Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Cameras Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates use of roadside cameras and traffic counters; law enforcement outlines vetting for plate searches
Summary
Members discussed a proposal and community concerns about roadside cameras (ALPR/"block" cameras) and traffic counters, focusing on privacy safeguards, purposes (stolen vehicles, AMBER Alerts), data sharing and potential locations for additional counters to support visitor management.
The Monterey County Byways Committee discussed a proposal to expand roadside camera coverage and traffic counting, including the Point Sur camera and other potential locations, and addressed resident concerns about privacy and scope of use.
Law enforcement and agency representatives explained the camera system’s intended uses and vetting process. A law enforcement representative described the policy for license‑plate queries: searches require a case number, a supervisor’s approval and a defined investigative reason before officers can run plate checks. “We have to have a case number. We have to have a reason. It’s vetted by a supervisor,” the representative said; the speaker offered to meet with community groups to explain the policies and oversight.
Some committee members and residents urged that use be limited to the stated public‑safety purposes—locating stolen vehicles, wanted felony vehicles and Amber Alerts—and cautioned against expanding the system to collect broader travel‑pattern or demographic data. “We need to maintain the integrity of that tool,” one participant said, arguing that widening use could erode public trust.
Caltrans and local partners discussed technical constraints, including cell‑service availability at candidate camera locations and the potential for co‑locating cameras on existing poles to reduce visual impacts. Committee members suggested adding counters in the southern corridor to better understand flows between Esalen and other attractions and asked agencies to share available traffic‑count datasets; an attendee noted some counters publish only annual aggregates at present.
Several participants requested more transparent community briefings about camera capabilities, data handling and retention. Committee members suggested a public forum, with participation by law enforcement and a state assembly staffer who has discussed related privacy legislation, to explain safeguards and answer residents’ questions.
Ending: Committee members agreed to pursue additional outreach and to seek more detailed information about coverage options, cell‑service constraints and existing traffic counters; law enforcement and the camera vendor offered to participate in a community session to clarify policy and privacy protections.
