Board approves additional license‑plate readers after debate over privacy and public‑safety uses

The Village Board approved a plan to add additional automatic license‑plate reader (ALPR) cameras after police presented evidence of operational benefits and trustees discussed privacy safeguards and policy limits.

Police staff described multiple recent investigations where ALPR data contributed to locating missing children, recovering stolen vehicles and identifying suspects. Staff said the existing Flock/Block cameras capture license plates (not faces) and that the system uploads a daily hot‑list; officers can also add urgent alerts to the network without waiting for the daily refresh. The department said it currently operates several cameras and mobile ALPR capability in squad cars; the proposal before trustees was to maintain three temporary fixed cameras and take two on–street temporary units into permanent service or relocate them as operational needs require.

Chief (unnamed) and officer Steve gave examples where plate hits produced investigatory leads and helped recover persons of concern. Staff said the village owns its data; access is restricted to law enforcement and governed by state statute, and data retention on the cloud portal is 30 days unless preserved for an active investigation. The department said prohibited uses include immigration enforcement, traffic enforcement or investigations that target individuals solely on protected characteristics; officers must enter a stated investigative purpose before running a plate.

Public comment included a speaker who warned about “big brother” surveillance and another commenter who argued ALPR networks can create a mosaic of movements that courts may treat as constitutionally sensitive geolocation data. One public commenter cited recent legal cases and pending litigation in Illinois challenging widespread ALPR use and urged the village not to spend unbudgeted funds until courts rule.

Several trustees voiced support for the technology’s investigatory value, citing recent recoveries and runaways, but also urged robust policy controls, training and auditing. Trustees and staff discussed alternatives and optional items (mobile placement on existing speed‑sign trailers, shared cameras with neighboring agencies), cost and permit timing for cameras sited in state right‑of‑way.

Police recommended maintaining the temporary cameras while the last state permit is obtained for an original planned fixed location; staff said permitting for cameras on state routes can be lengthy. The board approved moving forward with the additional cameras and the associated service agreement; staff said the purchase would be funded from surplus funds or one‑time sources and that the village could discontinue service if the board chose at a future date.

The board also directed staff to publish the department’s ALPR policy, a public portal showing recent camera activity and a frequently asked questions page so residents can see how the system works and what uses are prohibited.