Were employees simply reporting potential crimes?
Or were they compiling information about people who had not engaged in unlawful conduct?
The first answer emerged from a former security-company employee.
He had resigned two months earlier after disagreeing with management over how certain observation lists were being used.
He contacted the investigative team after learning that the federal review had expanded.
The man was in his early thirties, with a carefully trimmed beard and the anxious manner of someone who had never expected his work maintaining video systems to become part of a civil-rights investigation.
He explained that the company operated a dashboard used to organize reports.
At first, the dashboard simply listed incident times, camera locations, and descriptions of observed events.
Then a new feature appeared.
Priority contacts.
The system allowed staff to mark people for follow-up observations.
Some entries concerned specific, documented incidents.
A person suspected of damaging property.
A vehicle linked to reported thefts.
A trespass notice involving an actual restricted property.
Those entries could have legitimate safety purposes if handled lawfully and accurately.
But the former employee said the list gradually changed.
People began appearing because they had attended neighborhood planning meetings.
Others were entered after submitting complaints about police conduct.
Several names belonged to residents who opposed the proposed redevelopment.
And some entries contained no allegation of misconduct whatsoever.
Instead, the notes described appearance.
Clothing.
Race.
Religious dress.
Or whether someone seemed to come from the nearby apartment complexes.
The investigator asked whether the security company had verified the information.
The former employee shook his head.
“Not consistently.”
He explained that some entries came directly from neighborhood foundation representatives.
Others were added after requests from a police liaison.
The investigator looked up.
“Which police liaison?”
The witness hesitated.
Then identified the patrol captain.
She wrote it down.
He continued.
“Sometimes they sent photographs.”
The investigator became still.
“What kind?”
“Images taken in public areas. People entering meetings. Talking to residents. Walking near the park.”
She asked whether the company had documented the purpose of those photographs.
The witness gave a bitter smile.
“Usually they called it community intelligence.”
The investigator looked toward the records.