Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Security Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners pause approval of courthouse camera quote after privacy and cost concerns
Summary
Vendors presented quotes to install cameras, access control and panic buttons in the courthouse; commissioners questioned camera placement, courtroom privacy and costs, and a motion to accept a $46,502.79 DIS quote failed for lack of a second.
Vendors from Mercator and local contractors presented three quotes to install an integrated security system in the courthouse that would include cameras, access control, alarms and wireless panic buttons. One vendor's total (DIS) was $46,502.79; other quotes were higher.
Tori Smith of Mercator reviewed floor plans and described product features, including power and UPS backup, the ability to disable audio, and options to turn facial-recognition features off in sensitive areas. "They come already disabled with audio," she said, explaining safeguards and manual controls for courtrooms. Keith (a vendor representative) said the system typically includes UPS backup for switches and network hardware.
The county attorney raised several objections and legal concerns about cameras in sensitive areas: recording outside court sessions could capture confidential attorney–client communications and evidence-room access; footage could be subpoenaed and might create ADA or privacy liabilities. "When they implemented this in Yellowstone County... we had a lot of issues because they were recording... confidential communications between defense counsel and their defendants," the county attorney said, urging caution and district-court input before placing cameras in courtrooms.
A commissioner moved to accept the DIS quote of $46,502.79 and to relocate one camera from the county attorney's office to a hallway; another commissioner did not second the motion and stated they were not ready to approve the full package. The motion lacked a second and therefore did not pass. Commissioners directed staff to gather clearer internal requirements (who wants cameras, which zones should have them, and district-court judge approval for courtroom placements), to consider a panic-button-only option, and to reconvene with the vendor for refined proposals.
Next steps: staff will collect specific departmental requests, consult with the district court judge about cameras in courtrooms, revisit pricing and placement, and present a revised recommendation at a later meeting.
