Sunland Park residents are learning that federal surveillance towers on a nearby hillside can see into their daily lives, even as New Mexico’s Driver Privacy and Safety Act (SB 40) seeks to shield personal data from immigration enforcement, investigations into pediatric gender treatments, and retaliation for protected speech.
Federal towers see more than border activity
On Oct. 22, the New York Times reported that an AI‑powered Border Patrol tower in Sunland Park can view children playing on an elementary school playground, neighbors entering and leaving their homes, and vehicles traveling on the town’s main road. At least ten such towers now ring the city, and no New Mexican consent was obtained for their installation.
State law aims to protect data, but federal reach is broader
SB 40, which took effect July 1, bars police and other agencies from sharing license‑plate reader data when they reasonably believe it will be used for immigration enforcement, investigations of pediatric gender treatments, or to punish protected speech. The law was passed after reports that out‑of‑state agencies were searching New Mexico camera networks for immigration cases.
While the statute can direct state and local police on how to handle their own cameras, it cannot bind the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) towers that are owned and operated by the federal government. CBP told the Times that footage from these towers can be shared with local, state and federal police, and even foreign governments. Consequently, a local department barred from feeding license‑plate hits to immigration agents may still receive federal video of residents’ front doors, license plates, or parents picking up children from school.
Scale of the federal network
The current administration has secured more than $1 billion for 1,500 new towers along the border. The Times found that over a million people on both sides of the border already live within the network’s view. Most residents interviewed believed the structures were ordinary cell towers, and CBP acknowledges that people near the border cannot opt out of the surveillance.
Legal context and constitutional concerns
Courts give federal agents wide latitude at ports of entry, but Sunland Park is not a port of entry; it is a town with schools, churches and backyards. Although some constitutional protections have been eroded near the border—such as allowing Mexican ancestry to factor into roving patrol stops—federal agents remain bound by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.
In 2018, the Supreme Court required a warrant for long‑term cellphone location records because they reveal “the privacies of life.” A federal appeals court later held that Baltimore’s persistent aerial surveillance program violated the Fourth Amendment. A camera that watches the same homes every day raises the same concern.
Possible state responses
New Mexico may have more tools than it thinks. First, the Legislature could close the inbound gap by prohibiting state and local agencies from using federal surveillance footage for purposes SB 40 already forbids and by requiring agencies to report when they receive such footage.
Second, New Mexico’s congressional delegation can demand transparency from CBP, asking for details on tower locations, what the cameras capture, how long footage is retained, and who receives it. SB 40 already requires state agencies to report annually on the number of cameras they operate and who can access the data; federal agencies should meet at least that standard.
Third, local officials can bring residents’ concerns to Washington. Communities across the state are already questioning surveillance cameras: the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office ended its Flock contracts, and Cibola County scheduled its cameras for removal. Sunland Park residents deserve a say over cameras aimed at their homes.
Author background
Shaw Drake, an assistant professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, previously spent five years with the ACLU working on border issues. He has litigated federal cases and advocated for Border Patrol accountability, noting that tools built for the border often migrate inland.
New Mexico’s Driver Privacy and Safety Act represents a strong statement that the state will not become a pipeline for immigration enforcement. However, the federal government’s ability to build its own surveillance pipeline on a hillside underscores the need for continued vigilance and local action.
Original reporting: Organ Mountain News (Las Cruces / Doña Ana County) — read the source article.
