Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Privacy Camera Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delegate requests camera replacement at Hampton boat ramp; committee tables bill amid privacy questions
Summary
House Bill 2496 would allow the Department of Wildlife Resources to reinstall a license‑plate reader camera at Fox Hill (Dandy Point) boat ramp in Hampton after criminal incidents; the subcommittee voted 5–4 to lay the bill on the table amid questions about use, oversight and data retention.
House Bill 2496, introduced by Delegate Cardoza, sought authority for the Department of Wildlife Resources to replace a safety-monitoring camera at the Fox Hill (Dandy Point) boat ramp in Hampton, state-owned property the patron said has experienced criminal activity. Delegates and witnesses described community safety incidents and asked questions about who would monitor data from license‑plate reader cameras and how long records would be retained; the subcommittee voted 5–4 to lay the bill on the table.
‘‘We have had residents in that area threatened and some of their houses shot,’’ Delegate Cardoza told the committee, saying an existing camera ‘‘has not been functioning for quite a while’’ and that a camera with higher resolution could help identify suspects. The patron told the subcommittee the Senate had included a related budget amendment though the bill as filed showed no fiscal impact.
Ryan Brown, director of the Department of Wildlife Resources, said the agency has increased patrols in the area and would be ‘‘happy to try that technology’’ but noted license‑plate reader systems are often run by third‑party providers and that those systems maintain historical observations. Brown said he was not aware of a code prohibition against agency use of the devices but noted the technology had been the subject of prior legislative inquiry.
Committee members asked detailed questions about who would operate or own the camera system, what entity would monitor the information collected, how long data would be stored, and whether there were statutory restrictions on use. Brown explained such systems typically store observations with a vendor and provide matches across sites using the vendor’s database; he said he would work to obtain specifics on retention and access.
Delegate Laufer moved to lay the bill on the table, citing unanswered questions about oversight and retention; the motion passed 5–4. The committee recorded that it had laid HB 2496 on the table and asked staff to pursue additional detail — particularly on monitoring, data retention and ownership — before further action.
Ending: The bill was tabled for further study; committee members requested information about data access, retention periods and the agency’s authority to deploy license‑plate reader technology.
