Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Tools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police defend automated license‑plate readers; council to consider funding in IT budget
Summary
At a public hearing, Police Chief Mullen explained the city’s automated license‑plate reader system (Flock): still photos of license plates, 21‑day retention per state law, encrypted cloud storage, and monthly audits. Councilors and residents raised privacy, access and cybersecurity concerns; funding will be considered in the IT/CIP budget line.
The Auburn City Council held a public hearing March 16 on automated license‑plate readers (LPRs), hearing a detailed explanation from Police Chief Mullen and comments from residents and councilors about privacy, access and budget priorities.
Chief Mullen summarized how the system operates: fixed cameras capture still photographs of rear license plates and vehicle descriptors (make, model, visible damage), not video of drivers; the system does not access DMV ownership records and is not configured to allow federal agencies to automatically access Auburn’s data. Images are encrypted, stored in a GovCloud environment and — in compliance with Maine law — are retained 21 days unless a case requires a longer hold. The chief said officers run alerted plates against NCIC hot‑lists and locally maintained hunt lists; the system produced 20 operational “success stories” since Auburn deployed it in August 2025, he said, ranging from locating stolen vehicles to assisting well‑being checks.
Councilors pressed for specifics about the safeguards: who can run searches, whether DMV or federal agencies receive data (chief said no), whether facial recognition is used (no), and what audits exist (monthly internal audits; staff agreed to prepare an annual summary). Several councilors and the manager emphasized there are existing statutory limits and audit regimes; the chief added that user permissions are controlled locally and that any external agency access requires his approval.
Public comment reflected mixed feelings. Supporters said LPRs are a technological extension of long‑standing BOLO (be‑on‑the‑lookout) practices that multiply limited officer capacity; opponents voiced concerns about mission creep, remote storage of data, and potential misuse during emergencies. Technical questions from residents and councilors focused on encryption standards, whether images can be subpoenaed or FOIA‑requested (state law limits third‑party access), and whether cloud storage increases breach risk versus local storage.
Council members asked staff to include the LPR funding request in the upcoming IT/CIP budget discussion and to return with an annual reporting proposal (success metrics, audits and any external‑access requests) before approving ongoing subscription expenses. Chief Mullen and staff offered to produce aggregated monthly/annual metrics and to work with IT to review access controls and credentialing procedures.
