Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alpr Surveillance And Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Surprise Police describe Flock ALPR camera system as criminal‑investigative tool; council asks about safeguards and audits
Summary
Police and information‑security staff told council the city’s Flock automated license‑plate reader system is used for public‑safety investigations, stores plate reads for 30 days, limits full access to four real‑time analysts and runs audit controls; council members sought detail on nexus for queries, oversight and cost.
Chief (Surprise Police Department), identified in the meeting as the department chief, and Gina, the city’s Chief Information Security Officer, briefed the council on the city’s use of the Flock automated license‑plate reader (ALPR) system and answered council questions about privacy, access and audits.
Why it matters: the system captures license plates at intersections and, according to presenters, is intended for criminal‑investigative public‑safety uses such as Amber Alerts, homicide and auto‑theft investigations. Staff said the system stores images for 30 days on Amazon Web Services with CJIS/FBI‑level encryption and that prosecutors use ALPR data in cases. Council members repeatedly asked how access is controlled and audited.
How it works and safeguards: the chief said ALPR images capture plates and vehicle descriptions, not individuals. Gina said four Surprise Police analysts in the Real‑Time Information Center have full access; other officers can add “hot list” entries. She and the chief said users must enter a reason for searches, that Flock and the city run audits and that audit logs record who accessed the system and why. Gina said Flock operates a 24/7 audit division and the city can run on‑demand audits.
Council questions and staff answers: council members asked how often routine plate reads persist (Gina said recurring daily reads could be retained for the 30‑day period), who shares data (Gina said law‑enforcement agencies can share hot‑list information and that the network includes many jurisdictions), and what penalties exist for misuse (the chief said misuse could result in discipline up to termination and would be investigated case‑by‑case). Gina said the city pays per‑camera fees (approximately $3,000 per camera plus an installation fee and an annual software/service cost of about $15,000 plus tax) and that the system is used in dozens of jurisdictions.
Examples cited: the chief described several investigations where ALPR hits aided arrests, including a residential burglary series and an attempted murder case where a license‑plate hit to another agency led to an arrest. Presenters said images are investigatory only and not used for traffic enforcement or civil purposes.
No vote or policy change: council did not take action to add or remove ALPRs at the meeting; several council members asked staff to continue transparency and oversight work and asked for answers about search criteria and audit reporting.
