Whether defendant-city complied with a city ordinance in contracting for surveillance technology; Whether the ordinance applied to the contracts; “Previously approved”; Requirement for public posting of a Surveillance Technology Specification Report (STSR); Relief for violation of the ordinance; Standing; Lansing Sch Educ Ass’n v Lansing Bd of Educ; Mootness; Laches; Community Input Over Government Surveillance Ordinance (CIOGS Ordinance); Detroit Police Department (DPD)

The court held that the trial court erred in part when it granted defendants summary disposition on plaintiffs’ claim that defendants violated a city ordinance (the CIOGS Ordinance) in contracting for surveillance technology. The technology is used to identify the location of gunshots in certain precincts. The Ordinance “provides specific requirements for a City department seeking to procure surveillance technology.” Among them is that the department must publicly release a STSR. This case arose from the DPD’s plans to extend the time period for its contract for the technology (the Extension Contract) and to expand its use (the Expansion Contract). Plaintiffs asserted that defendants violated the CIOGS Ordinance by (1) failing “to post an STSR at least 14 days before all required hearings and meetings” and (2) providing inadequate information in the STSR. The court first held that plaintiffs had standing. “Given the inherent nature of the technology—i.e., constant surveillance over a specified geographical area—these individual plaintiffs have been personally subject to the ShotSpotter surveillance, whereas residents in other parts of the City have not.” It then considered whether the Ordinance applied to the contracts at issue, focusing on the Ordinance phrase “previously approved.” Applying a “fair reading” standard, the court held that the better reading of the phrase was “‘a previous approval made in accordance with the CIOGS Ordinance.’” Thus, it found that both contracts were subject to the Ordinance’s approval process. The “facts were undisputed that defendants failed to comply with their requirements to post the STSR before all the relevant hearings and meetings.” As a result, the trial court erred in granting them summary disposition on this claim. But it rejected plaintiffs’ other claim, concluding while the STSR “was untimely posted, it otherwise met the requirements of the CIOGS Ordinance.” Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition on this claim. The “trial court did not address plaintiffs’ specific requests for relief” given that it granted defendants summary disposition, and the court concluded “the form of relief to which plaintiffs are entitled, if any, is a question best left to the trial court in the first instance.” The trial court also did not “address defendants’ affirmative defenses of mootness and laches. These and any other pertinent matters” were left to the trial court on remand. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.