Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Automated License Plate Readers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers debate automated license‑plate readers and data sharing with law enforcement
Summary
Committee members discussed automated license‑plate readers (ALPRs), asking whether DOT should be allowed to host law‑enforcement readers on department infrastructure and whether use should be limited to specific purposes; members explored adding prohibitions on facial recognition.
Representative Ben Koppelman reopened discussion of an earlier ALPR proposal after a hearing and described talks with the BCI and Fargo Police Department. He said the committee needed to decide whether DOT should permit law enforcement to place automated license‑plate readers on department‑owned or -operated equipment and infrastructure and, if so, for which purposes.
Koppelman said the narrow request in the drafted language would allow placement for "homeland security, border security, amber and blue and silver alert notices and felony investigations," and to permit law enforcement to act on hits. He told the committee that city police already use camera systems and that individuals have a reduced expectation of privacy in public spaces.
Committee members raised concerns about scope and oversight, asking whether data collected by readers could be shared with federal agencies and whether use might expand into facial recognition or predictive surveillance. Representative Hendricks asked how ALPR data and location tracking differed from GPS tracking (which generally requires a warrant). Representative Koppelman suggested the committee could use the bill as a vehicle to prohibit facial recognition for law‑enforcement purposes in North Dakota while granting limited ALPR access for specified, serious purposes.
No amendment was adopted during the session; members asked staff to draft options that would limit ALPR placement to specific public‑safety uses and to ban facial recognition for investigative purposes unless separately authorized.
Nut graf: Committee members acknowledged ALPRs are already in use by local law enforcement on vehicles and certain intersections, but they sought clearer limits on placement, permitted uses, data sharing and explicit prohibitions on more intrusive technologies such as facial recognition.
Ending: The committee asked for a redraft that narrows permissible purposes, clarifies data‑sharing safeguards and considers an explicit ban on facial recognition used for law enforcement without separate approval.
