Seattle City Council Passes Bills Limiting Immigration Inquiries, Surveillance Use

In a unanimous vote on March 31, the Seattle City Council passed a bill that aligns the City Municipal Code with state law to limit when Seattle Police Department (SPD) officers can make inquiries into a person's immigration status. The council also voted unanimously to impose a 60-day pause on data collection if surveillance technology can be used for civil immigration enforcement and/or threatens a citizen's access to reproductive justice or gender-affirming care.

Meanwhile, people speaking during public comment expressed unhappiness with the council, asking it to go further and turn off all SPD closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras and Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs).

"[Mayor] Katie Wilson refused to shut [the cameras] down," one person said. "The City Council also has the power to shut down the cameras, yet they have not."

Immigration Inquiry Bill

Councilmember Eddie Lin, the sponsor of the immigration inquiry legislation, called the bill "a straightforward" way to keep the city in line with the state's 2019 Keep Washington Working Act. The law specifies that law enforcement agencies are only allowed to inquire about a person's immigration or citizenship status if "there is a connection between such information and an investigation into a violation of state or local criminal law."

Council Bill 121180 strikes the current text of Seattle Municipal Code that does not align with state law, and adds language that "substantively mirrors the relevant provisions of the Keep Washington Working Act."

After the meeting, Lin told the Emerald why he had thought city law hadn't aligned with state law for over six years. "I think it just was probably overlooked," said Lin. "State law was still effective, and so our local provisions were basically ineffective … but it's important to make sure our local codes line up and [aren't] in conflict or confusing."

The council passed the immigration inquiry bill 8-0 with no amendments. Councilmember Maritza Rivera was excused from the council that day.

City Surveillance Safeguard Bill

Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, the sponsor of the latest surveillance safeguard bill, stated in her opening remarks that she believed "taking this action today to amend the ALPR program to build in these safeguards is an important measure."

Councilmember Bob Kettle, chair of the Public Safety Committee, agreed that this was "important legislation." He added, "To date, we've had no intrusions or subpoenas from the start of ALPR in 2024 or CCTV in 2025."

Ordinance 127044, which relates to the collection of surveillance data, will:

• Put a 60-day pause on data collection if the mayor or police chief believes surveillance data is used for civil immigration enforcement and/or threatens citizen access to reproductive justice or gender-affirming care.

• Mandate that SPD's patrol vehicle ALPR system and city CCTV cameras pause data collection for 60 days.

• Authorize the mayor to temporarily resume CCTV or ALPR data collection to gather evidence of potential unlawful acts during civil immigration, reproductive health care, or gender-affirming care enforcement.

The council passed the surveillance safeguard bill 8-0 with no amendments.

Rinck, speaking to the Emerald after the vote, discussed the disconnect between most councilmembers' individual support for CCTV technology and the larger council's overall support for the safeguard legislation.

"Simply put, I think the legislation, and this change, is the happy medium in a lot of ways. … There is certainly a council majority that wants to continue the use of the technology. I am working [on] what it feels like at the margins to try and build in more safeguards."

In response to public commenters who feel this legislation doesn't go far enough and want all cameras turned off, Rinck said she aligns with that sentiment but is limited in what she can do.

"It's probably abundantly clear that I'm in the council minority on [surveillance technology]," said Rinck. "I hear their frustration. I feel it too. And that is why I view today's legislation as an important step, but not a major win."