Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Sharing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Thurston County approves updated MOU with Washington State Patrol on data sharing; commissioners press for deletion policy clarity
Summary
The Board approved an MOU with the Washington State Patrol governing use of NCIC/WACIC and ALPR‑sourced data; commissioners pressed for clarity about deletion practices removed from the 2009 agreement and raised concerns about AI surveillance and legal compliance.
The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners voted to approve an updated memorandum of understanding with the Washington State Patrol that clarifies how the sheriff’s office may access and use national and state criminal information systems and vehicle‑license plate reader (ALPR) data obtained from other agencies.
Sheriff’s Office staff described the MOU as an update to the 2009 agreement designed to reflect current best practices for handling data obtained from ALPR systems and other state repositories. A sheriff’s office representative told the board, "The Thurston County Sheriff's Office does not have ALPR," and added the county generally receives such data from other agencies and follows state procedures for storage and handling.
Several commissioners pressed staff on differences between the 2009 MOU and the new draft. Commissioner Emily Klaus noted a 2009 provision required immediate deletion of data when it was no longer needed; that deletion clause is not in the new MOU and she asked why. The sheriff’s representative and legal staff deferred to county and state attorneys for technical legal interpretation.
Commissioners also asked how provisions in the draft interact with RCW 49.60.530 (referenced in the packet) and sought clarity on how nondiscrimination notices would be provided to labor organizations where relevant. Presenters said the MOU had been reviewed by Thurston County attorneys and Washington State Patrol counsel.
Several commissioners voiced broader privacy and AI surveillance concerns. While some expressed support for the MOU as a means to ensure the county follows state practices for incoming data, others said they remain wary of AI‑enabled surveillance tools and asked for continued oversight and follow‑up as state legislation develops.
The board approved the MOU and authorized execution by the sheriff or a designee. The motion passed after discussion; the packet materials and staff responses will be the basis for any follow‑up questions about legal details and retention/deletion practices.
