Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Copperton council to hold public hearing after community outcry over UPD surveillance camera
Summary
Residents told the council they were not informed before Unified Police Department installed a camera on a town pole; officials agreed to add a presentation and public hearing to the next meeting while UPD returns to explain operation and data practices.
Copperton — After an influx of public comment and social-media messages this week, the Copperton Town Council agreed to place a presentation and a public hearing on its next meeting agenda to address concerns about a Unified Police Department surveillance camera installed on a town pole.
Residents at Wednesday’s meeting told the council they were surprised and upset that the camera was put in place without broader notice. Olive Zell, who runs a town Facebook page, said the town “is extremely angry about it” and that she will file an initiative petition seeking a public vote on future government surveillance deployments.
Other speakers offered mixed views. Danny Duval said his “biggest concern is that where that camera is placed is tracking basically when I leave and when I come home,” and asked who controls and secures the data. Wyatt Shasta echoed privacy concerns, noting the camera sits at the town’s single choke point and will record virtually every vehicle entering or leaving Copperton. John Johnson, by contrast, said the tool helps police investigations and expressed support for the installation.
Council members acknowledged they had not given the community sufficient notice before the installation. In remarks on the council dais, the presiding official said the council had “dropped the ball” on public outreach and promised to place the camera issue on the next meeting agenda as a presentation and, if needed, a formal public hearing so UPD can answer technical and operational questions.
An assembled UPD representative offered to temporarily remove the camera while the town considers next steps and said the department would return to explain what a “hit” means, how footage or metadata are used, and who is responsible for securing the data. Council members clarified that UPD installed and operates the device and that the town had authorized installation and allocated funds in the prior budget process.
The council directed staff to add a presentation and public hearing to the next meeting so residents can hear UPD explain the camera’s capabilities, data-storage practices and oversight; further actions will depend on what the council hears at that hearing.
