Thank you.

I will say to everybody in the room, if you're sensing a lot of nervous energy from me, it's my first time chairing a committee meeting, so apologies in advance for everything I get wrong.

And to my colleagues, please correct me if I'm doing something illegal.

With that, we will proceed directly to today's agenda.

We have two items before us, both relate to the topic of changing technology use in our public safety arena.

We are delighted to have two speakers with us today.

And to kick things off, I would like to invite Deputy Chief Kurt Holstrom of the St.

Paul Police Department to present on SUPD and public safety technology.

Item number one is SR twenty six-132.

Excellent.

And I'm sorry, before you get started, I will just note for my colleagues.

We'll have 30 minutes for each of our presentations.

So I will do my best to track as those come up.

Ready?

Good afternoon, Chair, Council members, and community members.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Saint Paul Police Department's use of public safety technology and more importantly, the safeguards that govern in its use.

People have a right to ask, ask how these tools are used, who has access to them, how the information is protected, and what prevents its misuse.

Those questions are not obstacles to this discussion.

They are a reason for this discussion, and why we're here today.

Technology does not supersede, nor does it replace constitutional policing.

Technology must operate inside constitutional policing.

Throughout this presentation, you will hear a reoccurring theme: lawful purpose, limited use, trained operators, documented actions, audibility, public transparency, and corrective action when necessary.

When we discuss drones and our doctor drone program, it's important to understand what the program is and what it is not.

It's designed to help train pilots respond more quickly on a high priority call for service.

A drone can often arrive in minutes and provide information that helps officers make safer, more informed decisions before arriving on scene.

However, faster response does not mean lower standards.

Minnesota law, federal aviation regulations, department policy, training requirements, flight logs, audit controls, and reporting requirements all remain in place.

These drones are not deployed for general surveillance.

Their use must be lawful, documented, and reviewable.

You will also hear about license plate reading technology.

SPPD LPR use is only for specific public safety, and investigative purposes such as locating missing persons, recovering stolen vehicles, supporting criminal investigations, and identifying wanted vehicles.

SPPD LPR technology does not identify drivers, it does not use facial recognition, it is not used to issue speeding tickets or red light citations.

Queries require trained and authorized users, a documented reason and a case number.

Access is logged, reviewed, and auditable.

Again, our answer is not trust the technology.

Our answer is constitutional policing, lawful purpose, documented use, audits, transparency, and accountability.

A key component of that accountability is independent review, public reporting, audit requirements, data practices controls, compliance reviews, retention requirements, and access controls are designed to ensure that these systems can be examined, verified, and evaluated.

Trust should be supported by evidence, not assumptions.

You will hear about a real-time information center, or Arctic is what we call it.

Arctic officers provide real-time information, situational awareness during active incidents.

Their role is to improve officer and community safety, reduce uncertainty, and to provide actionable information during rapidly deploying events.

Arctic operates under the same legal policy training, documentation, and audit requirements that govern technologies it uses.

Finally, we will share examples where these tools have helped already to locate missing persons, interview and violent incidents, identify suspects, in serious crimes, respond to public safety threats, and assist people in crisis.

The common threat in each example is not a broad monitoring system.

It is a specific public safety purpose, a documented deployment and a defined legal basis for its use.

Public safety and constitutional rights are not competing values.

They must exist together.

The standard we apply is simple.

If a technology cannot be used lawfully, transparently and accountably, we should not be using it.

As we move through this presentation, we will welcome questions and scrutiny, as that is part of accountability.

We have built time for questions and discussion during and at the end of our presentation, which covers all of the technologies and controls I have just briefly mentioned.

Some of your questions may be answered in an upcoming section, and we will be more than willing to return at a later time if additional information is needed from us.

Our commitment to you and the community of St.

Paul is we will always be lawful, purposeful, limited use, trained operators, documented actions, audit, public transparency, and corrective action when necessary.

Safety and constitutional rights go together.

And make sure we're at the right point of our PowerPoint.

So thank you, Council members, Council Chair, quick agenda.

I'm going to give a purpose and overview for the technology that we're utilizing, go over some guardrails, constitutional protections, our accountability, and our transparency that we have in place, talk about our dock drone program, which we recently initiated, license break recognition in the Arctic that Deputy Chief Halston referred to, and examples of usage and our community commitment.

The third page of the slide shows a majority of the technology that we are using in the field today.

It's important to acknowledge, as the chief said, not only does this help with investigative investigations and improve situation awareness, every use is subject to those constitutional standards.