Davis commission backs application for grant to expand license-plate readers and fixed cameras, with privacy caveats

The Davis Police Accountability Commission on a January 2025 meeting voted to support a request from Chief Henry that the Police Department seek outside funding to expand the city’s automated license‑plate reader (LPR) and fixed public-safety camera system.

Chief Henry told the commission the department plans to ask the City Council for permission to apply for a Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant to cover an estimated initial cost of about $350,000 and annual recurring storage and maintenance expenses the department estimates at roughly $17,800. The proposal would add a perimeter of cameras and LPRs at major ingress and egress points to capture vehicles entering and leaving the city, the chief said, rather than internal cameras focused on residential streets.

Why it matters: supporters say perimeter LPRs and fixed cameras give investigators timely leads in car‑theft and serious crime investigations where a suspect vehicle leaves Davis. Critics and several commissioners pressed the department for stronger guardrails on data retention, training, and requests from other jurisdictions, saying those elements affect civil‑liberties risks.

The proposal and the commission’s discussion Chief Henry said Davis already uses LPRs for parking enforcement on the city’s parking enforcement vehicles and operates two fixed cameras at existing locations. He told the commission that Motorola now offers a combined LPR/video camera system at lower hardware cost, and that the department’s primary ongoing cost driver is storage. State law requires retention of recorded video for one year, he said.

“We think we can record ingress and egress at major corridors and get investigative leads for vehicle thefts and serious crimes without collecting continuous footage from inside neighborhoods,” Chief Henry said. He described a recent park‑vandalism arrest in which a citizen‑supplied plate number produced an immediate investigative lead and said the perimeter design aims to capture vehicles that typically do not live in the city.

Commissioners and members of the public pressed the department on how the data would be held, who could query it, and how often the system has produced useful investigative results. Chief Henry said the LPR/video storage would be held in a separate Azure government account managed through the Motorola vendor and would not be indexed into the department’s other records systems unless the footage became evidence in a criminal investigation. He also said the department plans to apply policy guardrails consistent with state law, to limit access and to require training and validation before enforcement action is taken.

Privacy, sharing and audits were recurring themes Public commenters and commissioners asked specifically whether the department would share LPR data with federal agencies such as ICE or with agencies outside California. Chief Henry said the department would not share data with out‑of‑state agencies for administrative purposes and that state law and the department’s surveillance policy prohibit sharing data for immigration enforcement. He also said sharing with other California law‑enforcement agencies is possible when a formal investigative request is made and justified by an active criminal investigation; the department reviews such requests and documents the related case number and justification before releasing data.

Commissioners also requested clearer civilian reporting in the department’s forthcoming annual surveillance technology report, including a breakdown of the types of investigations that used the system (for example, car theft, organized retail theft, hit‑and‑run) and counts of system queries and positive hits. Chief Henry agreed to include more detail in annual reporting and noted the policy already requires audits; he said the department proposes internal audits every 12 months to check compliance with access rules and retention schedules.

Costs, grant dependency and technical limits Chief Henry said the department expects the initial purchase would be funded by the COPS grant if Council approves the technology and the grant application is successful. He cautioned the commission that the project would not proceed if the department does not secure outside funding. He described several tradeoffs: the specialized LPR/video devices are cheaper in hardware but create significant storage costs because the department must retain video for a year under current rules. He also acknowledged technical limits, including plate‑obscuring tactics some individuals use and the new state law making deliberate plate obscuration a crime.

Commission action After more than an hour of department presentation, public comment and commissioner questions, a motion that the commission support the chief’s request for Council authorization to pursue a grant for the expansion was moved, seconded and approved by the commission. The motion text, as stated on the record, was: “Support the chief going to the council to get a grant for this upgrade in our security system.” The transcript does not list a roll‑call tally; the chair announced the motion passed.

What remains unresolved Commissioners asked staff to ensure the Council packet they receive includes the range of concerns raised at the commission meeting: stronger publicly available auditing language, an itemized breakdown of likely uses and query frequencies, a clear statement on data sharing with other agencies and an accounting of expected storage costs if the grant does not materialize. The chief said the policy and reporting language will be included with the materials the department brings to the Council for its informational session on January 21.

Ending: next steps Chief Henry will take the Council request and the staff report to the January 21 council meeting; the department will pursue a federal COPS grant if Council provides authorization. The commission asked staff to include more granular reporting on uses and outcomes in the department’s next annual surveillance report and said it will review the department’s audit results after the first 12 months of operation if the system is deployed.