Draft:Surveillance in Seattle, Washington

• Comment: This needs some more work on it. It does not come across as a neutrally worded encyclopedia entry.
  The first and last sections are written from the perspective of someone with serious concerns about the use of surveillance equipment and processes, rather than balancing that against benefits. Indeed when one benefit was mentioned, the relevant report was described as "decried the success", rather than say "stated the success". To decry is to denounce so the wording wasn't good there. The 50% reduction in red light running and more vaguely stated accident reduction benefits were not mentioned in a relatively long article which did detail the negative side to the surveillance infrastructure. The "lessons learned" section to that report also was not covered.
  A good neutrally written article would help both supporters and non-supporters, and that's not coming across here.
  The article would be more inviting to read if the lead section was crisper, and the first big section - "From protected data" - was split up into more digestible sub sections.
  Some of the sources seem incorrect (?) - see current source 4, the Seattle Daily Times article from 1979. It's OK to have offline sources, but that reference seems to be a URL via a newspaper aggregator, at least it doesn't appear to work. Similar source 7 and 8. The description isn't clear as to what the referred source is - so the headline / title would be useful.
  A few strong statements are not sourced, for example "This demonstrates the complex relationship existing between different Seattle neighborhood communities." Mostly the sourcing is in place, though. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: use sentence case for headings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings Drew Stanley (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I will also hold off on approval/decline right now; I will only say the article has promise, yet it needs a lot of work. Two things that jump out at me are the "Japanese American Internment in Seattle" section, which is out of left field, not temporally contiguous with the other material in the higher section, and not really about the main topic of the article (sure the interned were under surveillance; they were incarcerated. This has little to do with police and city use of technology to snoop on citizens today, which is the main thrust of the article). Second, the "CCTV Cameras" section is far too detailed and should just be deleted. These aren't the only two issues (generally the article is too long and detailed), but they're low-hanging fruit. Please keep editing and soon we may have a good article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: The article would benefit from more adherence to guidlines for good content. I made an edit to the lead illustrating the types of changes that might improve the article. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 17:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Thank you for pointing this outThank you for taking time to read the article. I tried to streamline the article and placed the internment reference into the sections explaining how each neighborhood took on its hot spot designation.

Public surveillance technology in Seattle, WA

Seattle's municipal code requires city agencies to request permission to acquire and operate surveillance technology. According to the city's Master List, there are currently two city departments, the Seattle Police Department (SPD) and the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) who between them operate 14 types of surveillance technology. These range from helicopter-mounted infrared cameras to an app installed on a police officer's phone that allows the officer to record a phone call..^[1]

Exempt from city council review, per the city's surveillance ordinance, are police body-worn and dash-mounted cameras. Also excluded are cameras used to monitor city-owned infrastructure as well as software that monitors city employees at work. Surveillance activities that are described in judicially authorized search warrant are also exempt.

In 2024, SPD requested permission to install closed-circuit (CCTV) cameras in three Seattle neighborhoods and operate them through a Real Time Crime Center (RTCC). The project was announced as part of a crime prevention technology Pilot^[2]. After the city council approved SPD's application, which contains a written submission called a Security Impact Report (SIR), city workers began installing cameras equipped with microphones and pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) functions onto utility poles.

When surveillance occurs in violation of the City rules, the municipal code allows for an individual to sue the responsible city agency. To date, violations of surveillance ordinances, typically catalogued by journalists or civil rights groups, have resulted in the City Council acting to change, expend and strengthen existing legislation.

From protected data to public technology

In the summer of 1979, the Seattle City Council unanimously adopted Ordinance 108333.^[3] The primary elements of the legislation preclude SPD from collecting "restricted information", which includes information about an individuals religious or political beliefs, affiliations or opinions, unless relevant to a police investigation. Ordinance 108333 also empowers an auditor within the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to review police files in order to ensure police intelligence gathering adheres to the new law.^[4] Contemperaneous reporting on the legislation frames it as both restricting SPD from gathering restricted information, such as dates of attendance of mass demonstrations, and permitting individuals the opportunity to view files containing restricted information.

For context, in 1971, Chris Bayley was elected prosecutor of King County, the county which contains Seattle. Bayley was a Republican and defeated Democrat Chuck Carrol, who had served as County Prosecuting Attorney since 1949. Bayley initiated an investigation into corruption within SPD.^[5] In 1972, Washington State passed one of the nations first "sunshine laws" making the work product of public employees available for public disclosure.^[6] In October, 1974, SPD Chief Robert Hanson disclosed publicly that SPD intelligence workers had been collecting information and maintaining intelligence files on hundreds of individuals.^[7] Requests to review police intelligence were restricted until 1978.^[8]

The influence of labor organizing, racism, and geography on the evolution of surveillance in the pre-1979 period are difficult to separate. In the lead up the a five-day general strike, in 1919, the activities of local organizers, suspected of carrying out the orders of Russian bolsheviks, were monitored by City and National officials. Such heightened scrutiny was justified in part by the perception that the activities were "un-American."^[9] That perception continued to underlie enhanced monitoring of certain groups, especially Seattle's Asian community, in particular, individuals of Japanese descent, during World War II. One of the first neighborhoods to see cameras installed after the city council approved SPD's use of CCTV cameras is today known as Little Saigon, but in the 1940s was known as Japantown, where many residents were removed from their homes and interned in inland camps.

Twenty years after Ordinance 10833 was adopted, the Seattle City Council created the post of Chief Technology Officer (CTO), responsible for establishing “policies, guidelines, standards, and procedures” in any instance when a City officer or employee “acquire[d], through purchase, lease, or any form of contract, any information technology resources for the City”^[10]. Creating a post for a technology office foreshadowed changes coming to the City's approach to legislating surveillance. In particular, changes in technology, especially the arrival of the internet, were changing how personal information was collected and displayed. The OIG auditor would point out in 2019 that Ordinance 108333 "does not address modern methods of distributing information, resulting in inconsistent practices by different units within SPD."^[11]

SPD acquisition of surveillance technology without prior approval of the City government prompted the first major revision to surveillance legislation in Seattle, in 2013. In the same year, SPD mounted surveillance cameras around Alki Beach, in West Seattle^[12]. In March 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance 124142,^[13] which requires departments to propose protocols related to proper use and deployment of certain surveillance equipment for Council review, requiring departments to adopt written protocols that address data retention, storage and access of any data obtained through the use of certain surveillance equipment.^[14]

The legislation defined surveillance equipment as equipment capable of capturing or recording data, including images, videos, photographs or audio operated by or at the direction of a City department that may deliberately or inadvertently capture activities of individuals on public or private property, regardless of whether "masking" or other technology might be used to obscure or prevent the equipment from capturing certain views.^[14]

Significant changes to the 2013 law were introduced in 2017, under Ordinance 125376.^[15] 'Surveillance' in the new law is defined the ability "to observe or analyze the movements, behavior, or actions of identifiable individuals in a manner that is reasonably likely to raise concerns about civil liberties, freedom of speech or association, racial equity or social justice." 'Surveillance capability' is the “means the ability to collect, capture, transmit, or record data [...] regardless of whether the data is obscured, de-identified, or anonymized [...]." Finally, 'Surveillance data' is "any electronic data collected, captured, recorded, retained, processed, intercepted, or analyzed by surveillance technology."^[15]

Under the 2017 law, City departments intending to acquire surveillance technology must "obtain Council ordinance approval of the acquisition and a Surveillance Impact Report (SIR) for the technology. The department must also complete one or more community meetings with opportunity for public comment and written response".^[15]

CCTV and RTCC

In February 2024, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell began soliciting public comment as part of the submission process for an SIR for the acquisition of closed-circuit television camera systems (CCTV), a Real Time Crime Center (RTCC) and Acoustic Gunshot Location System (AGLS). In May 2024, Harrell released details of a Crime Prevention Technology Pilot program^[16]. The pilot prioritizes the adoption and deployment of three types of surveillance technology: a system of CCTV cameras, an RTCC, and Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs). Gunshot detectors were dropped from pilot.

The Seattle City Council voted in October, 2024, to approve two approve two ordinances related to the acquisition of the surveillance technologies at the core of the technology pilot program. The first, Ordinance 127110,^[17] authorizes the acquisition and deployment of a CCTV system monitored by SPD. The second, Ordinance 127111,^[18] authorizes the acquisition of a RTCC to assist in CCTV data management.^[19] Both ordinances required an Security Impact Report (SIR) to be filed alongside each council bill and were completed, as per Ordinance 125376.^[20][21]

Policies governing use and privacy protections

The SIRs for RTCC^[21] and CCTV^[20] systems cite existing and forthcoming policies that specify:

• Periods for which footage will be archived and circumstances under which archival footage will be overwrite-protected or erased.
• Which employees will have access to RTCC and CCTV technologies.
• Software and device settings that will be established in order to prevent privacy intrusions.
• Processes whereby different types of requestors, such as members of the public, prosecuting and defense attorneys, as well as researchers, may request access to archival footage.
• Processes whereby the technology use will be audited.

Among the existing policies that will govern the use of these technologies, the CCTV and RTCC SIRs cite title 12.050 of SPD's manual, which contains provisions related to accessing SPD information systems.^[22]

The ordinance approving the acquisition of a CCTV system proclaims the city council "supports the development of an 'omnibus surveillance technology policy' addressing technologies including Closed-Circuit Television Systems."^[17] As of October, 2025, no such technology policy has been published.

CCTV Cameras

The CCTV Camera SIR delineates three types of technology that together make up a CCTV system:

• Cameras: these can range from simple fixed cameras to more sophisticated cameras with pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) as well as other capabilities (infrared night vision, highd definition imaging, etc.).
• Recording Devices: DVRs (digital video recorders) or NVRs (network video recorders) are used for storing video footage.
• Storage: the video footage is stored locally within hard drives within DVRs/NVRS.

The CCTV SIR notes that the cameras themselves possess certain analytical capabilities, referred to as "Edge-Based Analytics capabilities." This capability is a "built-in processing power" that enables the cameras to perform "a range of analytics such as motion detection and object recognition (e.g., identifying vehicles or people by the clothing they are wearing or items they may be carrying.)" - Technology exists for private owners of video security systems to voluntarily share streams of specific cameras with SPD.

Specifications

The two camera models selected by SPD to be installed in a pilot phase. Both are produced by the AXIS communications company: the AXIS Q6100-E Network Camera^[23] and the AXIS Q6135-LE PTZ Network Camera.^[24]

These cameras allow operators to pan, tilt and zoom camera lenses in real time.

The camera units contain on-board software that overlays live feeds. In some instances, this software ties camera operation to microphone detection. A promotional video by AXIS demonstrates the ability of its cameras to detect certain noises and automatically reposition lenses so the direction where the noise came from is brought automatically into view. Spec sheets for the AXIS cameras indicate on-board software can be set to detect and highlight certain objects carried by individuals as well as track whether individuals cross certain geographic threshholds.

SPD also describes the ability to digitally apply an "opaque permanent mask" over certain areas visible to cameras which will "prohibit viewers from seeing into windows in residences."^[25]

Real-Time Crime Center

The RTCC SIR describes the technology as a software application that "brings several technologies deemed surveillance technologies (CCTV, AGLS, ALPR, etc.) into one platform." The SIR indicates that some RTCC software uses "non-generative AI, such as object detection, to analyze those surveillance technologies."

RTCC software is produced and sold by the company AXON Enterprise.

Additional features include:

• Incident planning and real-time management across the department, including freehand sketching of maps, iconography, and roles-based viewing and editing access across a variety of connected devices.
• Tools allowing officers to listen to 911 calls directly
• Services that allow members of the public to anonymously submit multi-media tips by texting pictures, text, or video to a publicized number
• Services that allow individuals, businesses and organizations to give SPD access to privately owned and operated CCTV cameras, as well as set access permission.

Aerial surveillance

In 2010, SPD received authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to purchased and operate "unmanned aerial vehicles" (UAVs) within the city.^[26] Following a lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, documents revealed that SPD had trained internal staff on how to properly maneuver the drones.^[27] As more information came to light, assistant Police Chief Paul McDonagh apologized to members of the Seattle City Council for the lack of transparency, saying "We probably could have done a better job in communicating to the city."^[28]

Watch Tower

In April 2019 the SPD erected a surveillance tower in the parking lot of the Rainier Ave S. Safeway. Large enough for a police officer to fit inside, the tower's purpose was to "stem property damage, shoplifting and even robberies."^[29] However, the wheeled tower was removed only a few days after its installation after neighbors and shoppers alike voiced concerns over the "dystopian atmosphere" it created.^[30]

Social media monitoring

In August 2014, the SPD purchased software from the now defunct Geofeedia for $14,156.^[31] At the time, the company offered a location-based, analytics platform for monitoring posts made on social media. Users of the platform could identify the precise geographic location of those posts, and by extension the people making them. At the time, Geofeedia software was used by over 500 police departments nationwide including those in Chicago, Oakland, and Philadelphia in addition to the SPD. Geofeedia internal documents labeled both unions and activist groups as "Overt Threats"^[32] and after civilian outcry Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook all rescinded access to public user posts.^[33] The Stranger reported the acquisition nearly two years later in 2016, and Seattle Council Member Lorena González expressed concern over the possibility of targeted civilian surveillance. A spokesperson for Seattle Chief Technology Officer Michael Mattmiller admitted that the purchase of Geofeedia software "was not made in accordance with the Seattle municipal code,"^[31] so after the SPD's 2 year contract with GeoFeedia expired in 2016, the department declined to renew.^[34]

Automated photo enforcement

In late July 2006, the City of Seattle launched a year-long pilot program to assess the effectiveness of traffic safety cameras, commonly known as red light cameras, at selected arterial intersections. The initiative's stated aim was to determine whether these cameras could reduce the incidence of red light violations and related collisions, which had become increasingly common in Seattle and across the nation.^[35] The final report, completed in late 2007, decried the success of the pilot program and opened the door for further cameras system implementations in the Seattle area. Completed in 2013, the city now has over 30 different cameras monitored by the SPD.^[36]

The cameras used in Seattle are produced by the Scottsdale, AZ company American Traffic Solutions and can take full-color photo stills or short videos of traffic-related offenses. The cameras also contain a sensor component that will activate the camera and capture video if it "predicts" that an approaching vehicle might run a red light.^[35] After traffic events are initially triaged at an ATS datacenter, events needing additional scrutiny are forwarded to the Seattle Police Traffic Enforcement Section who evaluate if the events constitute infractions.^[35]

Place-based surveillance

The CCTV SIR identifies four neighborhoods in Seattle under consideration within the Crime Prevention Technology Pilot: Aurora Avenue North, Belltown, Chinatown-International District, and the Downtown Commercial Core. Ultimately, cameras were installed in three neighborhoods: Downtown, Aurora and the CID, as part of a pilot. The city council approved in September, 2025, expanding CCTV systems to Capitol Hill, the Stadium District and near Garfield Highschool.^[37]

SPD policy 5.140 forbids officers from making decisions or performing actions that are "influenced by bias, prejudice, or discriminatory intent."^[38] SPD thus employs a model of "geographic policing" which relies on crime statistics rather than explicit community to more heavily police and surveil "high crime frequency areas." Despite historical Redlining and systems of exclusionary covenants in Seattle's neighborhoods which have legally encoded where different communities can live, SPD continues to advocate for a geographic model of policing.^[20]

In the immediate years preceding the selection of neighborhoods to include in the crime prevention Pilot, SPD and Seattle's Mayor began designating areas of the city as "hot spots"^[39]. The designation underlines how each hot spot presents a similar challenge to policing, namely, controlling activities associated with illegal drug use and sales, markets for stolen goods, prostitution as well as violent crime. In the SIR, the stated purpose of CCTV cameras is to "deter and detect criminal activity" and prevent "gun violence, human trafficking, and other persistent felony crimes."

Chinatown-International District

SPD CCTV Cameras installed in the CID, 2025

20 CCTV cameras were installed by the Seattle Utilities in April and May 2025.

While the neighborhood's demographics have evolved, the Chinatown-International District (CID) is the heart of the Asian American community in Seattle, Washington. It is currently comprised of the neighborhoods Little Saigon, Chinatown, and Japantown, which together form a special review district^[40]. It attracts a concentration of non-white residents, businesses and visitors and it remains an area of focus for policing, both in terms of demands on resources as well as a venue for testing new technology and approaches to crime.

The intersection at 12th Avenue South and South Jackson Street, on the CID's eastern side, offered an illustration for the hot spot designation in the lead up to the entire CID neighborhood being selected as part of the crime technology Pilot. Police deployed focused resources to the intersection and its side strets, such as a mobile precinct^[41], while commuinty groups led initiatives to collectively address conditions on the sidewalks and the neighborhood^[42]. Editorialists questioned the city's commitment to improving conditions in the neighborhood^[43].

The shifts in demographics and policing in the neighborhood are notable for many reasons. It is hard to overlook the changes that occurred at the 1940s. At that time, the area around 12th and Jackson was part of a geographically larger Japantown. Japantown's size and many of its residents' lives were significantly altered in 1942, when preparations were made to forcibly remove residents in Seattle deemed to be Japanese^[44].

Community-led surveillance initiatives began in the neighborhood in 2011, when Nora Chan, founder and president of the non-profit Seniors in Action Foundation^[45], raised funds from individual donors and community businesses to install 14 CCTV cameras in and around the CID. In 2019, with most cameras having become unoperational, Chan again drove a community effort to update and expand the CCTV camera system. However, before the project could be completed, COVID-19 swept the nation and the project was put on hold indefinitely.^[45]

Downtown Seattle commercial core

SPD CCTV Cameras installed in the Downtown Seattle Commercial Core, 2025

The area associated with downtown Seattle's hotspot designation contains office and residential towers, department store shopping areas, restaurants, low-income service providers as well as primary access points to public transportation. 3rd Avenue, as it runs through Belltown, the city's office tower core and into Seattle's Pioneer Square Neighborhood, illsutrated the hot spot designation for Seattle's commercial core.

The hot spot designation for the commercial core overlapped with a Downtown Activation Plan^[46], which includes a focus on creating art spaces in street level store fronts^[47]

The immediate impact of changes to office attendance brought on by the COVID 19 pandemic, beginning in 2020, are associated with its designation as a hot spot. The Pioneer Square neigbhorhood has since Seattle's founding however been used to illustrate examples of disproportionate criminal activity as well as focused policing.

Aurora Avenue corridor

SPD CCTV Cameras installed along the Aurora Corridor, 2025

Originally part of US State Route 99, Aurora Avenue in North Seattle illustrates a type of activity specifically targetted in the CCTV and RTCC SIR's: human trafficking. Street level prostitution and associated activities have long been associated with Aurora Avenue.

Notably, the construction of I-5 in the 1950s and 1960s would alter life along SR 99 and in the CID. As traffic shifted to I-5, Aurora Avenue's hotels and restaurants saw new, large format retail construction and vehicle delearships become neighbors. The thoroughfare is connected by public transit and there are many sidestreets. For the CID, construction of I-5 meant bisecting the same neighborhood, Japantown, whose residents had been forcibly evicted only 20 years earlier.

Alki Point

Alki Beach is the largest and most populous area of the West Seattle neighborhood Alki Point in Seattle. In early 2013, the SPD used federal grant money and entered into a 7 year contract with Cascade Networks, Inc. to purchase a mesh system of surveillance cameras for installation along the public beach walkway and waterfront.^[48] The database system, accessible by the Port of Seattle, King County Metro, and the Seattle Fire Department, as well as the United States Coast Guard, had the stated aim of "increasing port security."^[49] During a public meeting in March, 2013, then SPD Assistant Chief Paul McDonagh acknowledged that prior to installation of several cameras, there was no public outreach nor press release about the cameras going up because "other things came up...but sometimes that's the way things go."^[49] The cameras have the ability to swivel based on remote-controlled instructions from SPD monitoring, although private residence windows are "blacked out" to increase neighborhood privacy.^[49] It is unclear if the network remains in operation following the termination of the original contract.

Data governance and city policy

Omnibus surveillance technology policy

According to numerous SIRs and internal communication, the SPD is in the process of developing an "omnibus surveillance technology policy." This would help encode and constrain the SPD's use of different surveillance technologies, including but not limited to: creating value and equity statements for technology use, facilitating general tracking metrics, and laying out retention requirements and limitations.^[20] A memo sent to the central staff from the SPD indicates that this policy would "allow the [CCTV] cameras to be moved from location to location without an update to the original SIRs and authorizing ordinances. Although, the Executive [Department] would still provide outreach to the affected neighborhood in an effort to facilitate community cohesion and support for the cameras."^[50] As of July 2025, this policy has not been published.

Critiques of surveillance

Numerous external agencies and individuals have sharply critiqued efforts by Seattle city agencies to expand mass surveillance. Historically, Washington chapters of groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild have often opposed widespread surveillance by City agencies. In February 1977, the Seattle City Council's Committee on Public Safety convened a hearing at the Seattle Center on police surveillance that resulted in three hours of "complaints about abuses of police information gathering" and a promise that the City Council may adopt legislation limiting SPD information gathering activities.^[51] One group present at the meeting, the Coalition of Government Spying, presented arguments supporting a halt to police monitoring of political activities and electronic surveillance.^[51] The same group sued SPD over refusals to acknowledge requests to review police intelligence files. In April, 1978, 8 months after initiating the lawsuit, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), a member of the Coalition and plaintiff to the 1977 lawsuit, received and disclosed intelligence reports that revealed SPD monitored NLG events, collected information about NLG members, and maintained that information in intelligence files. The City Council then began debating legislation limiting police intelligence gathering the same month, which lead to the creation of Ordinance 108333.^[52]

A report in 2023 from the Seattle Neighborhood Greenways and the non-profit Whose Streets? Our Streets! found that traffic enforcement cameras disproportionately affect BIPOC communities.^[53] Furthermore, an independent analysis by the Seattle Department of Transportation found that the most traffic enforcement cameras were placed in communities with the highest index of socioeconomic hardship,^[54] and that regardless of whether a traffic infraction ticket was paid or not, Black residents were 3 times more likely than White residents to be incarcerated.^[55] This demonstrates the complex relationship existing between different Seattle neighborhood communities and attempted surveillance projects within those sites.

Implementation of any new surveillance technology now requires a Privacy and Civil Liberties Assessment, which is completed by a civilian committee working group that advises the SPD on surveillance initiatives, as per city code. During the most recent CCTV and RTCC SIRs, five of the six working group members were either explicitly against or voiced broad concern over the proposed technology roll out.^[20] The Technology Policy Program Director, Tee Sannon, said of the CCTV roll out that "once you have [the expansion of surveillance technologies], the potential for abuse skyrockets."^[56] During the SIR process, the Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR) also reviewed the same proposal and returned with numerous concerns which included:

• Insufficient outreach to pilot communities
• The technologies are not effective for combatting gun violence and human trafficking.
• Placement of surveillance technology in disproportionately BIPOC neighborhoods is likely to worsen racial disparities in criminal legal system.
• Lack of clarity on what automated analytic tools will be used and how unapproved tools will be avoided.
• Private security system opt-in has potential to circumvent review and restrictions.^[57]

City officials have stated that all necessary safeguards are in place for new technologies to be used appropriately and justly, while aiding law enforcement and the communities under surveillance.^[56]

References

1. "Surveillance Technology - Tech | seattle.gov". www.seattle.gov. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
2. Craighead, Callie (2024-10-10). "Mayor Harrell Signs Legislation to Implement Crime Prevention Technology Pilot, Improving Ability to Quickly Respond to and Investigate Crimes". Office of the Mayor. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
3. "Ordinance 108333 – Introduced as Council Bill 100466: AN ORDINANCE establishing policies governing the Seattle Police Department in collecting, receiving, and transmitting information". Seattle City Clerk – Legislation & Research. Seattle City Clerk. June 25, 1979. Retrieved July 17, 2025.
4. Seattle Daily Times, 1 July 1979, p. 14. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.spl.org/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=WORLDNEWS&req_dat=3B0E523B103645DAAB7A3032BEED2C5A&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Aimage%252Fv2%253A127D718D1E33F961%2540EANX-NB-12EAEF04063C521E%25402444056-12E8371027254993%254013-12E8371027254993%2540. Accessed 21 June 2025.
5. Bayley, Christopher T. (2015). Seattle Justice: The Rise and Fall of the Police Payoff System in Seattle. Seattle, WA: Sasquatch Books. ISBN 978-1632170309.
6. "MRSC - Public Records Act Basics". mrsc.org. Retrieved 2025-08-07.
7. Seattle Daily Times, night sports final ed., 21 Feb. 1979, p. 12. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.spl.org/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=WORLDNEWS&req_dat=3B0E523B103645DAAB7A3032BEED2C5A&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Aimage%252Fv2%253A127D718D1E33F961%2540EANX-NB-12E9E954E7BA51CF%25402443926-12E7E7B1A2F05C02%254011-12E7E7B1A2F05C02%2540. Accessed 21 June 2025.
8. Seattle Daily Times, 14 Jan. 1979, p. 42. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.spl.org/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=WORLDNEWS&req_dat=3B0E523B103645DAAB7A3032BEED2C5A&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Aimage%252Fv2%253A127D718D1E33F961%2540EANX-NB-12E84C83420E9113%25402443888-12E7E7B7745D7000%254041-12E7E7B7745D7000%2540. Accessed 21 June 2025.
9. "Seattle General Strike", Wikipedia, 2025-01-27, retrieved 2025-06-21
10. "Online Information Resources - CityClerk | seattle.gov". clerk.seattle.gov. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
11. "OIG Reports - OIG | seattle.gov". www.seattle.gov. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
12. Thompson, Lynn. "City Council studies." Seattle Times, The (WA), sec. Local, 7 Mar. 2013, p. B2. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.spl.org/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=WORLDNEWS&req_dat=3B0E523B103645DAAB7A3032BEED2C5A&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews/144E71F99A811860. Accessed 21 June 2025.
13. Kreamer, Matt. "City Council approves new surveillance rules." Seattle Times, The: Blogs (WA), sec. News, 18 Mar. 2013. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.spl.org/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=WORLDNEWS&req_dat=3B0E523B103645DAAB7A3032BEED2C5A&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews/14522DA2E82851B8. Accessed 21 June 2025.
14. "Online Information Resources - CityClerk | seattle.gov". clerk.seattle.gov. Retrieved 2025-06-21.
15. "Ordinance 125376 – Introduced as Council Bill 118930: An Ordinance relating to The City of Seattle's acquisition and use of surveillance technologies". Seattle City Clerk – Legislation & Research. Seattle City Clerk. January 24, 1910. Retrieved July 17, 2025.
16. Dalgetty, Ben (2024-05-31). "Mayor Harrell Announces Crime Prevention Technology Pilot Next Steps Following Public Input". Office of the Mayor. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
17. "Ordinance 127110 – Introduced as Council Bill 120844: AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation". Seattle City Clerk – Legislation & Research. Seattle City Clerk. September 3, 2024. Retrieved July 17, 2025.
18. "Ordinance 127111 – Introduced as Council Bill 120845: AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation". Seattle City Clerk – Legislation & Research. Seattle City Clerk. September 3, 2024. Retrieved July 17, 2025.
19. Oxley, Dyer (2024-10-09). "Seattle to add surveillance cameras to crime-fighting efforts in 3 neighborhoods". www.kuow.org. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
20. "2024 Surveillance Impact Report - Closed-Circuit Television Camera Systems" (PDF). Seattle City Clerk – Legislative Information Center. City of Seattle. June 17, 2025. Retrieved July 17, 2025.
21. "2024 Surveillance Impact Report: Real-Time Crime Center v2". Seattle City Council Legistar. Seattle Police Department. 2024-10-08. Retrieved 2025-06-11. page 9
22. "PowerDMS". public.powerdms.com. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
23. "AXIS Q6100-E PTZ Network Camera". Axis Communications. Retrieved August 11, 2025.
24. "AXIS Q6135-LE PTZ Network Camera". Axis Communications. Retrieved August 11, 2025.
25. Chetanya Robinson (March 10, 2025). "CCTV cameras to be installed throughout the Chinatown-ID under police pilot project, raising privacy, fiscal, and racial equity concerns". International Examiner. Retrieved August 11, 2025.
26. Clarridge, Christine. "Eye-in-sky SPD drones stir privacy concerns - Police quiet on plans for using mini-copters ACLU sees room for abuse, urges clear guidelines." Seattle Times, The (WA), Fourth ed., sec. News, 21 Apr. 2012, p. A1. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.spl.org/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=WORLDNEWS&req_dat=3B0E523B103645DAAB7A3032BEED2C5A&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews/13E59039EA832DC0. Accessed 21 June 2025.
27. "Seattle police seek more drones while two sit unused". MuckRock. 2012-10-11. Retrieved 2025-08-07.
28. Thompson, Lynn (May 2, 2012). "Police apologize for not keeping council in loop on new drones". The Seattle Times.
29. "SPD removes controversial watchtower from parking lot". FOX 13 Seattle. Tegna Inc. 2023-05-18. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
30. Bick, Carolyn (2019-04-11). "Police Box Towers Over South End Safeway Parking Lot". South Seattle Emerald. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
31. Herz, Ansel (2016-09-28). "How the Seattle Police Secretly—and Illegally—Purchased a Tool for Tracking Your Social Media Posts". The Stranger. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
32. "Police Use of Social Media Surveillance Software Is Escalating, and Activists Are in the Digital Crosshairs". American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU. 2016-09-22. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
33. Cagle, Matt (2016-10-11). "Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter Provided Data Access for a Surveillance Product Marketed to Target Activists of Color". ACLU of Northern California. ACLU. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
34. "City Council statement on SPD's use of social media surveillance tools". Seattle City Council Blog. Seattle City Council. 2016-09-29. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
35. "Red Light Cameras". Seattle Police Department. City of Seattle. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
36. "Traffic Safety Camera Pilot Project: Final Evaluation Report" (PDF). Seattle Police Department. City of Seattle. 2007-12-01. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
37. Releases, City Council News (2025-09-10). "Council approves pair of public safety technology bills". Seattle City Council Blog. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
38. "SPD Policy 5.140 – Bias-Free Policing". Seattle Police Department Manual. Seattle Police Department. 2025-06-14. Retrieved 2025-06-14.
39. Kiefer, Paul Faruq (2022-02-18). "Advocates Question "Hot Spot" Approach to Crime at Little Saigon's Most Troubled Intersection". PubliCola. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
40. "International Special Review District - Neighborhoods | seattle.gov". www.seattle.gov. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
41. Staff, KOMO News (2022-02-18). "Seattle Police set up mobile precinct in Little Saigon neighborhood". KOMO. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
42. "Phố Đẹp (Beautiful Neighborhood) – Friends of Little Saigon". flsseattle.org. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
43. since 2004, a metro news columnist at The Seattle Times; news, takes an opinionated look at the Puget Sound region's; people; politics. (2023-08-30). "Seattle's Little Saigon has already been forgotten". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 2025-10-18. {{cite web}}: |last2= has generic name (help)
44. "World War II Japanese American Incarceration -- Seattle/King County". www.historylink.org. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
45. Bayang, Ruth (2019-03-28). "CCTV to be installed in Chinatown?". Northwest Asian Weekly. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
46. "Seattle reduced disorder downtown. Another neighborhood is really struggling". The Seattle Times. 2024-12-09. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
47. "Seattle's Bed Bath & Beyond space to find new life". The Seattle Times. 2024-04-16. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
48. "Seattle Police Dept. Alki Beach Public Surveillance Camera Docs". MuckRock. MuckRock Foundation. 30 January 2013. Retrieved 2025-06-11. Public records released by the Seattle Police Department regarding surveillance camera installations at Alki Beach.
49. Patrick Robinson; Ty Swenson (2013-03-14). "Criticism overrides support at SPD surveillance meeting on Alki". Westside Seattle. Retrieved 2025-06-11.
50. Greg Doss (2023-10-18). "2023–2024 Proposed Mid-Biennial Budget Adjustments Review: Seattle Police Department". Seattle City Council Legistar. City of Seattle. Retrieved 2025-06-11. Page 3
51. Seattle Daily Times, Night Sports Final ed., 9 Feb. 1977, p. 14. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.spl.org/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=WORLDNEWS&req_dat=3B0E523B103645DAAB7A3032BEED2C5A&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Aimage%252Fv2%253A127D718D1E33F961%2540EANX-NB-12E3A0C06A0C15CB%25402443184-12E1F8AEDC992F59%254013-12E1F8AEDC992F59%2540. Accessed 21 June 2025.
52. Seattle Daily Times, Night Sports Final ed., 10 Apr. 1978, p. 13. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current, https://infoweb-newsbank-com.ezproxy.spl.org/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=WORLDNEWS&req_dat=3B0E523B103645DAAB7A3032BEED2C5A&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Aimage%252Fv2%253A127D718D1E33F961%2540EANX-NB-12E657030DF4C23E%25402443609-12E5FAFB19930951%254012-12E5FAFB19930951%2540. Accessed 21 June 2025.
53. Nura Ahmed, Ethan Campbell (2023-06-08). "2023 Recommendations on Automated Traffic Enforcement in Seattle". Whose Streets? Our Streets!. Neighborhood Greenway Project. Retrieved 2025-06-09.
54. Bradley Topol and Allison Schwartz (2022-09-22). "Racial Equity Toolkit Presentation" (PDF). Seattle Department of Transportation. City of Seattle. Retrieved 2025-06-09. Slide 14,15
55. Bradley Topol and Allison Schwartz (2022-09-22). "Racial Equity Toolkit Presentation" (PDF). Seattle Department of Transportation. City of Seattle. Retrieved 2025-06-09. Slide 34
56. Carter, Mike (July 16, 2025). "Seattle police cameras, now up and running, draw constitutional concerns". The Seattle Times. Retrieved July 17, 2025.
57. Derrick Wheeler-Smith (May 22, 2024). "Final RET/SIR Analysis for Crime Prevention Technology Pilot Program" (PDF). Seattle City Clerk – Legislative Information Center (Memo). City of Seattle, Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved July 17, 2025.

External Links

A geographic model of police surveillance