City Council Delays Vote on Restoring ShotSpotter

After hours of testimony from residents, the Cambridge City Council postponed a decision Thursday on whether to temporarily reinstate ShotSpotter, a gunshot detection system the city discontinued in May.

The policy order, introduced by Councilors E. Denise Simmons and Timothy R. Flaherty, following the fatal shooting of city employee Xavier Bautista, would restore ShotSpotter while Cambridge conducts a broader public review of public safety technology.

Nearly 50 residents spoke in public comment, with some calling for the system’s return and others arguing that Cambridge should instead invest in other violence-prevention programs.

Despite ShotSpotter’s recent removal, Simmons said the push to reinstate the technology grew out of concerns raised by residents and city employees at a mid-July meeting attended by more than 100 people after Bautista’s death.

“What has changed is not the merits of any argument. What has changed is what we have heard from our residents,” she said.

ShotSpotter uses audio sensors to detect and locate sounds believed to be gunfire. Acting Police Commissioner Pauline E. Wells said the technology is not designed to “predict or prevent” violence in the city.

“Its purpose is to improve situational awareness, and it helps officers locate incidents more quickly, identify victims who may not be able to call 911, and preserve evidence that might otherwise be lost,” she said.

Flaherty argued that even if ShotSpotter could not have prevented Bautista’s shooting, a faster alert could have helped police respond sooner and potentially identify suspects who fled the scene.

“That opportunity was lost because it wasn’t an immediate response,” he said. “That young man, the father of a five‑year‑old boy, lay in the gutter for what — it’s been reported — for an hour.”

Councilor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler opposed reinstating ShotSpotter, saying that the technology failed to detect any of the three shootings that occurred within the range of its sensors in 2025.

“ShotSpotter makes it more likely that we have another tragedy like this one because of how dangerously inaccurate it is,” he said.

Wells said none of the three shootings triggered ShotSpotter alerts because the shots were fired inside buildings or vehicles.

“ShotSpotter detection only works outside,” she said.

Cambridge resident Jacqueline Adams urged the council to restore ShotSpotter, citing personal experiences she said demonstrated its value.

“Despite statistics stating ShotSpotters are ineffective, we have experienced firsthand how the use of this system saved a life.”

Others said the city should focus on addressing the root causes of violence rather than expanding police technology. Resident Jeremy Fleishhacker urged Cambridge to prioritize community programs over surveillance.

“Cambridge has, over recent years, systematically defunded non‑police programs and other essential supports like shelters,” he said. “It is time we reinvest in our neighbors, not our police and surveillance corporations.”

Councilor Ayah A. Al-Zubi ’23, who spoke at times through tears, exercised her charter right to delay a vote on the policy order, arguing that the council was “weaponizing” residents’ grief and that Cambridge should not trade privacy for the promise of greater safety.

“On principle, a just city should not require people to surrender privacy in order to have safety, and that is alleged safety,” she said.

The council is set to vote on the proposal Aug. 3.

—Staff writer Risha Sinha can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at rishas.13.