Decision on license plate reader cameras pushed back; councilmembers vow transparency

An anticipated Palm Springs City Council vote on the use of license plate reading technology in the community was postponed Tuesday evening after councilmembers stated a desire for more public input. 

The council was slated to vote on a request by the Palm Springs Police Department (PSPD) to purchase 15 license plate readers (LPR) that would be permanently mounted at the city’s entrances and exits.

Funding for the cameras, estimated at $50,000, would come from the department’s technology budget, which was previously approved by the Palm Springs City Council. PSPD recently held a town hall with residents about the use of the LPR cameras.

The cameras, made by Flock Safety, record more than just license plates, but also a vehicle’s color and other features, alerting authorities when vehicles involved in suspected crimes, or carrying suspected criminals, have entered their community. In areas where multiple cameras are mounted, police can track a vehicle’s movements, aiding in the location of possible suspects.

About half of the dozen public commenters at Tuesday’s meeting were there to oppose the cameras. Several speakers drove in from nearby area cities that have already installed the cameras, warning about the potential for governmental overreach, data leaks, and invasion of privacy.

Lauren Wolfer, a Palm Springs resident and board member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – Desert Chapter, noted in her public comment that though the ACLU isn’t against every use of license plate reader technology it finds Flock safety cameras, “uniquely objectionable.”

“While traditional LPR camera systems are designed to take pictures of license plates, check the plates against local hot lists and then flush the data if there’s no hit, Flock is building a giant camera network that records people’s comings and goings across the nation and then makes that data available for search by any of its law enforcement customers,” she said at the meeting.

Chief of Police Andy Mills said that he too was concerned with civil liberties, privacy, and government surveillance, “But I believe we have a robust policy that we have taken great pains to make sure it’s as tight as we can possibly make it.”

Mills said that a state law prevents the LPR data from being shared outside of California law enforcement. 

He said the system will only be used by a select few trained users, and it logs who accesses the data and when to prevent misuse of the data.

Councilmember Christy Holstege suggested to council that the vote on the cameras should be continued to the next city council meeting to allow for more discussion, research, and public input. 

Holstege said she’s not opposed to the cameras, but she wants to make sure they are thorough in their discussion and consideration of their use.

“It’s been such a polarizing issue,” she said. “We have to discuss how to use technology, data, the cloud, and third party services that do government work as well as the role of [artificial intelligence].”

“I think more transparency and public conversation about this would be good before we pass it because it is a shift change,” she added.

Councilmembers Lisa Middleton and Ron deHarte disagreed, and said they were prepared to move forward with the cameras, but with Mayor Grace Garner and Mayor Pro Tem Jeffrey Bernstein agreeing with Holstege, the vote was continued to the next city council meeting, scheduled for Oct. 12.

---