Police outline scope, examples and safeguards for license-plate readers and public-safety cameras

Prescott Valley police staff briefed the council June 5 on the town's license-plate reader (LPR) and public-safety camera program and described operational uses, data protections and regional sharing arrangements.

Assistant Chief (presenter) told the council the department currently operates 26 fixed license-plate readers and six LiveView cameras at Mountain Valley Park; two pan-tilt-zoom cameras will be added to the park with zoom and tracking capability, the presenter said. The department has also ingested some existing Verkada cameras and is planning a real-time operations platform to provide consolidated camera views and mapping for first responders.

The police presenter described multiple operational examples where the system aided investigations or prevented harm: locating a vehicle tied to a shooting, assisting in the identification and arrest of a driver wanted on an out-of-jurisdiction warrant, finding a missing person with dementia, locating a recently stolen vehicle and intercepting an individual who was found with a loaded firearm after making threats, among other cases. The presenter said the platform provides near-instant alerts to patrol and dispatch when a flagged plate or a vehicle of interest passes a reader.

On privacy and policy, the presenter said images and LPR reads are encrypted and retained for 30 days by default; items needed for an investigation are preserved in the department's evidence system and retained according to case rules. He said the department worked with legal counsel to adopt training and policy protections; the department's website lists camera counts and locations for transparency. The presenter also said the town currently carries roughly $152,000 per year of ongoing program cost, but that most of the initial deployment to date was funded by grants and that some future grant opportunities focus on adding cameras rather than sustaining annual operating costs.

Council members asked whether facial recognition is planned; the presenter said it has been discussed but is not currently enabled and that a facial-recognition policy is under review; legal staff has reviewed draft policy language. A vendor representative from Flock said searches require a case number or reason and that the vendor enforces audit trails; the vendor also confirmed the system's 30-day retention.

The presenter said the department measures usage: officers mark when the system supported an action; staff will consider options to better separate statistics that are LPR-enabled from other enforcement data to better assess program impact. The presenter cited a non-peer-reviewed comparison of arrests in a six-month period before and after the system's deployment (715 arrests before, 833 after, a 17% increase) but said that correlation does not alone prove causation.

No formal policy change or new ordinance was adopted at the study session. Councilmembers asked for follow-up on specific policy points including notification to individuals entered into the system for repeated aggressive-driving reports and clearer statistical tagging of LPR-influenced enforcement outcomes.