Salem Lakes delays decision on two automated license-plate readers after privacy and legal concerns

The Village of Salem Lakes on March 10 received a presentation from county and neighboring police officials about Flock automated license‑plate reader cameras and then voted to table final action to allow more review of legal, privacy and contract terms.

Supporters from law enforcement told trustees the cameras — solar‑powered automated license plate readers (ALPRs) — produce real‑time alerts when plates match NCIC and other law‑enforcement “hot lists.” Tom Gilly of the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Department said the system can return near‑instantaneous alerts for stolen vehicles, AMBER alerts and other entries and is used by detectives and patrols when investigating cross‑jurisdictional crimes. Mario Lava, captain of operations at Pleasant Prairie Police Department, described local successes he said had resulted from camera reads, including arrests in property‑crime investigations and a rapid locate of an elderly person with dementia.

The board heard privacy and civil‑liberty concerns from several members of the public and trustees who said the village needs stronger contractual guardrails and clarity about who may access a centralized database. One resident noted an ongoing lawsuit alleging that ALPR systems create a “dragnet” that can be used to track ordinary travel; a trustee said several federal cases are active and argued the village should avoid exposure to litigation and data‑security risk until counsel had time to review.

Administrator Cassandra Hiller said the cameras had been included in budget workshops and that the board had previously given consensus to add two Flock cameras to the budget. Trustees discussed procurement, the vendor’s standard contract terms, and how officers enroll for access and alerts. Law‑enforcement presenters said data are stored encrypted in the vendor’s cloud for roughly 30 days and that Flock systems do not perform facial recognition; they stressed operational uses including AMBER/Silver alerts and tracking stolen vehicles across jurisdictions.

After extended discussion and a motion to table that several trustees supported, the board voted to table final approval so legal counsel and staff can return with recommended contract language, clarified data‑retention terms, and answers about budgetary and intergovernmental approvals needed (county or state approvals were noted for siting on certain highways). No cameras were ordered at the March meeting.

Trustees and staff indicated the board’s outstanding questions include: which agency would administrate the system, what contractual limits would be placed on search and sharing, whether access can be restricted to county sheriff personnel only, the length of retained plate data, and budget/accounting steps needed before purchase.

The board’s discussion follows budget workshop consensus to study cameras as a public‑safety alternative to adding a third‑shift officer; supporters said ALPRs can expand investigative reach across county and state lines, while opponents urged caution about privacy, contract language and possible litigation.

The board did not adopt camera procurement language or sign a vendor contract at the meeting; staff were directed to return with legal review and a specific contract recommendation before the board takes a final vote.

The presentation and debate occurred under the agenda item listed as “Flock camera presentation and request to purchase 2 cameras for $8,500,” and the cameras were proposed for Highway C in Wilmot and Highway 83 at the state line. County and state permitting requirements for siting on those roads were repeatedly noted.

Ending: The board’s tabling means the village will not install the two ALPR cameras immediately; the item will return for deliberation after legal and procurement review and after staff provide the requested contract provisions and access restrictions.