At least one citizen finds the Town of Stevensville’s proposed surveillance system for Lewis and Clark Park a potential violation of a person’s right to privacy. He bases his opinion on the recorded intent of the legislators who set the right to privacy in the Montana Constitution.
Former Mayor Gene Mim Mack told the Stevensville Town Council at its last meeting that he had concerns about the proposed surveillance system, which could include placement of up to 10 cameras throughout Lewis and Clark Park and perhaps some in Father Ravalli Park.
Mim Mack said that, as the owner of a downtown building, he had personal experience over vandalism and shared those concerns with everyone. But even after two episodes involving broken storefront windows, he said, he chose not to put up bars on his windows as the Chief of Police had recommended, or even cameras, because he didn’t think it was appropriate.
“I think people want to feel secure, but I don’t think they want to feel like they are being watched,” he said.
Mim Mack said that the issue came up a few times while he served as mayor but, after talking it over with the Chief of Police and the Council at the time, “it was decided it was a road that we didn’t want to go down.” He said the concerns about occasional vandalism and drug dealing in town did not rise to the level of meeting the state’s criteria for showing a “compelling state interest.”
The right to privacy gets constitutional protection in Article II, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution. “The right to privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed.” Mim Mack said it was only one sentence, but it was an important one. To unpack the meaning of it, he noted some of the comments made at the constitutional convention voicing clear opposition to any form of electronic surveillance of Montana citizens. He quotes from the records of the delegates:
“Today, with wiretaps, electronic and bugging devices, photo surveillance equipment and computerized data banks, a person’s privacy can be invaded without his knowledge and the information so gained can be misused in the most insidious ways. It isn’t only a careless government that has this power to pry; political organizations, private information gathering firms, and even an individual can now snoop more easily and more effectively than ever before. We certainly hope that such snooping is not as widespread as some persons would have us believe, but with technology easily available and becoming more refined all the time, prudent safeguards against the misuse of such technology are needed. Some may urge and argue that this is a legislative, not a constitutional issue. We think the right to privacy is like a number of other inalienable rights; a carefully worded constitutional article reaffirming this right is desirable.
“We at the committee felt very strongly that the people of Montana should be protected as much as possible against eavesdropping, electronic surveillance, and such type activities. [We] found that the citizens of Montana were very suspicious of such type of activity” stated Delegate Campbell.
Delegate Dahood added to that, “First of all, we agreed that we would go along with an amendment that would prohibit electronic surveillance in the State of Montana. After listening to testimony, after examining briefs that were submitted to us, after analyzing the situation, it is inconceivable to any of us that there would ever exist a situation in the state of Montana where electronic surveillance could be justified.”
Mim Mack said, “Not only were the delegates wary of existing technology of this type, but they recognized that this sort of technology would continue to be refined and would become more widespread and easily available… Moreover, it is clear that, in the delegate’s view, the use of this sort of technology should be justified only in the most serious of situations, involving heinous crimes where it is necessary to ‘risk the right of individual privacy because there is a greater purpose to be served’.”
According to Mim Mack, there are three things to consider. One, is there a subjective expectation of privacy. Number two, whether the public sees the expectation as “objectively reasonable.” And three, the reasons for the state intrusion.
He said that neither the sporadic acts of vandalism nor the drug dealing, which have actually been a problem in Stevensville for a long time, meet the constitutional requirement of “compelling state interest.”
“Neither, in and of themselves, justify the level of surveillance that’s being proposed,” he said. “As angry as we are over the vandalism and drug dealing in town, the use of 24/7 constant surveillance with multiple cameras covering the entire park will not satisfy the subjective expectation of privacy that normal citizens might have. I think our response should be measured in this case.” He told the Council members to “keep the constitutional provisions in mind” when considering the issue and urged them to hold a bonafide public hearing to seek public input on the issue.
In the council comment portion of the meeting, Councilmember Raymond Smith reported that they were in the process of getting a second bid on installing the security system. He said they were also looking into privacy issues.
“As I understand it,” he said, “once you walk out your front door, you don’t have any expectations of privacy. You are filmed by the banks, the Post Offices, and everybody as you travel around town. There are cameras on the exterior of markets everywhere.”
“In terms of expectations,” said Smith, “let’s just say there’s a gray area.” He said the matter would be back before the Council as the process of designing the system progresses.
“We are trying to figure it out,” he said.
However, Smith’s involvement in the project is now in question, as he has since submitted his resignation from the council.