Council returns APD cell‑site “drive test” scanner purchase to finance committee after questions

The Committee of the Whole on May 20 returned a proposed purchase of a cell‑site “drive test” scanner for the Aurora Police Department to the finance committee for further review after aldermen raised questions about sole‑source procurement, vendor alternatives and court admissibility.

The item would have authorized the purchase of a drive‑test scanner and related services from an out‑of‑state vendor; the police department proposed paying for the equipment with asset‑forfeiture funds, according to testimony. Lieutenant Bill Riley, Administrative Services, described the scanner as a tool to capture a time‑stamped snapshot of cell‑network conditions near an incident and said that information can later be used with search warrants to obtain carrier records.

Riley said, “This piece of equipment allows us to verify that information. It allows us to have a more precise location of cell phone data that might be involved in a criminal offense.” He emphasized that investigative use would “follow a certain legal process” and that the device does not allow untargeted tracking.

Council members pressed for more procurement documentation. Alderman Bebban asked that the file include contact information for LexisNexis, a vendor the department said it had tried to contact but that did not respond to the city’s outreach. Riley said the department had consulted Joliet Police Department, which uses the device through the Arizona firm Five8 Group, and that Joliet provided training but cannot by itself certify court‑ready expert testimony.

Riley also told council that the proposed purchase was bundled: equipment, on‑site training, warranty and potential in‑court expert support. He said separating those pieces among vendors could raise overall costs. The department told council the equipment would be funded from asset‑forfeiture (drug) funds rather than the city’s general fund.

After discussion, the council voted by voice to return the item to the finance committee for a second procurement review and, if necessary, a formal bid process so the city can confirm whether other vendors (including LexisNexis) can provide comparable services and training.

The council did not make a final purchase decision at the May 20 meeting. The finance committee will reevaluate procurement options and report back; no timeline for that report was stated at the meeting.