Danbury ad hoc recommends privacy policy for red‑light and speed cameras, amid federal‑access concerns

Danbury — The city’s ad hoc committee on automated traffic enforcement safety devices on Monday recommended the city council adopt a privacy policy for red‑light and speed cameras at the same time it adopts an ordinance authorizing the devices.

Chair Frank Salvatore opened the meeting and said the committee’s packet included a privacy policy drawn largely from state guidance and statutory language. Corporation counsel told the committee the materials reflect Connecticut’s 2023 enabling law (codified in provisions including C.G.S. §14‑307b–h) and a state model privacy policy the municipality must adopt or exceed.

“The goal is to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities,” the corporation counsel said, describing ATESD devices as tools to monitor high‑risk areas and provide uniform oversight beyond patrols.

Presenters explained the statute defines personally identifiable information, or PII, and restricts disclosure: PII may not be provided to the public, and only trained operators or designated police personnel should have access. The presenters said PII collected in connection with a violation generally must be destroyed no later than 30 days after any fine is collected or a hearing is resolved, with a limited statutory exception that allows retaining certain PII for up to one year to determine whether a person committed a subsequent violation.

Committee members asked how the public could obtain information through a FOIA request. Counsel reiterated that FOIA can require disclosure of aggregated, non‑identifying data (for example, counts by number of citations), but not PII that would identify a vehicle owner.

Deputy Chief Sturtevant raised a separate privacy concern: even with statutory limits and city policy, federal subpoenas or other federal legal processes could compel access to data held by a vendor or municipal records. “I’m very worried about the federal government doing that,” he said, citing national examples and concerns about vendor practices. Counsel responded that statutory protections do not override valid warrants or subpoenas and that the city could adopt retention periods shorter than the statutory maximums if it chose to do so.

After discussion, a member moved to recommend the council approve the proposed privacy policy with additional language on PII retention and to adopt the policy concurrently with the ordinance authorizing ATESDs; the motion was seconded and carried in a voice vote. The ad hoc then adjourned.

What happens next: The committee’s recommendation will be transmitted to the full Danbury City Council for consideration of the ordinance and the accompanying privacy policy. If the council adopts an ordinance authorizing ATESDs, the city must also finalize a comprehensive safety action plan and obtain Connecticut Department of Transportation approval for device locations, per the statute.