Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mohave County approves five-year Motorola plate-reader contract after heated public debate on privacy and oversight
Summary
After an hour of public comment warning of privacy and constitutional risks, the Mohave County Board approved a five-year contract to continue license-plate reader use with Motorola (Vigilant). The sheriff defended the system as an investigative tool with audited access controls; Motorola's representative highlighted CJIS compliance and two-factor login.
The Mohave County Board of Supervisors voted on July 20 to approve continued utilization of a license-plate reader program with Motorola (Vigilant) for law enforcement, approving authority for the sheriff to enter into the vendor agreement with accountability conditions.
Item 17 drew extensive public comment. Dozens of residents and privacy advocates described the risks of automated license-plate readers (ALPRs), saying historical plate-location databases can be used to reconstruct movements without individualized suspicion. Speakers asked how long raw data and photos are retained, who can query and share the data, what audit logs exist, how false positives are corrected, and whether the system could be used to track political or religious activity. Several speakers urged the board to delay or pull the item and to require stronger contractual and audit safeguards.
Sheriff Schuster told the board the system is an investigative tool, not a constant surveillance feed: investigators query it only for legitimate law-enforcement purposes (missing persons, stolen vehicles, suspect location) and records are logged, audited and subject to discipline for misuse. Detective DeBries recounted past cases in which ALPR hits helped find stolen vehicles and endangered people. Motorola representative Dave Callister said Vigilant is CJIS-compliant, uses two-factor authentication, requires users to record a justification and case number for searches, and allows audit by agency supervisors.
Board members asked for clear written policy and public access to retention and sharing rules. Director Letosky (county staff) said the sheriff's office has a retention policy and that it is being updated; the sheriff said policies are available and that misuse would be disciplined and could be criminally prosecuted.
After discussion the board approved the contract. Supervisors emphasized the need for written, publicly available policies on retention, access logging and third-party sharing, and the sheriff said he would provide policy text to the board for public review.
Next steps: Clerk and sheriff to ensure a written retention and access policy is available to the public; county and sheriff to coordinate any requested oversight language in the contract and to provide periodic reports as requested by the board.
