My colleagues at the Office of the Public Defender and I first heard about the program from a Bloomberg News article. Unlike in Dayton, Ohio, where the Dayton police department and City Council held public hearings on whether to use Persistent Surveillance Systems and ultimately decided against it after community opposition, the BPD decided to institute this surveillance in secret. Our office did not know the BPD was working with the Community Support Program to collect data on our clients' movements and then using the data to charge our clients with crimes without disclosing the source of the evidence. For our innocent clients, we missed opportunities to subpoena exonerating footage collected by the spy plane. For our clients who were mistreated by officers, or whose versions of the truth differed from an officer's report, we failed to corroborate the truth because we did not know that a plane had captured footage of the city. The BPD, and by extension the Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office, had data that likely could have corroborated our clients' innocence in the face of an officer's inconsistent statement, but they decided to keep it a secret.