Committee hears bill to create ‘blue alert’ for Puerto Rico police and first responders; agencies back measure with safeguards

A Senate Public Safety committee held a public hearing on Senate Project 1404, a measure to establish a “blue alert” system in Puerto Rico to notify the public and assist authorities in locating suspects who seriously threaten or kill police officers or to recover officers taken in the line of duty. Department of Public Safety witnesses and other agencies largely endorsed the proposal while urging careful definitions and procedural safeguards.

The Department of Public Safety, represented in the record by Lic. Miguel Candelario Piñeiro, told the committee the proposal aims to replicate existing island alert models (such as Amber and Silver alerts) adapted for law enforcement protection. “Apoyamos la aprobación del proyecto del senado ... catorce cero cuatro,” Candelario said, characterizing the bill as “un mecanismo atinado para salvaguardar la vida de nuestros policías.” He described a proposed Negociado de Investigaciones Especiales (NIE) that would provide specialized investigative capacity and whose agents would be treated as law‑enforcement agents for purposes of the alert.

Why it matters: A blue alert can accelerate public notifications with photos, vehicle descriptions and location data to help locate suspects and protect officers. Witnesses said the system builds on existing emergency‑notification platforms already used in Puerto Rico and can be displayed on cellphones and highway message boards.

Agencies’ positions and technical capacity: Office of Management and Budget and the Autoridad de Asesoría Financiera y Agencia Fiscal (AFAF) told the committee they see little to no adverse fiscal impact from the measure because the electronic system and collaborative agreements largely exist. Maritza Lugo Rodríguez, representing the Department of Transportation and Public Works and the Highway Authority, said DTOP currently makes ten dynamic message signs available for public alerts and will continue to coordinate displays with DSP when requested.

Implementation details and safeguards: DSP recommended including precise definitions in the decree portion of the bill (define “Department/DSP,” “Secretary,” “agent of the NIE,” and “municipal police”), and asked that the implementing regulation be adopted within 180 days of enactment. Candelario also noted that some operational rules may be subject to a federal court‑approved police‑reform agreement, and that regulatory language should be crafted to comply with that process.

Scope questions: Committee members debated who the alert should cover. Multiple witnesses and members said municipal police, sheriffs, correctional officers, prosecutors, judges and other first responders may face similar risks and recommended language that covers “agents of order” broadly while preserving the committee’s vetting role to avoid jeopardizing victims or active investigations. Committee members emphasized the committee and a technical committee would prepare and vet messages before the Secretary and Police Commissioner authorize dissemination.

Costs and timing: Witnesses said the bill permits DSP to accept private contributions and collaborative agreements to offset any incremental costs. The hearing record included one technical estimate for dynamic message infrastructure: acquisition/installation costs were discussed as an example figure and the current number of DTOP message signs available for alerts was stated as ten. AFAF reiterated the bill appears compatible with the certified fiscal plan.

Technology and privacy concerns: A committee member raised the topic of face‑recognition technology and cameras that feed surveillance systems. A member commented that such systems are being deployed rapidly; witnesses said DSP systems are synchronized with available feeds for identification and alerts. The committee did not verify accuracy claims about face‑recognition performance during the hearing.

Next steps: The committee concluded the public hearing at 11:09 a.m. and asked DSP to submit polished bill language for further review. No vote or formal committee action to advance the bill occurred during the hearing.