Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chief defends ALPR use as residents raise privacy and misuse concerns
Summary
Klamath Falls police described the capabilities, uses and state-law limits on the Flock ALPR system; residents and advocates called for more citizen oversight or disabling the system, citing Fourth Amendment and misuse worries.
The Klamath Falls Police Department told the City Council on April 6 that its Flock automatic license-plate reader (ALPR) system is used to support investigations such as stolen-vehicle recoveries and missing-person searches, while residents pressed the council to reconsider or tightly restrict the technology because of privacy and misuse concerns.
Chief Rob Dinger described the Flock cameras and data types, saying the system collects license-plate numbers, photographs, GPS coordinates, vehicle characteristics, and timestamps. He said the city currently operates six cameras and pays about $18,000 per year for the system. Chief Dinger cited Oregon'enacted changes (Senate Bill 1516) that, he said, limit retention to 30 days unless data are part of an active criminal proceeding and impose logging and auditing requirements.
Officer Eddie Mesa and Officer Austin Gilmore gave operational examples in which ALPR images assisted in recovering stolen vehicles and locating suspects. "One of the great things about Flock is when I take a stolen car report, I'll immediately search it out in my car to see if it has gone in front of any of the cameras," Mesa said, highlighting photo evidence that can produce BOLOs and interagency alerts.
In public comment, several residents urged the council to constrain or disable the system. Mike Edwards said ALPRs create persistent location records and argued the devices can form a "mosaic" of movement that raises Fourth Amendment issues; he urged formation of a citizen oversight group before contract renewal. "My Fourth Amendment right ... is way more valuable than a stolen car," Edwards said.
Zach Stewart and other speakers warned of potential misuse by federal agencies and cited high-profile requests for data in other jurisdictions; several commenters said the city adopted the system with insufficient public engagement. Councilors asked about contract renewal (2028), vendor obligations and whether the city can limit sharing outside Oregon; Chief Dinger said state law constrains out-of-state sharing and requires identifiable logs of who searches the system and why.
Council did not take immediate policy action at the meeting; staff said contract-renewal decisions would occur closer to the 2028 renewal date and that the city will review vendor requirements and statutory obligations in preparing for renewal.
The record includes a mix of law-enforcement examples of investigatory value and repeated public expressions of privacy concern; the council requested follow-up on contract provisions and community engagement on surveillance sideboards.
