Case: Williams v. San Francisco

CGC-20-587008 | California state trial court

Filed Date: Oct. 7, 2020

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case is about law enforcement use of illegally accessed real-time surveillance footage to monitor demonstrators following the killing of George Floyd. The plaintiffs, Black and Latino residents of San Francisco who participated in protests against police violence in May and June of 2020, filed this action on October 7, 2020, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), used a netw…

This case is about law enforcement use of illegally accessed real-time surveillance footage to monitor demonstrators following the killing of George Floyd. The plaintiffs, Black and Latino residents of San Francisco who participated in protests against police violence in May and June of 2020, filed this action on October 7, 2020, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), used a network of surveillance cameras to spy on protestors in real-time, in violation of the City of San Francisco’s Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinance (Ordinance), which was passed in response to claims that the SFPD disregarded departmental orders that required reasonable suspicion before surveilling on activities protected by the First Amendment. The Ordinance required that a city department obtain approval and establish a specific use policy prior to acquiring surveillance technology unless there were exigent circumstances. Despite that, the defendant allegedly acquired real-time surveillance footage from 400 cameras for approximately seven days. Represented by the ACLU of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys’ fees.

Both parties moved for summary judgment. On February 9, 2022, Judge Ulmer granted the defendant’s motion, finding. Judge Ulmer found that the Ordinance allowed city departments to continue using surveillance technology if they had been using it prior to the Ordinance’s passage until a separate ordinance were enacted that governed the department’s surveillance policy. Because no such separate ordinance had been enacted and because the SFPD used the same cameras during the 2019 San Francisco Pride celebration, Judge Ulmer concluded that the defendant was entitled to continue using that technology. 

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on March 25, 2022. As of December 22, 2022, that appeal is ongoing. 

Summary Authors

Claire Butler (12/30/2022)

People


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Cagle, Matthew T (California)

Hussain, Saira (California)

Rathi, Mukund (California)

Schwartz, Adam Jeffrey (California)

Attorney for Defendant

McGrath, Aileen M. (California)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

CGC-20-587008

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Oct. 7, 2020

Oct. 7, 2020

Complaint

CGC-20-587008

Orders on Summary Judgment Motions

Feb. 9, 2022

Feb. 9, 2022

Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated Dec. 20, 2024, 7:29 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Policing

Special Collection(s):

Police Violence Protests

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 7, 2020

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The plaintiffs in this case are Black and latinx people who reside in San Francisco and who participated in protests against police violence in May and June of 2020.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

City of San Francisco (San Francisco), City

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General/Misc.:

Racial profiling