Police oversight board hears debate over vehicle-tracking cameras, data access and body-worn camera gaps

At a regular Ithaca City oversight meeting, board members heard a detailed presentation from police staff about vehicle license-plate readers and other camera systems, followed by questions about privacy, data access and a recent body-worn camera upload failure.

Speakers described two broad surveillance types: public-area video retained for about 30 days and always-on, private-vendor vehicle-tracking systems that use license-plate readers and vehicle “fingerprinting.” “They’re like the cameras … but larger cities,” said Speaker 1, introducing the discussion; Speaker 3 explained the technology can record plate reads, vehicle attributes and retain footage for roughly 30 days, allowing investigators to search for vehicles described in reports.

Why it matters: board members and the public raised privacy and oversight concerns. Speaker 3 noted a circulated claim that cameras were used to locate a woman in an abortion-related case and said that account was inaccurate: according to the speaker, the incident involved a missing-person report that led to an arrest for assault and was not an example of surveillance being used to locate an abortion-related matter.

Police staff described internal safeguards. Speaker 4 said access to camera data is tracked so the agency can see who views records, and named Captain Schwartz as responsible for oversight of access controls. The board discussed a documented out-of-state case in which an officer who misused access was arrested, which speakers cited as an example of enforcement of misuse.

Body-worn camera issue: Speakers reported they are awaiting a reply from Axon about whether data could be retrieved from a docked officer device after an officer reported a failed upload. “He realized he couldn’t do it and did send an email” to an administrator reporting the camera was not recording, Speaker 4 said; other on-scene body cameras did capture the interaction, officials said.

Board members pressed on monitoring and verification. Speakers described searches of upload logs and 24-hour windows to determine whether an officer’s body camera recorded at a given time; they said missing uploads are flagged during supervisory review and may trigger follow-up with the officer. Speakers acknowledged the cost of these systems and that private vendors, as well as municipal policies, shape how data are stored and shared.

What’s next: The board agreed to continue the conversation in future meetings and to follow up on the Axon inquiry and any outstanding case-specific data questions. The public portion ended as the board prepared to enter an executive session to discuss particular cases.

Ending note: Officials urged members of the public to share concerns about camera deployments and to request copies of policy materials posted on the police website.