The hearing for injunctive relief in the matter of NEAL KURK et al. v City of Manchester is taking place today. Having now read all the rather technical pleadings, it’s difficult to predict what may happen.
On the one hand, you have us four intrepid privacy advocates, the petitioners, holding strong that under RSA 236:130, it would be illegal for these surveillance cameras to even have the capability to identify motorists or motor vehicles, since such identification is expressly banned if it “can” occur under the section entitled, “Highway Surveillance Prohibited.”
On the other side, you have the City of Manchester and its police force, who argue they can do what they want (and they usually do–remember the recent tax cap override?). The City makes several technical arguments, including that some of us lack standing under Duncan, a bad court case that lead to the successful Constitutional Amendment which passed by a whopping 83% margin last fall to restore taxpayer standing. They also seem to make the argument that we should just “trust them” to use the cameras in lawful ways. Color me skeptical.
You can read more about the case here:
Manchester Ink Link
Follow me on Facebook to stay up-to-date on today’s developments.