CT police oversight panel recommends sweeping new rules for automated license plate readers
The Connecticut Police Officer Standards and Training Council recommended that data be deleted after seven days, with strict oversight for those who access camera.
More Stories
Following a wave of protests over automated license plate readers, Connecticut’s police oversight panel is recommending sweeping new guardrails to protect drivers from abuse.
But some critics said it doesn't go far enough.
“THIS IS ‘1984’”
Across Connecticut, 80 police departments operate around 1,500 license plate readers, most made by Flock Safety, according to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.
But the cameras are facing growing backlash nationwide amid privacy and stalking concerns.
“They’re treating us all guilty until proven innocent,” said Sarah Wood, founder of the group Deflock Milford. “They’re tracking all of our data so they can go back and look at it just in case we do something wrong.”
Despite vocal protests from residents, Milford’s Board of Aldermen recently voted to keep Flock cameras while a new committee reviews them. Nationally, more than 50 communities and the state of Florida have suspended ALPRs, according to Politico.
“This is a wake-up call. This is ‘1984,’” said Teresa Eke, of Milford. “This is surveilling people. And what happens with our data?”
NEW GUIDELINES
On Thursday, the Connecticut Police Officer Standards and Training Council recommended new guidelines for the cameras.
POST is recommending that license plate searches be connected to a specific case – instead of broad surveillance – and that police should verify the car is stolen or the driver has an arrest warrant before making a traffic stop.
“A felony stop conducted on the wrong vehicle produces both a serious safety risk and a public trust problem,” the guidance reads.
Everyone running a search would be logged using multi-factor authentication, with searches limited to certain officers. POST is also calling for monthly audits of who conducts searches – and why – by an outside group like a local police commission. Repeated searches by the same person or for the same vehicle would be flagged.
To prevent "reconstruct[ing] a vehicle's pattern of movement," POST recommended that data be deleted after seven days, except when it’s subject to a court order.
SAFETY VS. PRIVACY
Flock cameras are especially controversial in Milford. A man is even charged with vandalizing them.
The city’s police chief, who also heads the POST council, said the new rules strike a balance between privacy and safety.
“The public wants us to catch these people, and so, what we’ve tried to do is to find a way to do both of those things,” said Chief Keith Mello.
Others said license plate readers mean fewer dangerous police pursuits.
“When we fish with a spear, we reduce the amount of law enforcement and the footprint of law enforcement on the community,” said Granby police chief Scott Sansom.
But critics like Eric Weiner, of Windsor, said the cameras are still a risk.
“You don’t understand your own technology. If you don’t understand the technology, how can you represent to the public that it's being used in a proper manner?" he asked council members. “We know it does a lot more than just capture a picture; it’s assembling a dossier of somebody’s travels.”
NEW STATE LAW
The guidelines are voluntary; police departments can set their own rules.
But starting next Thursday, a new state law bans cameras from being used for immigration enforcement or to restrict reproductive care. And in most cases, camera data can only be shared with neighboring states that have similar privacy laws.
