Latest news with #LeeSchmidt
CBS News
08-05-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Cash-strapped Pittsburgh is owed more than $1 million in uncollected bills for police security
Pittsburgh owed more than $1 million in uncollected bills for police security Pittsburgh owed more than $1 million in uncollected bills for police security Pittsburgh owed more than $1 million in uncollected bills for police security Pittsburgh, a city strapped for cash, is owed more than $1 million in uncollected bills for police security. At one point, the city had more than $2 million in uncollected bills, though recent increases in collection efforts have knocked the number in half. In the past two years, Cheerleaders Gentleman's Club has hired Pittsburgh Bureau of Police officers to provide additional security 21 times. The city pays the officers up front and waits for reimbursements. But it is still waiting. To date, Cheerleaders owes the city more than $107,000 in unpaid bills. "We're working with them to collect payment," Pittsburgh Public Safety Director Lee Schmidt said. "We've shut off their service until they're at least caught up and current with us." Cheerleaders had no comment, but the gentleman's club is not alone. The city provided KDKA a list of 505 unpaid invoices from its secondary employment trust fund, which provides businesses and other groups with police security for hire. Until recently, the total of unpaid bills topped more than $2 million. But Schmidt says the city has redoubled its collection efforts and has whittled that down to about $1.2 million. "My assistant director, that's mostly what she's been doing for the past couple of months," Schmidt said. Two years ago, the controller's office conducted an audit of the Police Secondary Employment Program, citing the large amount of unpaid bills. But Schmidt says collections have always been challenging, and there has been turnover in the police staff overseeing the fund. It wasn't until the outgoing Acting Police Chief Christopher Ragland red-flagged the bills about four months ago did the city began its crackdown. "Hopes are ongoing forward we'll have a much better collection rate and ensure that money is flowing into that trust fund," Schmidt said, "in the way it needs to and the way it should." Schmidt says that in the future, a private vendor running the program will take over collection duties from the police. "The city would actually get paid up front and the vendor would be responsible to do the collection," Schmidt said. With new efforts, Schmidt believes that the lion's share of that $1.2 million will be reimbursed in the coming months and that this will never get out of control again.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Yahoo
Flock camera case could have local impact
(WKBN) – A federal lawsuit in Virginia against the Norfolk Police Department could have a far-reaching impact, including here in the Valley. Read next: Township employee resigns amid fund misuse allegations The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia surrounds Norfolk's use of Flock cameras (license plate readers) — specifically 172 of them. 2024.10.21-1-ComplaintDownload The most recent and impactful move so far in the case is that the federal judge recently ruled against Norfolk's motion to dismiss the case and is allowing it to be litigated. There have been other cases brought to court involving the use of Flock cameras, but this one is gaining traction because of the judge's ruling not to dismiss. The lawsuit was filed by Lee Schmidt and Crystal Arrington against the City of Norfolk Police Department and its chief. It contends that their civil rights were violated when their vehicles were recorded on the city's Flock camera system. The lawsuit says that 'unlike a police officer posted at an intersection, the cameras never blink, they never sleep, and they see and remember everything. Every passing car is captured, and its license plate and other features are analyzed using proprietary machine learning programs, like Flock's 'Vehicle Fingerprint.'' It's a detailed history, the lawsuit contends, creating a record where every driver in Norfolk has gone, adding that anyone with access to the database can go back in time and see where a car was on any given day and track its movement for at least the past 30 days, creating a detailed map of the driver's movements. The lawsuit said that no one can escape Norfolk's 172 'unblinking eyes,' and that there are plans to add 65 more of them. The tracking and surveillance that Flock provides, according to the lawsuit, would have taken days of effort, multiple officers and significant resources 10 years ago, but today it is done in just minutes, and the lawsuit contends that there are no 'meaningful' restrictions. The lawsuit says that while Norfolk's policy is to use the information only for law enforcement purposes, it contends every city officer can search the database 'whenever they want for whatever they want' with no advance approval, and without a warrant. The lawsuit says that cameras record for 30 days before the information is deleted, but within those 30 days, video and photos can be downloaded. Also, Flock keeps a centralized database with over one billion license plate reads every month, meaning that even after a driver leaves the city, officers can potentially keep following them in the more than 5,000 communities where Flock currently has cameras, the lawsuit said. The case alleges Fourth Amendment violations by tracking the 'whole of a person's public movements' over at least a 30-day stretch, which is in essence a search without a warrant. Several police departments in the Valley use Flock cameras. Youngstown and Niles have been vocal in public praise for the technology that has helped them in investigations and led to arrests connected to criminal activity. Niles has 30 cameras. The policy for their use is very targeted. The department's manual reads, 'LPR (license plate reader) systems and associated equipment and databases are authorized for official public safety purposes. Misuse of this equipment and associated databases, or data, may be subject to sanctions and/or disciplinary actions.' And any information obtained from the LPRs cannot be discussed outside the scope of police work. Chief Jay Holland said that the cameras' recordings are kept for 30 days and then purged, and the department does not have the ability to change that. In Niles, the policy states that the department has assigned an employee with administrative oversight of the system and has established protocols for access and security involved in the collection and storage of the data. That person also authorizes any request for the LPR system use or data access. Youngstown has 59 cameras with similar polices. Youngstown states that the LPRs' general usage is for things such as locating stolen vehicles, identifying vehicles associated with wanted people and supporting ongoing investigations. It specifically forbids unauthorized use, which would include personal, administrative or non-law enforcement activity. Also, Youngstown's policy requires all users of the LPR to complete training before operation or accessing the data. There are also stopgaps with confirmation between a picture of a license plate and other identifying features. For instance, users must visually confirm the license matches the LPR system alert, including the plate number, state of issuance, and 'other identifying features.' Again, the data is retained for 30 days, unless it is associated with an active investigation. The LPR data can be shared with other law enforcement agencies, but any request for the information from the public must be reviewed by the chief of police or a designee. In Youngstown, routine audits are done of the system and usage. Misuses would prompt an internal affairs investigation. WKBN 27 First News reached out to Flock Safety about the court case, and while they cannot comment on pending litigation, Flock Public Relations Manger Connor Metz said that there is decades of case law showing that LPRs, as limited, point-in-time search, are constitutional under the Fourth Ammendment and has been upheld in appellate courts. 'License plates are issued by the government for the express purpose of identifying vehicles in public places for safety reasons. Courts have persistently found that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a license plate on a vehicle on a public road, and photographing one is not a Fourth Amendment search,' Metz wrote in a response to an inquiry from WKBN 27 First News. Metz added that in jurisdictions where there have been limits put on the use of LPRs, Flock had adjusted its system. 'Flock Safety provides hardware and software tools that help officers gather objective evidence to solve more crimes. In states or individual jurisdictions where legislators have instituted laws governing prohibited uses of LPR or rules around sharing, we enable our system to allow police to comply with these laws. The Virginia case is making its way through federal court with the latest filing dated April 25, dealing with protecting private information during the discovery phase of the litigation. The Warren Police Department did not provide its Flock policy to WKBN 27 First News as of this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Yahoo
Virginia judge rules Flock camera lawsuit may proceed
NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) — A judge ruled Wednesday that a lawsuit about Norfolk's use of license plate readers, known as Flock cameras, will go forward. With more than 172 cameras in Norfolk, the city tried to get the lawsuit dismissed. The Flock cameras don't just read and capture your car's license plate. They also take details of your car's make, model and color, including if your car has a roof rack, bumper sticker or any damage. These images are then stored for 30 days. Gastonia Police plan to add additional cameras to real-time crime center The lawsuit was filed last October by a Norfolk resident. Lee Schmidt and Portsmouth resident Crystal Arrington both are represented by the Institute for Justice. The two say these cameras violate their privacy. 'Our lawsuit alleges that that violates people's Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches. You have an expectation of privacy in the whole of your movements,' said Institute for Justice attorney Michael Soyfer. The judge rejected the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, citing the United States Supreme Court case Carpenter v. United States, a case that states that using cell phone location to track someone's movement is a search that requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. These cameras do not take video or get drivers for speeding or traffic violations. But in 2023, Norfolk Police Chief Mark Talbot stated it has been used to help crime, as This also comes as 24-year-old Andrew Sharrold Williams was sentenced to a year-and-a-half for stealing an SUV that police found using flock cameras in Norfolk. Soyfer said each camera should be thought of as a police officer. 'When you think about it, under current Supreme Court precedent, the court asks, 'What is society's expectation of privacy?' And we can look at history to try to evaluate that,' Soyfer said. 'Historically, no one thought that police would be posted at 172 locations to write down everyone who went by for 30 days at a time.' 10 On Your Side reached out to Norfolk for a statement. It reads: In ruling not to dismiss this case on the pleadings, the court did not address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. The court's decision affords the opportunity to establish through discovery that the plaintiffs' challenge to the city's use of Flock cameras is not grounded in the facts or the law. In Virginia, Flock cameras are not regulated. The House of Delegates passed HB2724 in hopes of changing that in its 2025 regular session. Virginia lawmakers looking to put guardrails on use of automatic license plate readers HB2724 limits the use of Flock cameras by law enforcement agencies to the following: Part of a criminal investigation where there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed Part of an active investigation that relates to a missing or endangered person, human trafficking, receiving notifications related to a missing person, a person with an outstanding warrant, a person associated with human trafficking, a stolen vehicle or a stolen license plate. But Soyfer said that is still not enough. 'The ultimate goal is to stop the operation of this unconstitutional dragnet surveillance system,' Soyfer said. Soyfer said they are now in the discovery phase to get all their facts. They have a pretrial conference set for Feb. 20, which will set the case schedule. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
07-02-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Pittsburgh announces results of 2024-2025 archery deer cull
Hunters removed nearly 200 deer from Pittsburgh parks this past season as part of the city's Deer Management Program. PREVIOUS COVERAGE >>> Program aimed at controlling deer population in Pittsburgh parks set to expand Officials said archers harvested a total of 199 deer from Frick, Riverview, Schenley Higland and Emerald View Parks in the 2024-2025 season. The city started the cull in response to an increase in vehicle-deer crashes and over-eating of native plants. 'In consultation with our partners at the USDA, we have decided to introduce a pilot targeted harvesting program in the hopes of shrinking our deer population,' said Lee Schmidt, Director of Pittsburgh Public Safety. 'We are grateful to the USDA for their continued expertise and guidance as we expand our program to ensure a healthy deer population in Pittsburgh.' 92 of those deer were donated to local food banks. More than 36,000 hundred pounds of venison provided nearly 15,000 meals, Pittsburgh officials said. Zero public safety incidents resulted from the program, officials said. Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW
Yahoo
07-02-2025
- Yahoo
Flock camera lawsuit to proceed in Norfolk
NORFOLK, Va. (WAVY) — A judge ruled Wednesday that a lawsuit about Norfolk's use of license plate readers, known as Flock cameras, will go forward. With more than 172 cameras in Norfolk, the city tried to get the lawsuit dismissed. The Flock cameras don't just read and capture your car's license plate. They also take details of your car's make, model and color, including if your car has a roof rack, bumper sticker or any damage. These images are then stored for 30 days. The lawsuit was filed last October by a Norfolk resident. Lee Schmidt and Portsmouth resident Crystal Arrington both are represented by the Institute for Justice. The two say these cameras violate their privacy. | 'Our lawsuit alleges that that violates people's Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches. You have an expectation of privacy in the whole of your movements,' said Institute for Justice attorney Michael Soyfer. The judge rejected the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, citing the United States Supreme Court case Carpenter v. United States, a case that states that using cell phone location to track someone's movement is a search that requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. These cameras do not take video or get drivers for speeding or traffic violations. But in 2023, Norfolk Police Chief Mark Talbot stated it has been used to help crime, as This also comes as 24-year-old Andrew Sharrold Williams was sentenced to a year-and-a-half for stealing an SUV that police found using flock cameras in Norfolk. Soyfer said each camera should be thought of as a police officer. 'When you think about it, under current Supreme Court precedent, the court asks, 'What is society's expectation of privacy?' And we can look at history to try to evaluate that,' Soyfer said. 'Historically, no one thought that police would be posted at 172 locations to write down everyone who went by for 30 days at a time.' 10 On Your Side reached out to Norfolk for a statement. It reads: In ruling not to dismiss this case on the pleadings, the court did not address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. The court's decision affords the opportunity to establish through discovery that the plaintiffs' challenge to the city's use of Flock cameras is not grounded in the facts or the law. In Virginia, Flock cameras are not regulated. The House of Delegates passed HB2724 in hopes of changing that in its 2025 regular session. Virginia lawmakers looking to put guardrails on use of automatic license plate readers HB2724 limits the use of Flock cameras by law enforcement agencies to the following: Part of a criminal investigation where there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed Part of an active investigation that relates to a missing or endangered person, human trafficking, receiving notifications related to a missing person, a person with an outstanding warrant, a person associated with human trafficking, a stolen vehicle or a stolen license plate. But Soyfer said that is still not enough. 'The ultimate goal is to stop the operation of this unconstitutional dragnet surveillance system,' Soyfer said. Soyfer said they are now in the discovery phase to get all their facts. They have a pretrial conference set for Feb. 20, which will set the case schedule. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
