The Safety and Licensing Committee is meeting 02/28/2024 at 5:30PM.
Their action items consist of three alcohol license applications.
The item of most interest and the one I would expect to take up the most amount of time is an information item about a proposed ordinance change that is presumably being brought forward as an information item prior to being placed as an action item on a future agenda. The Police Department is requesting the creation of a new ordinance requiring all “Class B” alcohol establishments “to have operable security cameras at customer entrances and exits and to produce requested footage to law enforcement timely.”
The memo to the committee on the proposed ordinance argues that it would enhance safety by providing a deterrent in the form of the newly required cameras, providing crucial evidence, and allowing establishments to monitor patrons and employees.
It points to three incidents in which cameras within license premises were “crucial to APD’s ability to clear major case investigations,” the 01/03/2021 shooting inside Brau Haus, the 12/24/2024 shooting in the 100 block of S. Walnut Avenue, and a disturbance at Grumpy’s Pub on 02/18/2024.
The proposed ordinance includes requirements that establishments that serve alcohol shall install surveillance cameras that produce retrievable video files that can be permanently saved and viewed, the cameras must be active 24 hours a day, the location of the cameras shall be subject to review by the Appleton Police Department which will also have the authority to require the change of position of any camera, and any licensed establishment shall make available and provide surveillance recording materials to the Appleton Police Department within 8 hours of any request. Failure to abide by these requirements will result in alcohol license demerits.
[An initial reading of this proposed ordinance results in several concerns. Essentially, it seems as if the Appleton Police Department is attempting to, as a requirement of their licensure, turn bars and restaurants that serve alcohol into a private surveillance arm of the Police Department. The police would exercise final control over the placement of cameras on these private properties which seems dubious. The police would also be able to compel establishments to turn over any records from those cameras within 8 hours whether or not the owner wants to turn them over and whether or not the Police Department has obtained a warrant, which also seems dubious. These private businesses will all be required to foot the cost of this new equipment on their own even though this ordinance is explicitly being proposed for the benefit and use of the Police Department, a government entity, which, again, seems not only dubious but also self-serving.
I am deeply curious what the laws are surrounding the government compelling private entities to serve as an arm of the police. The Police Department must suspect that there are legally dubious aspects to this proposed ordinance because they even include a severability clause in the ordinance that states, “If any portion of this section is deemed invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction or administrative agency with proper authority, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this section.”
Additionally, one wonders if this would simply be a stepping stone to compelling other private businesses and entities to install security cameras at the behest of the Police Department. If the government can require private businesses that serve alcohol to install security cameras and provide the recordings of those video cameras to the police merely upon demand for any reason or no reason at all, what would prevent them from requiring any number of other private businesses to do the same, or apartment managers, or homeowners for that matter? What is the limiting principle in this situation?]
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1147939&GUID=221E9008-B6FE-4479-B5DD-1E54225D1D57
Be the first to reply