The City That Never Sleeps… Because It’s Always Watching

By Tyla A. Swinton

Spooky season is over, but do you still get the feeling that you are being watched?  Well, if you live in the five boroughs of New York City, you likely are.

New York City, America’s largest metropolis, is a space of both visibility and vulnerability.  We notice cameras in our local grocery stores, on subway platforms, and other places we frequent.  We know the looming presence of speed cameras on our local streets. We see license plate readers and police officers’ body cameras.  But what about New York Police Department (“NYPD”) surveillance systems near your place of residence, or more troubling, NYPD cameras pointed directly at your bedroom window?  On October 27, 2025, a Brooklyn couple filed suit in the Southern District of New York against New York City (the “City”) in hopes of curtailing what they allege to be a total violation of their First and Fourth Amendment rights and the rights of all New Yorkers.  In its analysis of the Domain Awareness System, the case of Wridt et al v. City of New York emphasizes that nearly every camera we see (or do not see) is connected to a monstrous, aggregated platform that tracks our every move.

This article examines the Domain Awareness System used in New York City, Wridt et al v. City of New York (“Wridt” or the “Complaint”), and the potential impact of the claims outlined within the Complaint.

Domain Awareness System

Developed in partnership by the NYPD and Microsoft in 2008 and officially launched in 2012, the Domain Awareness System (“DAS”) is a technology database that covers all five boroughs of New York City.  The system has since expanded greatly and is categorized as the largest digital surveillance system in the world.[i]  The DAS is connected to approximately 18,000 CCTV[ii] video cameras around the City and has access to data from 100 million summonses, two billion license plate readings, two million warrants, and more.[iii] The system’s software relies on live camera feeds that are passed through algorithms to detect suspicious behavior – such as an unattended bag or a person entering a restricted area–and brings these detections to police officer attention via an alert.[iv] Among other intricate tracking technologies and electronic monitoring methodologies that are outlined extensively in Wridt, police officers are able to conduct facial recognition searches using thousands of camera feeds without scrutiny through the DAS.[v] Essentially, the DAS is a centralized network that uses both public and private technologies, and the information gathered is at the NYPD’s disposal for an unlimited amount of time and without scope. Wridt et al. v. City of New York

In Wridt, the plaintiffs allege that the NYPD intentionally placed cameras outside of their Brooklyn home.  The cameras, according to the couple, are facing their bedroom and living room windows; after some time of discomfort, they felt forced to cover their windows with aluminum foil.  Even still, they feel an overwhelming sense of anxiety and fear inside their home.  The Complaint goes on to argue that this “voyeuristic surveillance” violates the plaintiffs’ First and Fourth Amendment rights.  Specifically, it alleges that the DAS infringes upon their rights to free association and free expression (guaranteed under the First Amendment) and their right to privacy (in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable governmental intrusion).

Plaintiffs Pamela Wridt and Robert Sauve assert that they are being targeted by the NYPD because of their deep ties to the community and activism efforts.  Ms. Wridt is a children’s rights advocate and Mr. Sauve is a radio disc jockey who has been photographed by NYPD officers at protests.[vi] In fact, this is not the first Complaint Ms. Wridt has filed regarding this matter.  Previously, Ms. Wridt filed a civilian Complaint and records request regarding these same two cameras installed outside of her home.[vii]

The 29-page Complaint spends nearly twenty pages analyzing the City’s Domain Awareness System. Some arguments in the Complaint include the following: (1) through the DAS, the NYPD has unfettered access to a seemingly limitless pool of data, which is then traced to each individual living in the City; (2) several different types of technologies are incorporated into the DAS, magnifying constitutional injuries; (3) there is no restriction on the amount of time such data is kept or requirement to show the purpose for logging information; and (4) statistical analyses show that the DAS has not made a meaningful impact on crime rates, perpetrator detection, and public safety.

Above all else, though, the plaintiffs repeatedly state that this matter is not solely about the discomfort they feel in their home.  Rather, all citizens residing within the five boroughs have developed a subconscious fear of being tracked almost everywhere they go and nearly all the time, and, as a result, no longer live with freedom.  The Complaint alleges that New Yorkers have become hyperaware of whom they choose to interact with and the public expression of their religious and political beliefs.[viii] According to the plaintiffs, the DAS has created a chilling effect upon the City as New Yorkers are more concerned with self-censorship than living their daily lives, especially residents who are Black, Hispanic, Muslim, and of immigrant backgrounds, since most cameras and monitoring devices are strategically placed in marginalized communities.[ix]  Even more vulnerable, the Complaint asserts, are teenagers and young people of color.  According to the plaintiffs, the NYPD monitors social media accounts and collects online activity from tens of thousands of young Black and Hispanic New Yorkers and feeds the information into a Criminal Group Database, also known as the GANGS database, which is available to police officers through the DAS.[x]  Although New Yorkers may not know that thousands of cameras are linked directly to the DAS, they remain conscious that cameras are monitoring them frequently and in a wide range of locations.

Takeaways

Wridt sheds a bright light on New York City’s surveillance system.  The plaintiffs not only ask the Court for personal relief for the infringement of their rights, but also request that the City be enjoined from using the DAS against New Yorkers who are not suspected of criminal conduct, require a warrant before the system is searched for individual records, and demand the City create and enforce written policies that mandate the deletion of all records after 90 days, among other remedies.[xi]

It is possible that the Court will grant the plaintiffs’ request to have all records of Plaintiffs created and maintained in the DAS expunged and award them compensation for their emotional distress, since the cameras’ locations are particularly intrusive, but the Court may resist going deeper into the various implications involved in the usage of the DAS more broadly, such as in regards to racial bias.  Indeed, there is a separate racial bias lawsuit pending in the Eastern District of New York regarding alleged racial disparities in NYPD’s Criminal Group Database.[xii]

Wridt forcefully argues that New York City’s Domain Awareness System needs to be evaluated for overall effectiveness and necessity and, according to the plaintiffs, to protect the fundamental rights of all New Yorkers.

With the outcome still to be determined, one thing is certain: I’ll be staying camera ready on my commute.

[i] Technology, NYC.gov: New York City Police Department, About NYPD (last visited Oct. 21, 2025), https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/about/about-nypd/equipment-tech/technology.page

[ii] CCTV or Closed-Circuit Television systems used by the NYPD to record video images of people and other visual information.  See NYPD, Domain Awareness System (DAS): Impact and Use Policy, NYC.GOV (Apr. 11, 2021), https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/post-final/domain-awareness-system-das-nypd-impact-and-use-policy_4.9.21_final.pdf.

[iii] Levine, E. S.; Tisch, Jessica; Tasso, Anthony; Joy, Michael The New York City Police Department’s Domain Awareness System. Interfaces. 47 (1): 70–84. (February 2017).

[iv] Id.

[v] Domain Awareness System (DAS): Impact and Use Policy, supra note ii.

[vi] Id. at 24.

[vii] Id.

[viii] Wridt at 23.

[ix] Wridt at 7, 25.

[x] Wridt at 7.

[xi] Wridt at 3-4.

[xii] Plaintiffs 1-3 et al. v. The City of New York et al., No. 1:25-CV-02397, (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York 04/30/2025).

 

This article is intended as a general discussion of these issues only and is not to be considered legal advice or relied upon. For more information, please contact RPJ Associate Tyla A. Swinton who counsels clients on employment, workplace investigations, compliance counseling, litigation strategy, and diversity and inclusion initiatives. Ms. Swinton is admitted to practice law in New York.