Institute for Justice Sounds Alarm on Smithtown Surveillance

ARLINGTON, Va.—Today, the Institute for Justice (IJ), a national public interest law firm, is warning residents of Smithtown, New York, that the town appears to have virtually no safeguards governing its new 250-camera surveillance network.  

“We asked Smithtown for documents to answer a straightforward question: How will the Town protect residents’ civil liberties under this system? Months later, we still have no answer,” said IJ Managing Attorney William Maurer, who sent a records request to the town earlier this year. “The most likely explanation is that the rules don’t exist, which should worry people as much as the cameras themselves.” 

Smithtown announced its “Public Safety Command Center” in January. More than 250 cameras now watch town parks, marinas, open spaces, and municipal buildings, with live feeds on dispatchers’ screens around the clock. Automated license plate readers photograph and log every vehicle that passes. Motion sensors trigger automatic alerts. Dispatchers can lock and unlock doors at town facilities by remote control.  

IJ filed a five-page Freedom of Information Law request seeking the town’s use policies, data retention policies, access logs, and data-sharing agreements for the system. In response, the town produced a vague policy manual lacking specific guidelines, some procurement paperwork, and several pages of contract boilerplate.  

“The Town has disclosed no concrete data retention policy, no use policy, no access controls, no prohibition on data sharing with outside agencies (including ICE or federal law enforcement), and no public oversight mechanism,” Maurer said. “There was no town board resolution on the record, no public hearing and no vote. The Town announced the system after it was already built. With no specific policies, no public oversight, and no transparency, Smithtown’s surveillance system appears wide open to abuse.” 

More than 140 communities nationwide have canceled their surveillance contracts after seeing firsthand how easily the technology can be abused. IJ and other organizations have filed lawsuits in several cities challenging dragnet surveillance on Fourth Amendment grounds.  

“Police have used similar surveillance technologies to stalk ex-girlfriends, track their critics, and erroneously detain innocent people,” Maurer said. “Clear, enforceable rules are the only thing standing between a surveillance database and that kind of abuse. Smithtown hasn’t shown us any. When the government has over 200 cameras watching residents, drivers, and visitors, that is simply not good enough.” 

The Institute for Justice has litigated Fourth Amendment cases nationwide, including challenges to warrantless drone surveillance and license plate reader networks.  

IJ wants to hear from Smithtown residents. Anyone who lives, works, or drives in Smithtown and is concerned about being tracked can reach IJ here: https://ij.org/case-intake/smithtown-new-york-traffic-cameras/