Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Franklin panel hears Peregrine demo, recommends pursuing state grant to join regional data-sharing platform
Loading...
Summary
Following a Peregrine demonstration, the Technology Commission voted to recommend that Franklin pursue the state-supported Peregrine public-safety data platform. Commissioners pressed the vendor on security, data-sharing opt-in rules, support and a 90‑day deployment estimate.
The Franklin Technology Commission on April 22 heard a demonstration of the Peregrine public-safety data platform and unanimously recommended the city pursue the state grant and contract to participate in the regional deployment.
Peregrine representatives described the product as a searchable, read-only data integration platform that connects multiple records-management and evidence systems. "We try to make Peregrine kind of... like a Google search bar for your law enforcement data," Peregrine representative Kyle White said. He demonstrated free-text searches, filters, mapping and dashboards and showed how Peregrine merges duplicate person records and links incidents, locations and body-camera footage into a single view.
Commissioners asked detailed questions about security and data sharing. Peregrine’s information-security lead, Eric Wood, said the company maintains third-party attestations: "We have SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and we just achieved FedRAMP High authorization." He described a support model with dedicated account resources, multiple on-call rotations and a critical-response option with a 15-minute response time.
On data-sharing policies, Peregrine said sharing is opt-in and granular: agencies sign a third-party MOU to participate in regional sharing and can pick exactly which data types to share (for example, CAD narratives, RMS reports, or to exclude sealed or sensitive records). "It is up to you what... you wanna share," a Peregrine representative said; the vendor emphasized that the agency controls permissioning down to rows and tables.
Commissioners also discussed the state grant that would pay initial costs. Peregrine and a commission member said the state program (referred to in the meeting as Act 58) was intended to fund a two-year pilot; one commissioner cited a figure of $1,300 per sworn officer as a distribution example and another said an example price covered under the grant was about $67,000 for core RMS and digital-evidence ingestion. Peregrine estimated local deployment could be operational in roughly 90 days once contracted and data access is provided.
Some members raised privacy and civil-liberties concerns. One participant referenced a recent controversy in another jurisdiction over perceived predictive policing, saying public concern had led a council to reject a similar proposal; Peregrine and commission members responded that the product is designed for transparency, that the company links AI outputs to source records, and that data-sharing participation is fully configurable by each agency.
After questions, a motion to recommend that the common council pursue the grant/contract and review the vendor proposal passed on a voice vote. Commissioners asked staff to provide a visual demonstration for the council and to keep public access and oversight considerations visible during implementation.
