DonateSearch

Council moves to block immigration enforcement cooperation, reduce gun range noise and audit city surveillance technology

City Council

City may codify noncooperation with immigration enforcement actions.

Stories have been circulating about immigration agents detaining people in Pittsburgh. On April 1, council weighed writing into city code that city workers, including police, won't cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. That proposal faces a final vote next week. Meanwhile, two others would bar leasing or lending city property for enforcement staging, and they're on hold a week for legal review.

Written by Amy Whipple

Pittsburgh City Council is exploring how to codify its policies that its employees will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement detaining Pittsburghers.

The action comes as stories circulate about immigration agents detaining people in the city, including the death of Daphy Michel, 31, a Haitian asylum seeker, who was detained from Washington County and released into the cold on Feb. 27 from Immigration Customs and Enforcement custody on the South Side. She was found unresponsive at South Side a bus shelter three days later and died after being taken to a hospital.

Council discussed three proposed amendments to the city code during its April 1 committee meeting.

The first, which is scheduled for a final vote next week, prohibits city employees, departments and agencies, including police, from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement, though the city cannot prohibit immigration authorities from acting in the city.

 “We certainly can make it clear that we are not going to participate in any way in that activity,” said Council Member Barb Warwick of Greenfield. “This legislation is about trust and allowing people to feel safe.”

Council Member Anthony Coghill of Beechview, whose district is home to large immigrant and refugee communities, said federal immigration activity has hurt small business owners in the neighborhood. He also expressed concern on behalf of some of them about the city attracting attention from the federal government.

“Everybody is living in fear,” he said. “It’s hurting our population. It’s hurting our vitality. It’s hurting everything about what we represent.”

 Council members acknowledged the risk of being in the federal spotlight. “I feel very strongly that in this moment in history, we can’t allow the fear of the federal government’s power of the purse, or any other power they might have, to engage in preemptive capitulation,” said Council Member Erika Strassburger of Squirrel Hill North. “We have to do this.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, Casa San Jose, and Frontline Dignity helped council draft the legislation.

The second two amendments define how the city uses its properties, including parks and department facilities. These would prohibit the federal government from leasing space for enforcement staging and city employees from informally lending space on city-owned property.

Council President R. Daniel Lavelle of the Upper Hill District said the wording of the amendments could not suggest that immigration enforcement is not allowed to enter city-owned or -operated spaces, which is against the law.

Council approved a one-week hold for law review. 

City Council

Turning the gun range may cut the noise down.

Gunfire from the police firing range can sound like warfare at a Highland Park playground, a council member said. On April 1, council advanced a plan to rotate the range, cutting decibel levels by up to 50%. She said residents have sought its removal for over 30 years. Still, the city hasn't found another site, though it'll keep looking.

Written by Amy Whipple

The sound of gunfire in Highland Park may soon not be nearly as loud.

Council voted during the April 1 committee meeting to proceed with a plan to reduce noise at the Bureau of Police Firing Range, the only outdoor range in a major urban area.

 Council Member Deb Gross of Highland Park described the gunshots as “really disturbing levels of noise.” She said, at the park’s Farmhouse Playground, “it sounds like warfare because there’s so many people firing.”

The plan is to rotate the site, which will reduce the decibel levels by up to 50%.

“Less disruptive is the best we could do,” said Gross.

According to Gross, residents have been advocating for the removal of the range for more than 30 years. The city has been unsuccessful in finding an alternate site—indoors or outdoors—but will continue the effort to do so, she said.

Additionally, the range, which is relatively isolated, will soon have a new county Rails to Trails path running past it. Gross said the improvement plan includes adding safety features, though information available on Legistar does not delineate them.

The legislation also authorizes stormwater infrastructure repair and management. The work is designed to help mitigate flooding on Washington Boulevard.

City Council

City may publish what surveillance technology it uses.

Residents may soon learn what surveillance technology Pittsburgh uses and what it can do. Now council has advanced a request for a city report on 18 types of tools, including license plate readers and biometric software. It would also cover data protection and how civil rights harms are prevented. The report is due July 1, with a public hearing to follow.

Written by Amy Whipple

Want to know how many ways the city surveils its residents? So does City Council.

Council voted to move forward with requesting that the Department of Innovation and Performance (DIP) create a report on the city’s use of surveillance technologies. 

Council Member Deb Gross of Highland Park recently pulled two invoices during meetings to draw attention to the city’s use of surveillance technologies. She has also said she does not want the technology companies to sell data to third parties.

The legislation lists 18 specific types of surveillance technology for DIP to look for. Among them are automatic license plate readers; biometric surveillance technology, including voice, iris, and gait-recognition software and databases; and surveillance enabled or capable lightbulbs or light fixtures. 

The report will include, among other things, the technologies’ capabilities, how its data is preserved and protected and how potential adverse impacts on civil rights and civil liberties are prevented. It will cover Jan. 1, 2020, to current and must be submitted to council by July 1. Council will then hold a public hearing on the findings.

According to the legislation, the public needs to be know about the technology and its capabilities in order to have a public debate on how it affects civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy.