Article Originally Published Here
Community members, students, and officials gathered on November 14, 2024, in Springfield, Massachusetts, to discuss police access to school security cameras amid growing concerns about privacy and accountability. The meeting aimed to revisit a 2021 memorandum of understanding (MoU) outlining how and when Springfield Police can access surveillance feeds from local schools.
Reviewing the Current Policy on School Security Cameras
Under the existing MoU, police can access exterior school cameras at any time for law enforcement or investigative purposes. Access to interior cameras, however, requires stricter conditions. In non-emergency situations, officers must obtain prior written approval from the Springfield Public Schools (SPS) Safety and Security Office.
READ: Texas Bill Proposes Armed Drones and Increased School Security Funding
In emergencies such as active shooter incidents, the Springfield Police Department’s Video Analyst team and Real Time Crime Analysis staff can access live camera feeds, with a requirement to notify SPS as soon as possible.
Since 2021, interior cameras have been accessed only eight times—seven involving prank “swatting” calls and one legitimate security incident in March 2024, when a gun was discharged at the High School of Science and Technology. The live feed helped police determine the suspect had left the building, preventing an unnecessary lockdown.
Community Concerns
Despite these safeguards, concerns persist. Students like Davian Pagan, a 17-year-old organizer from the Pioneer Valley Project, criticized the policy for lacking transparency and adequate oversight. He argued that live camera access without community-informed checks and balances risks turning surveillance into routine monitoring.
“We are here today to talk about a policy that is rooted in a lack of transparency, a lack of trust, and a lack of accountability,” Pagan stated.
He cited past incidents, including a 2019 case where a police officer allegedly assaulted a student at Commerce High School, as reasons for student distrust.
Clarifying the MoU and Moving Forward
Springfield Police Superintendent Larry Akers reassured attendees that police only access cameras during life-threatening events. “We don’t care what you do during the day unless someone is trying to hurt you—that’s when we watch the cameras,” Akers said.
SPS Director of Safety and Security Adam Fenn emphasized that camera feeds are only accessible to authorized Real Time Crime Analysis civilian staff, and every access attempt is logged. The system lacks recording capabilities, ensuring that feeds are not archived.
School Committee member LaTonia Monroe Naylor, chair of the Legislative & Contracts subcommittee, agreed that the current MoU needs clearer language. She acknowledged that the original agreement was rushed through approval with little public consultation.
To improve the policy, the school district has delayed a vote on the revised MoU until January 2025 to allow further community engagement. A newly hired consulting firm will help ensure that the updated agreement explicitly limits police access to emergency situations and clarifies that the policy does not allow continuous surveillance.
“We want to make sure the new policy reflects what the community is asking for and that its language clearly defines when police can access the feeds,” Monroe-Naylor concluded.
