Hayward council approves 30 new license‑plate readers after public debate

The Hayward City Council on a 6–1 vote authorized the Hayward Police Department to purchase and install 30 additional license‑plate readers, with Mayor Pro Tem Roach moving the item and Councilmember Goldstein seconding.

Supporters, including police and some residents, said the cameras help recover stolen vehicles and reduce liability; privacy advocates and one councilmember raised questions about effectiveness, retention and interagency sharing. Mike Casselcabe, who identified himself as director of research for Oakland Privacy, urged the council to delay or reject the authorization, saying the department’s own data shows little change in stolen‑vehicle recovery rates since earlier LPR deployments.

The item was pulled from the consent calendar for separate consideration after Councilmember Sairup requested further discussion. In explaining the split vote, Sairup said the revised staff memo resolved some earlier concerns but warned about expanding surveillance if federal or policy conditions change: “I do worry that we may find our position ... where that may or may not be the case and what that might mean for the surveillance technology we have in our city,” Sairup said.

Mike Casselcabe pointed to department data in the staff report showing a roughly 49.7% recovery rate for stolen vehicles before LPRs were installed and about 49.5% after earlier LPR deployments, asking what additional value the new devices would provide and why the proposed one‑year data retention period was chosen. “If the recovery rate for stolen vehicles basically hasn't changed since before license plate readers were installed, what value have the license plate readers added?” he asked.

A caller identified as "T R" told the council that modern devices and daily digital tracking make LPRs a practical tool for public safety and reducing city liability, citing a recent case where plate data helped identify a hit‑and‑run driver.

After public comment and council discussion the motion passed 6–1. The City Clerk recorded one no vote: Councilmember Sairup. The motion was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Roach and seconded by Councilmember Goldstein.

The staff report, updated ahead of the vote, clarified that audio surveillance microphones are not part of the current purchase, and stated intent to comply with California state law that limits the use of LPR data for immigration enforcement. The staff memo included vehicle theft and recovery statistics from 2021–2024 and proposed a one‑year retention period for LPR data; critics on the dais and in public comment asked for clarity on why one year was chosen, what sharing agreements exist with external agencies and private camera networks, and whether a smaller deployment was considered.

City officials said the funds for the purchase are time‑sensitive; Councilmember Sairup said she understood the budget timing but remained concerned about surveillance expansion and potential future uses.

The council recorded the motion as approved; staff will proceed with procurement and implementation under the terms specified in the staff report.