Board OKs city memorandum for license-plate cameras; deputies, county engineer explain access and retention limits

The Anoka County Board approved a memorandum of understanding permitting the city of Anoka to place Flock Safety license-plate cameras on county signal poles and in county right-of-way, while county and law-enforcement officials clarified that the county does not retain camera data and that access is restricted under state law.

Why it matters: The MOU authorizes physical placement of camera hardware on county property. Commissioners sought specifics about privacy protections, data retention and who controls access; county staff and deputies emphasized statutory protections and technical controls that limit access to the data unless there is a law-enforcement need.

What the board approved

The board recommended approval of an intergovernmental memorandum (contract C0011304 / MOU) with the city of Anoka to allow temporary placement of Flock Safety camera equipment on Anoka County right-of-way to assist city police. The MOU was described as allowing mounting on signal poles, mast arms or within county right-of-way, with the local agency responsible for camera operations and maintenance. The motion passed on the consent agenda (unanimous roll call).

Officials’ explanations and privacy checks

Deputy Chief (Jacobson) described the technology as license-plate cameras (not red-light or speed cameras) and said the Legislature previously enacted protections governing privacy, data retention and who may access the footage. He noted the vendor systems can read license plates and capture make/model/color details and credited the cameras with solving investigations, including a recent assault where a plate led to a quick location of the suspect vehicle.

Joe McPherson, county engineer, told commissioners the county has no access to the data from cameras owned by the cities; data is hosted by the vendor (discussed as Axon Fusion for other county systems and Flock for city cameras). He said the MOU only authorizes hardware placement in county right-of-way and that cities would contract separately with vendors and manage access, retention and maintenance.

Retention and access

Deputy Jacobson and others cited state law limits on retention and restricted access. In response to a commissioner question, staff said the statutory retention period is limited (a speaker referenced "I believe it's 30 days" and also said the retention schedule is set by law) and that data is purged if there is no lawful cause to retain it. Officials emphasized penalties for misuse and said access requires a law-enforcement reason.

What the board said

Commissioners asked whether data is stored locally (it is not) and whether access is searchable without cause (it is not; access requires a law-enforcement need). Several commissioners said they supported the tool for critical-incident response and appreciative of the privacy protections described. County and city agreements between jurisdictions are possible but require separate negotiated back-end access and elected-official approval.

What’s next

Cities that own cameras will continue to manage vendor relationships; the county’s MOU allows placement on county facilities but does not grant county access to data unless a separate agreement is negotiated. The board said it will monitor legislative developments related to camera privacy and data sharing.

Ending

The MOU cleared the consent slate and county staff will provide any required follow-up about agreements or logistics if cities later request data-sharing links to the county.