Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Alpr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Paul Bunyan Drug Task Force installs automated license-plate readers; officials cite investigative uses and privacy limits
Summary
The Paul Bunyan Drug Task Force described a nine-camera automated license-plate reader network in Beltrami County paid for by grants; officials said data are retained 30 days and shared under Minnesota law but drew questions from commissioners about costs, public notice and long-term funding.
Commander David Hart, commander of the Paul Bunyan Drug Task Force, told the Beltrami County Board of Commissioners that the task force has placed fixed automated license-plate reader (ALPR) cameras at nine locations in Beltrami County and that the system is paid for through task-force grant funds.
Hart said the cameras capture images of vehicle license plates, convert images into searchable plate data and can produce near-real-time alerts when a plate matches a hot list such as stolen vehicles, wanted-person alerts, Silver Alerts or AMBER Alerts. “These cameras pick up on that alert,” Hart said of missing‑person broadcasts, “and if one of the vehicle associated with a child abduction goes by one of these cameras, we’re going to get notified in near real time.”
Hart said the vendor is Flock Safety, which operates a fixed-camera network in 49 states and that, under current practice, the task force retains ALPR reads for 30 days and then overwrites them unless images are exported as part of a criminal investigation. “It’s deleted, 30 days unless it gets exported as part of a criminal investigation. Then it’s obviously subject to the Government Data Practices Act,” Hart told the board.
The commander referenced state law when describing permitted uses. “The use of LPRs is permitted and regulated by Minnesota statute 13.824,” Hart said. He said the task force coordinates access with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) and that the task force uses the Beltrami County Sheriff’s ORI (ORI = originating agency identifier) to communicate with the BCA for some automatic alerts.
Commissioners and other participants pressed for details. Commissioner Winger asked whether the cameras can be used to detect moving violations; Hart replied, “No. So it is not used to identify any moving or equipment violations.” Commissioner Sander asked about the per-camera cost: Hart said cameras are leased at about $3,000 per camera per year and that if the grant funding ended, “these cameras would go away as well.”
Several commissioners asked why the public learned of the project only after cameras were in place. Hart said much of the task force’s work is covert and that, in retrospect, earlier public notice might have avoided controversy. “Looking back, probably would that have saved a lot of heartburn? Sure. But that’s on me,” Hart said.
Hart and Sheriff Jason Riggs and County Attorney David Hanson said local policy and audits will govern use. Hart said the task force adopted a policy under Beltrami County, provides training for users, conducts regular audits and must report to the county and to state authorities. He said that, by statute, the task force cannot use ALPRs to conduct continuous monitoring or to track individuals without a warrant.
Commissioners asked about data sharing across states. Hart said sharing is a choice: agencies can opt whether to share their Flock data. He said the task force initially allowed some out-of-state sharing but has since revoked cross‑state sharing while seeking statutory clarity; the task force continues to search other agencies’ shared networks when those agencies allow access. “We choose if we want to share data and who we share data with,” Hart said.
Hart emphasized operational uses: locating stolen vehicles, identifying suspect vehicles in investigations, interdicting drug trafficking and finding missing persons. He said the network already assisted in locating a missing vulnerable adult who was recovered in another state after the task force queried partner networks.
No formal county vote on adoption or funding changes for the ALPR network was recorded at the meeting; Hart said the task force is paying the Flock contract from grant funds. Commissioners asked the task force to report back with use cases and audit results in the future.
Ending note: Hart told the board that training, audits and the public posting of policy are part of the county’s obligations under state law; commissioners requested periodic reports on effectiveness and compliance.
