The city of Chicago settled a lawsuit Friday that claimed police used the ShotSpotter gunshot-detection system as a pretext for unlawful stops — even as Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration considers bringing the technology back.
The city settled the case for $90,000, according to city Law Department spokesperson Kristen Cabanban. However, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said a concession from the city was equally important as the monetary compensation..
“We were able to get the city to agree that a ShotSpotter alert does not give police justification to stop or pat down someone who happens to be near the location of the alert,” said Daniel Massoglia, director of the civil rights clinic at First Defense Legal Aid.
“I think that will be huge for many, many Chicago residents because what we saw when ShotSpotter was in operation, we saw repeatedly police stops that violated the Fourth Amendment.”
Capt. Steven Sesso operates the Shotspotter system at the Harrison district on the West Side in 2017.
Frank Main/Sun-Times file
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in July 2022, was brought by Daniel Ortiz and Derick Scruggs and named five Chicago police officers, along with the city.
Ortiz was outside a Schorsch Village laundromat when he was handcuffed, frisked and ultimately arrested on drug charges after two police officers responded to a ShotSpotter alert.
The officers, Harsimran Powar and Michael Matias, searched Ortiz’s car and found marijuana and a bottle of prescription drugs before taking him into custody and impounding his car. The charges against Ortiz, then 36, were dropped the next day, according to the lawsuit.
Scruggs was working as a security guard at an AutoZone in Englewood when he was arrested by officers responding to a ShotSpotter alert, according to the lawsuit.
After questioning and searching Scruggs, Officers Fidel Legorreta and Theodore Andrews Jr. let him go, the suit states. However, they returned the next day and arrested Scruggs for a violation related to his security guard paperwork.
Those charges were dropped two months later. But by that time, Scruggs had lost his job and was unable to work as a security guard because of the arrest, according to the suit.
ShotSpotter has been controversial for years, with some alleging the technology is faulty and unfairly targets minority neighborhoods.
A 2021 report by the city’s inspector general’s office was critical of the technology, finding that “CPD responses to ShotSpotter alerts can seldom be shown to lead to investigatory stops which might have investigative value and rarely produce evidence of a gun-related crime.”
Johnson campaigned on getting rid of ShotSpotter and has referred to the technology as “a walkie-talkie on a pole” and a waste of taxpayer money. He made good on his campaign promise when he let the ShotSpotter contract lapse in September 2024, but his administration has since opened up bidding on a new contract for gunshot-detection technology.
Chicago police Supt. Larry Snelling and Mayor Brandon Johnson in 2023. Johnson campaigned on getting rid of ShotSpotter and has referred to the technology as “a walkie-talkie on a pole” and a waste of taxpayer money.
Pat Nabong/Sun-Times file
Eight firms, including ShotSpotter’s parent company, SoundThinking, have submitted bids.
In an earnings call this week, SoundThinking officials reported recent losses but said they were pursuing “potential new contracts, including a significant opportunity in Chicago.”
“While no formal decision has been made, we are entering the next phase with growing confidence and a strong belief that our technology is unmatched and aligned with the city of Chicago stated needs,” SoundThinking CEO Ralph Clark told investors, referring to the ongoing procurement process.
ShotSpotter and its parent company weren’t named in the lawsuit, but Massoglia said his firm will consider bringing a suit again if the city activates another gunshot-detection system.
“I can say that our lawsuit focused on a challenge to the way the city of Chicago used ShotSpotter,” Massoglia said. “The way it was deployed in a racially disparate way. The settlement doesn’t prevent us from bringing another lawsuit challenging Chicago police surveillance. We’ll be watching closely.”
