There are a lot of bad public policy outcomes you can imagine when one political party gets to control all the levers of power, without opposition or even discussion of issues.

What surprises me about Democrats' steely control of government in New London, without a single contrary vote from another party, is that they would focus their authority on denying citizens their civil rights.

It is especially surprising, given the significant block of poor and minority voters in New London, that elected city officials would endorse aggressive police state tactics, which generally target the most vulnerable among us.

Indeed, this beast that has come to rule New London is not the Democratic Party I was born to.

I refer to the City Council's quiet endorsement, without a moment of public discussion, of Mayor Michael Passero's administration's plan to deploy, using, of all things, federal COVID relief money, dozens of cameras to secretly watch over citizens.

In response to a recent formal Freedom of Information Act request, Passero and his law director redacted emails pertaining to the location of existing and planned surveillance cameras in the city.

I don't have a problem with surveillance cameras watching public streets. This is 2021, and we are used to cameras all over, especially inside and outside many businesses.

It's hiding the locations from the public, especially as they are deployed in residential neighborhoods, that is so poisonous.

I told city officials I am filing a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission, which will have to decide whether police, without any court order, can secretly put a high-definition camera, with zoom and tilt-and-turn capabilities, at the end of your front walk.

I presume the modern cameras can not only record who is coming and going on your property, but probably what they are carrying, even read the name on a file folder or envelope in their hand.

These secretly located public cameras are almost certainly also capable of zooming in to private property, whether looking around a yard or driveway, or even into windows or open doors.

And they can do it all without a search warrant.

Mayor Passero is cool with this program to let police hide their cameras and video recording from the public.

"The cameras will only be viewing public places where people have no expectation of privacy," the mayor told me in an email.

Well, that's not true. A modern camera located almost anywhere in the city on public property will likely have the capability of looking into private property, where people should certainly have an expectation the government is not looking at and recording them.

Worse, because New London police contemplate refusing to say where the cameras are located, the very idea of secrecy implies they intend to use them where citizens might not expect them to be.

City Law Director Jeffrey Londregan offered only a broad reference to whatever exemption to FOI laws the city is claiming in refusing to identify the locations. He didn't respond to an email in which I asked exactly what exemption to FOI law he is claiming.

City officials have referred broadly to the exemption they are claiming as security related, but the exemption in FOI law for security reasons, things that might expose sensitive police locations for instance, requires notification and permission from the state.

In fact, the city is not only refusing to reveal camera locations but won't explain to the public the specific legal grounds it is claiming for an exemption under FOI laws, as an expensive and protracted FOI fight seems inevitable.

I hope civil rights activists will pay attention, as the one party that rules New London, with no regular public discussion of controversial policy matters, embarks on a new era of warrantless video searches, conducted by hidden cameras controlled by police.

Maybe it's not that surprising after all that a police state that curtails civil rights would grow out of a one-party regime that doesn't entertain opposing points of views.

It just pains me to think it's the Democrats curtailing civil rights and ready to fight to do so.

This is the opinion of David Collins.

d.collins@theday.com