Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Kalispell council to adopt written LPR policy before enforcing new rolling parking rule
Summary
Public commenters warned that a $70,000 parking enforcement line and Ordinance 19‑52's rolling rule could enable automatic license‑plate readers (LPRs); speakers asked the council to adopt a written retention/sharing/training policy consistent with Montana law before any purchase or enforcement begins.
Several Kalispell residents told the City Council on July 20 they oppose or want strict limits on automatic license‑plate readers (LPRs) being used to enforce parking rules.
Jordan Channel, a Kalispell resident, told the council the city budget includes $70,000 for parking enforcement material and software but does not describe the vendor or the system. He said Ordinance 19‑52 (the rolling rule) requires tracking where cars park over time, and he urged the council to adopt a written policy—covering retention, sharing, training and oversight—before any spending or enforcement begins. Channel referenced Montana statute language requiring a written policy before use and asked that the council adopt such a policy by resolution before the budget adoption scheduled for Aug. 17.
John McDonnell, another public commenter, called proposed LPR systems "mass surveillance," argued they create long‑term movement records and raised constitutional concerns. McDonnell cited Supreme Court precedents (Carpenter, Jones, Riley) and Montana constitutional protections, asked for an independent audit and cost‑benefit analysis, and warned against ongoing data retention and network linking without explicit written limits.
Council members and staff responded that state law constrains permissible uses. Several councilors said they do not intend pole‑mounted, long‑range tracking or linkage to broader surveillance networks and stressed that policy language and procurement steps must be followed before purchase. City staff noted the procurement policy and state law will guide any acquisition and that an LPR deployment for parking enforcement would be vehicle‑mounted and limited in scope, not a mounted pole surveillance network.
The council previously placed Ordinance 19‑52 on the consent agenda; the consent motion passed earlier in the meeting. Several councilors reiterated that budgeting a line item does not itself obligate purchase and said they expect a formal policy and procurement process before any vendor is selected.
No formal action to approve an LPR purchase occurred at the meeting; multiple councilors requested clear written policy language and public communication on statutory limits before moving forward.
