Legal fight for Lexington police surveillance camera information ends after ruling
A man who has fought for years to get records about surveillance cameras used by Lexington police has announced that a lawsuit has ended.
Michael Maharrey, director of “We See You Watching Lexington,” filed an open records request in 2017 asking for information about cameras owned and operated by the city of Lexington. The request asked specifically for camera purchase orders, vendor contracts, training manuals and use policies.
“The city has already spent two-and-a-half years and who knows how many tax dollars fighting to hide information from the people it ostensibly serves,” Maharrey said in the release. “The case proves the point I was trying to make — Lexington desperately needs transparency and oversight for its surveillance programs.”
The city turned over hundreds of pages of documents about cameras, including body-worn cameras used by officers, but withheld some specific information about 29 cameras used by the police department. The city argued that the information was exempt because it pertained to homeland security.
Andy Beshear, who was at the time Kentucky’s attorney general, ordered that the additional documents should be released. The city of Lexington then sued Maharrey in an effort to block the release of the records.
Fayette County Circuit Court Judge John Reynolds ruled in 2018 that the city would have to release the records, saying the city did not prove that the release of the records would endanger cases or individuals. The city appealed, and the case was eventually sent back to Fayette County Circuit Court.
In March, Circuit Court Judge Lucy VanMeter filed an order saying that the city did not have to turn over the records because their release would place an “unreasonable burden” on the city.
In VanMeter’s order, she cited testimony from a Lexington Police Department sergeant who said that releasing information about the specific types of cameras and how they are used could put police investigators and confidential informants in danger.
The sergeant testified that information about surveillance equipment used by police is shared on the “dark web” to help criminals detect them and avoid surveillance.
If targets of surveillance could spot the cameras, that would also put the investigator or informant wearing them in danger, police argued. As a result, the department would have to stop using the cameras. VanMeter ultimately agreed.
After VanMeter’s ruling, Maharrey decided to stop pursuing the case. He has since moved out of state and did not think continuing would benefit the community, he wrote in a news release Monday.
Although the city has not released details about the 29 cameras owned by the police department, Maharrey wrote that the records he received mentioned a “covert utility box camera” purchased in 2014 and referenced two “street light cameras” already owned by the department.
“I’m disappointed in Judge VanMeter’s decision and I think it could be successfully challenged at the appellate level, but at this point, I really don’t think it’s necessary,” Maharrey said.
Maharrey said his group intends to continue to call for an ordinance that would require detailed policies for use of surveillance technology by the police department.
“You should find it disturbing to know that your police department can stick a camera in a streetlight outside your house,” Maharrey said in his release. “What we don’t know is when and how they use this technology. We have no idea what privacy protections they have in place. We don’t know how they handle the data they gather. We don’t even know if they require warrants. In fact, some of the testimony during my court case indicates they do not.”
This story was originally published July 21, 2020 at 1:22 PM.
