oversight for cell phone and other tech-based surveillance. Similar measures have been passed around the country. And last fall, Oakland voters overwhelmingly approved creation of a civilian police commission empowered to investigate and discipline officers for misconduct, set policy, and help hire and fire the police chief.

Anaheim needs similar measures. Following an outpouring of protests and community concern over police shootings in 2012, the Anaheim City Council established a pilot community board to review the Police Department budget and critical use of force incidents. But that body lacked authority to issue findings on deadly uses of force, much less to approve or disapprove the acquisition of surveillance technology.

Fortunately, Anaheim residents are engaged in a campaign for meaningful civilian oversight with independent investigatory power and the ability to deliver formal recommendations to the City Council. Stronger oversight of the Police Department should also encompass broader influence over the public safety budget to inhibit hidden surveillance technology.

By taking a stand against the secret purchase and unaccountable use of surveillance technologies, local residents can avoid the surveillance mistakes made by Anaheim. This is essential to protecting vulnerable community members from surveillance abuse. And it makes our democracy stronger.

Linda Lye is a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

California is on the verge of passing Senate Bill 21 (SB 21), a strong bill that, in its current form, would help empower communities and their local elected officials to stop secret and discriminatory use of police surveillance technologies. Making sure state lawmakers enact robust surveillance reform laws is all the more important right now as the Trump administration equips its deportation force with surveillance capabilities, aggressively pursues political activists, and escalates pressure on sanctuary cities. Now is the time to make sure a strong SB 21 — with no further amendments — gets across the finish line.

For years, the secret use of surveillance technology has been consistently expanding with virtually no restraints. Law enforcement agencies nationwide, using federal funds, have amassed sophisticated technologies, including Stingray cell phone trackers, automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), drones, and algorithm-based policing software.

These surveillance technologies are frequently used to target immigrants and communities of color. South Asian, Muslim and Sikh protesters were spied on in San Jose. Baltimore police used facial recognition technology to identify people protesting the police killing of Freddie Gray. And social media surveillance technology in Fresno enabled police to monitor hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter as “threats to public safety.” Residents of Compton, California, have been monitored in their own backyards with high-powered, fly-over cameras and the New York Police Department used license plate readers to track people as they worshiped at mosques. Now immigrant communities living along the United States and Mexico border are facing an invasive new program to scan their eyeballs.

Californians want reform, with more than two-thirds supporting both local and state-level rules to rein in police surveillance. If passed in its current form, SB 21 will become the first state law to require transparency and community control over police decisions about surveillance technology. The bill requires a public debate over proposals to acquire new surveillance technologies. It places local communities and elected officials at the center of every decision to approve or reject their locality’s use of surveillance technologies. And should local elected leaders approve the use of a surveillance technology, SB 21 requires the adoption of a council-approved policy governing its use and regular evaluations of its impact on civil rights and civil liberties.

Take action: Urge California to pass a strong SB 21 to rein in secret and discriminatory surveillance.

The need for surveillance reform is not just a local issue. Sensitive surveillance information about who we are, where we go, and what we do that is collected by local law enforcement often flows, without adequate controls, to the federal government through fusion centers, which collect and share surveillance data from all levels of government, as well as other domestic spying infrastructure. This is not a hypothetical threat. Just ask Oakland, California, which despite being a sanctuary city, discovered that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was using a fusion center to get its hands on Oakland’s license plate reader data. SB 21’s provisions, which empower communities to consider if and how any surveillance information is shared with the federal government, are particularly important in the current political climate.

SB 21 builds on the nationwide Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) movement, a reform effort spearheaded by 17 organizations, including the ACLU, that is designed to put local residents and elected officials in charge of decisions about surveillance technology. Last summer, Santa Clara County, California passed a groundbreaking ordinance ensuring consistent transparency, accountability, and oversight procedures for all surveillance decisions in the county. Nashville adopted a CCOPS law earlier this summer, and Seattle just voted to strengthen its first-in-the-nation surveillance ordinance.

California’s SB 21 has emerged at a key moment — right now at least 18 U.S. cities are actively considering their own surveillance bills. Oakland is poised to enact a robust ordinance in an effort led by the city’s new Privacy Advisory Commission. In New York City, the ACLU of New York and various community groups are fighting to end the NYPD’s secret use of surveillance technology and prevent any inappropriate data sharing with the Trump administration. Residents in St. Louis are working to pass a CCOPS law as a part of broader efforts to address discriminatory policing in the region.

We need strong local and state protections to push secret surveillance into the light, put communities back in control, and prevent abusive practices that all too often target immigrants, people of color, religious groups, and activists.

We hope you’ll urge California lawmakers to pass a strong SB 21 — with no further amendments — and in so doing set an example for other cities and states to follow.

To learn more about the CCOPS effort and how to start or join an effort in your community, please visit CommunityCTRL.com.

Nicole Ozer is the Technology & Civil Liberties Policy Director for the ACLU of California and Chad Marlow is advocacy and policy counsel at the ACLU, where his focus is on privacy and technology.