Aldermen are backing an ordinance which would allow police to continue using ShotSpotter in wards that choose to keep it.
In what could constitute a major rebuke of Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson, a large number of aldermen appear supportive of an ordinance that would call on Johnson to continue utilizing the gunshot-detection technology ShotSpotter in at least some of the city’s wards.
On Monday, Chicago’s Committee on Police and Fire supported the ordinance by South Side alderman David Moore, which would allow police to continue using ShotSpotter in wards that choose to keep it. It is expected to be considered by the full city council later this month.
Aldermen who support continuing with ShotSpotter described it as a “tool to solve crime and save lives,” and said the city should keep it “by all means necessary.”
“Unfortunately, the concept of ShotSpotter is ideal for our city because, unfortunately, the city of Chicago is plagued with probably the most shots fired on a daily basis than anywhere else in the country,” alderman Anthony Napolitano, a former police officer and firefighter, said on Monday. “To me, it’s a tool. It’s a tool that we can use to help neighborhoods that are plagued with this situation. It’s not in my neighborhood, but I’m 1,000 percent for it in anyone’s neighborhood where it could possibly save a life.”
The move comes a little over a month after Johnson announced he was getting rid of ShotSpotter in September, after Chicago hosts the Democratic National Convention. Opponents say he made the move to appease the progressive activists who helped elect him last year.
The far-left activists who tend to be among the loudest critics of ShotSpotter and other crime-fighting technology claim that it is too expensive, that it can confuse fireworks and other loud noises for gunshots, and that the technology itself is “racist,” because it is disproportionately deployed in minority communities most plagued by shootings.
Moore said the decision to stop using ShotSpotter should have been made in collaboration with the city council. He called for Chicago police, in the coming months, to collect more data on the number of ShotSpotter alerts with no corresponding 911 calls, the number of times police render aid to shooting victims where no one called 911, on the number of shell casings and weapons recovered because of ShotSpotter, and the number of alerts that lead to arrests.
Moore was also critical of the decision to get rid of the technology only after the Democratic convention. “If it’s working for the DNC, then it needs to work for the constituents here in the city of Chicago,” he said.
More than a dozen other aldermen took turns speaking in favor of Moore’s proposal.
“I support ShotSpotter because I know what it does to help keep my community safe,” said alderwoman Monique Scott, who added that it was “disheartening” that Johnson was making choices about the technology without the council’s support.
Alderwoman Pat Dowell said that over the weekend three people were shot in an early morning shooting in a section of her ward with no nearby homes — only a school, a church, and a sausage factory. “The only way that the police responded to that was because a ShotSpotter alert alerted them to the three people who had been shot,” she said.
A police spokesman at the meeting said that most of the gunfire that ShotSpotter alerts officers to isn’t reported through corresponding 911 calls. Since January 1, 2021, authorities have rendered aid to more than 450 people after being alerted to gunfire by ShotSpotter, he said.
Alderman Raymond Lopez said most of the opponents of ShotSpotter aren’t “the least bit interested” in catching criminals. If the city does get rid of ShotSpotter in September, “the lives that will be lost” will be “on the hands of those who say ‘No’” to the tool, he said.
Alderman Peter Chico, a police officer who has utilized ShotSpotter in patrol and in intelligence work, said he is confident that ShotSpotter, in conjunction with other tools, is saving lives.
“We know we’re saving lives because we are developing the intelligence, we are acting upon it, and we’re sending our patrol officers where we need to be,” he said. “Look, we’re down thousands of officers that we’re not getting back. We have to look at other ways to save lives. We have to look at other ways to develop intelligence. And this is a key component of that.”
A few aldermen expressed some lingering concerns about the technology.
Alderwoman Leni Manaa-Hoppenworth said she had concerns about “false arrests” stemming from ShotSpotter alerts. “We want to be sure we’re not falsely accusing or racially profiling because of technology that we’re using,” she said.
Alderman Andre Vazquez Jr. said that city leaders have historically done a poor job of articulating what they expect technology, including ShotSpotter, to do. “Because we’ve never articulated what we want to get out of software, we end up just throwing money at something without actually getting results,” he said.
Some ShotSpotter opponents have suggested the technology is not a worthwhile investment because most of its alerts don’t result in arrests. But several aldermen said on Monday that ShotSpotter should be viewed first and foremost as a life-saving tool. The Chicago Police Department has reported that ShotSpotter has helped to save at least 125 lives in the city.
“Data illustrates that residents are receiving life-saving care because of ShotSpotter technology alerts,” said alderwoman Samantha Nugent.
If the council approves Moore’s measure, it’s unclear what the ramifications will be, because it is the mayor, not local aldermen, who controls procurement, according to a report in the Chicago Sun-Times. “We’ve never done anything like this before,” alderman Brian Hopkins, a committee chair, told the paper.
More than 150 cities now use ShotSpotter, which identifies the location of gunshots through triangulation, utilizing a series of microphones in its coverage area. Trained acoustic experts review the audio before an alert is sent, typically in less than a minute. The system has an accuracy rate of over 97 percent for “detecting, classifying, and publishing gunfire incidents,” according to one audit.
After testing the technology, Chicago agreed to a $33 million, three-year contract in 2018 to cover twelve districts and over 100 miles. It then extended the contract.