MEMORANDUM
TO: PAC FROM: Yun Zhou, Sergeant of Police
OPD, Criminal Investigation Division
SUBJECT: Forensic Logic CopLink /
CrimeTracer System – 2024
Annual Report
DATE: May 12, 2025
Background
Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) 9.64.040: Surveillance Technology “Oversight following City Council approval” requires that for each approved surveillance technology item, City staff must present a written annual surveillance report for Privacy Advisory Commission (PAC). After review by the PAC, City staff shall submit the annual surveillance report to the City Council. The PAC shall recommend to the City Council that:
• The benefits to the community of the surveillance technology outweigh the costs and that civil liberties and civil rights are safeguarded.
• That use of the surveillance technology cease; or
• Propose modifications to the corresponding surveillance use policy that will resolve the concerns.
Oakland Police Department (OPD) Department General Order (DGO) I-24: Forensic Logic CopLink / LEAP, as well as OMC 9.64.040 together require that OPD provide an annual report to the Chief of Police, the PAC, and Public Safety Committee. The information provided below is compliant with these annual report requirements.
DGO I-24 explains that authorized members may use CopLink for the purpose of searching the system in the service of conducting criminal investigations, such as apprehending subjects, locating and returning stolen property, as well as in the protection of the law enforcement officers encountering the individuals described in the system. Authorized purposes also include other appropriate OPD organizational investigations (e.g., internal affairs, missing persons, and use of force investigations).
In 2023, CrimeTracer was introduced as the next iteration of CopLink. Forensic Logic also rebranded to SoundThinking. The product being used by OPD is now called SoundThinking CrimeTracer. OPD began migrating its user accounts in August of 2023 from CopLink to CrimeTracer. Functionally, it is the same product and consists of the same features and security.
The only change made to the product is the name, logo and color scheme. Since the 2023 Annual Report, OPD has referred to the product as CrimeTracer.
Captain Nicholas Calonge, Criminal Investigation Division Commander, was the Program Coordinator for 2024.
A. A description of how the surveillance technology was used, including the type and quantity of data gathered or analyzed by the technology
CrimeTracer search technology is used regularly by both OPD sworn field / patrol personnel and command staff. Search parameters include the following criteria which are submitted to a search engine where data originating from law enforcement records, calls for service, field interviews, arrest/booking records and citations are stored:
• License plate numbers
• Persons of interest
• Locations
• Vehicle descriptions
• Incident numbers
• Offense descriptions/penal codes
• Geographic regions (e.g., Police Beats or Police Areas)
Data is stored in an FBI Criminal Justice Information Service (CJIS) compliant repository in the Microsoft Azure GovCloud.
In 2024, there were a total of 423 users accounts who conducted Forensic Logic searches, for a total of 204,750 separate queries. Table below breaks down this search data by month and by distinct user and total searches.
Table 1: OPD CrimeTracer Searches; by Distinct User and Search Totals – 2024
CrimeTracer
Search Type January February March April May June
Number of OPD
distinct users in
each month
174 234 258 255 263 276
Number of searches
conducted 15,068 15,838 17,104 17,386 20,604 18,278
Search Type July August September October November December Number of OPD
distinct users in
each month
282 268 253 214 196 200
Number of searches
conducted 19,756 19,443 18,521 16,646 12,563 13,543
B. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with outside entities, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, under what legal standard(s) the information was disclosed, and the justif ication for the disclosure(s):
Data searched with the CrimeTracer system is entirely acquired from incident reports, citations, calls for service and field interviews that have already been recorded in originating Records Management Systems, Computer Aided Dispatch Systems, and Mobile Field Reporting Systems – from both OPD systems as well as from other law enforcement agency systems (other SoundThinking client agencies). The data is collected from OPD systems at least once every 24 hours; once the data is collected and resides in the SoundThinking
cloud repository, it is made available to agencies subscribing to the service who are permitted by their agency command staff to access CJIS information.
CrimeTracer does not keep statistics on who searched and viewed the data shared, but the system can be audited for a specific search.
Data sourced from the Oakland Police Department cannot be accessed by US DHS ICE nor US DHS CBP staff. Some federal agencies are using CrimeTracer with a limited licensing, meaning not every agents in the agency have access to CrimeTracer but the logins are assigned to various Federal Agents. These agencies are FBI, ATF, DEA, USPS, US Marshal and Secret Service.
Beyond federal access, CrimeTracer data is shared regionally with partner law enforcement agencies. Recipients include police departments, sheriff’s offices, and state agencies across the following jurisdictions:
Los Angeles County, and agencies across Orange, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties
Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito counties, as well as agencies across San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, San Diego, and Fresno counties
State of Tennessee
State of Massachusetts
Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai counties in Arizona
Greater Kansas City region
Fulton and Cobb counties, Georgia
West and Central Oregon agencies
Spokane County, Washington
Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County, Nevada
El Paso and Houston, Texas
C. Where applicable, a breakdown of what physical objects the surveillance technology hardware was installed upon; using general descriptive terms so as not to reveal the specific location of such hardware; for surveillance technology software, a breakdown of what data sources the surveillance technology was applied to
The CrimeTracer service is a web portal accessible by authorized OPD users on OPD computers with an appropriate user-id and password (criteria for both defined by FBI CJIS Security Addendum). OPD data sources that provide data accessible to the search tool include the following:
• Arrest records
• Field contacts
• Incident reports
• Service calls
• ShotSpotter Activations
• Stop Data reports
• Traffic Accident reports
D. Where applicable, a breakdown of where the surveillance technology was deployed geographically, by each police area in the relevant year
Not applicable. The technology is a web portal that is accessible to computers on the OPD network.
E. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, and an analysis of the technology's adopted use policy and whether it is adequate in protecting civil rights and civil liberties. The analysis shall also identify the race of each person that was subject to the technology’s use. The P AC may waive this requirement upon making a determination that the probative value in gathering this information to evaluate the technology’s impact on privacy interests is outweighed by the City’s administrative burden in collecting or verifying this information and the potential greater invasiveness in capturing such data. If the PAC makes such a determination, written findings in support of the determination shall be included in the annual report submitted for City Council review.
No community complaints or concerns were communicated to staff in 2024.
OPD is not able to provide the race of each person connected to each query. The technology is intended as a search engine of records (section C), not all queries would contain the race data of the person subject to the technology’s use. OPD would have to individually evaluate tens of thousands of searches to provide the requested race data. Staff recommends the PAC makes the determination that the probative value in gathering this information to evaluate the technology’s impact on privacy interests is outweighed by the City’s administrative burden in collecting or verifying this information.
F. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations or potential violations of the Surveillance Use Policy, and any actions taken in response unless the release of such information is prohibited by law, including but not limited to confidential personnel file information
No internal audit was conducted on CrimeTracer in 2024.
Staff was not made aware of any criminal or administrative investigation pertaining to the misuse of the technology in 2024.
G. Information about any data breaches or other unauthorized access to the data collected by the surveillance technology, including information about the scope of the breach and the actions taken in response
There were no identifiable data breaches or known unauthorized access during 2024.
H. Information, including c ase examples, that helps the community assess whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purposes:
Homicide Case Examples
During the investigation of a homicide in the first quarter of 2024, the investigator searched CrimeTracer for prior incident reports involving the victim. One report detailed a recent argument involving the victim and another individual. A further search of field contact data showed the same individual had been contacted in the vicinity of the homicide scene days prior. This individual was later identified as the suspect and arrested.
During the investigation of a homicide in the third quarter of 2024, officers recovered a vehicle description from a witness. A CrimeTracer search of traffic accident reports found a recent collision involving a matching vehicle. The listed driver had prior arrests for firearm- related offenses. Further searches linked the driver to the scene, and the individual later identified as the homicide suspect.
Shooting Case Example
During the investigation of a shooting in the second quarter of 2024, the investigator reviewed prior ShotSpotter activations near the scene. A CrimeTracer search of field contacts within the activation radius showed an individual stopped minutes after a prior incident. That individual matched the description of the suspect provided by a witness. A review of prior arrests confirmed a history of gun-related charges. This information assisted in proving this individual to be the shooting suspect.
Burglary Case Examples
During the investigation of a residential burglary in the second quarter of 2024, officers identified a unique item stolen from the scene. A search in CrimeTracer showed a recent field contact where the same item was described in the narrative in the possession of a particular individual. Investigators followed up and later arrested the individual for the burglary.
Robbery Case Example
In the first quarter of 2024, patrol officers responded to a robbery where the suspect fled in a vehicle. The license plate was provided by a witness. A CrimeTracer search located a recent contact report involving the vehicle. One of the listed occupants had multiple prior arrests for robbery and was wearing clothing matching the description given by the victim. That individual was eventually arrested for the robbery.
I. Statistics and information about public records act requests regarding the relevant subject surveillance technology, including response rates
There are no existing or newly opened public records requests relating to the technology.
J. Total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source of funding will fund the technology in the coming year
K. Any requested modifications to the Surveillance Use Policy and a detailed basis for the request
No requests for changes at this time.