Kootenai County approves one‑year Motorola license‑plate‑reader contract after heated public debate

Kootenai County commissioners on Dec. 23 approved a one‑year contract with Motorola for license‑plate‑reader (ALPR) software to be used by the sheriff’s office, following more than two hours of public comment and a contentious exchange between the sheriff and at least one commissioner.

Sheriff Robert Norris told the board the county has operated an ALPR program for 16 years and said of the software, "It is a great crime prevention tool. There has been no breach in data." Norris asked the board to continue a program he described as an officer‑safety measure that can alert deputies to stolen vehicles, armed suspects and other immediate hazards.

The contract motion approved by the board was limited to a single year and included two conditions added by the board: (1) county legal review of the contract language and (2) an addendum stating the vendor does not have ownership influence by a Chinese company. The final roll call on the amended motion recorded Commissioner Bill Brooks and Commissioner Metoyer voting yes and Chair Leslie Duncan voting no.

Why it mattered: The item drew a large public turnout and sharply divided speakers. Dozens of residents and retired law‑enforcement officers defended ALPRs as a force multiplier for investigations, particularly for stolen vehicles, Amber Alerts and narcotics cases. Supporters called the technology "vital for both public and officer safety," a phrasing used by speaker Deb Vernon. Opponents raised privacy and transparency concerns, saying the sheriff’s office had deployed demo hardware before public notice and before a formal policy was finalized. "Norris had indeed been using this tech without policies," said Donna Wilson during the public comment period.

What the board debated: Chair Duncan repeatedly said she could not approve the contract without time to review the sheriff’s final policy and to secure legal vetting. "I cannot approve this today without reading the policy," she told the sheriff and the board. Duncan pressed for a short data‑retention period and an annual funding review so a future board could decline to fund additional years.

Sheriff Norris responded that he had posted a more robust policy on the sheriff’s office website shortly before the meeting and said he intended to reevaluate the program with public input after one year. He defended the technology’s existing use across the county and across Idaho and challenged what he called misinformation at an earlier public forum.

Public comment: Supporters included long‑time and retired law‑enforcement personnel who described successful uses of ALPRs in cases ranging from stolen vehicles to homicide and narcotics investigations and urged adoption to help deputies operating with limited staffing. Several residents urged strict contractual limits on data retention, access and sale of data; others said such limits could be added to the contract.

Board action and next steps: The board adopted the one‑year contract motion with the legal‑review and foreign‑ownership addendum conditions. County staff said the vendor would need to sign any addendum before the contract was executed; staff also said the vendor quote is valid through Feb. 16, 2025. The contracted year will allow the sheriff’s office to operate under county oversight while the board and legal counsel finalize policy language and retention rules. The matter may return to the board next year when funding and policy decisions will be revisited.

Context and limits: The approval does not itself set a specific retention period (the policy files noted by the sheriff were discussed but the meeting produced no binding retention schedule beyond commissioners’ stated preferences). Commissioners said they expect legal staff to draft the contract addendum and to confirm whether ALPR records are subject to public‑records requests under Idaho law. The board’s approval was narrowly tailored and explicitly conditional on legal review and vendor agreement to the addendum.

Ending: With the one‑year, conditioned approval, the sheriff’s office may move forward under the terms negotiated, while the board and county counsel prepare any additional contract language and policy clarifications for future consideration.