Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alpr Mou topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis County approves 5-year MOU to share license-plate-reader data after public concern
Summary
After public comment expressing privacy and legal concerns, the commission voted 2–1 to approve a five-year memorandum of understanding with the Utah Department of Public Safety to allow sharing of automatic license plate reader data; sheriff and IT staff said the MOU restricts access, retention can meet statutory limits, and data are stored in a government cloud.
At a meeting in the Davis County Commission Chambers in Farmington, the commission voted 2–1 to approve a five-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Utah Department of Public Safety to enable sharing of automatic license plate reader (ALPR) data among participating government agencies.
Opponents in the public-comment period urged the commission to delay or tighten the agreement. Laurene Starkey of Kaysville cited state law and asked whether the MOU ‘‘match[s] those limits word for word,’’ saying that ALPR data are a protected record and ‘‘it is not supposed to be preserved for more than 9 months, except under a preservation request or disclosure order or warrant.’’ Speaker Ronald Mortensen told commissioners the issue has ‘‘the public really riled up’’ and said a Utah State Privacy Commission study is expected in September.
Sheriff Kelly Sparks and Chief Deputy Arnold "Butch" told the commission the MOU does not create new cameras but governs access to data already being gathered. ‘‘What this memorandum of understanding does is it restricts the use and access of that information purely for public safety, important public safety issues,’’ Sparks said. Jeff Hassett, the county’s information-systems director, said the county stores ALPR data in a government cloud in Virginia, that retention settings can be configured to meet the nine-month statutory limit, and that vendor access is restricted and logged.
Commission debate focused on who qualifies as a participating agency under the state law, retention periods (a rolling 14-day operational window versus nine-month preservation when data are captured for a case), and the county’s current limited deployment of four cameras that have been used only for testing. After discussion, the chair moved to approve the MOU; the motion passed on a roll-call vote, 2–1. Commissioner Croft recorded a dissenting vote during roll call.
The MOU takes effect when executed by the county and the Department of Public Safety; staff said compliance with any subsequently enacted state legislation would be required and policies will be updated to reflect new law when applicable.
