Yesterday, the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) held a press conference to discuss the usage of Flock cameras and automated license plate readers (ALPRs) by Connecticut police departments and assuage concerns. The conference came as a result of renewed public scrutiny on the use and growing ubiquity of Flock cameras and other ALPRs, scrutiny which has been affirmed by both State Senators and Connecticut’s Governor over the past week.
“We’ve come to use this technology in, we think, a very effective way,” said L.J. Fusaro, Chief of Groton Police. “We also understand the concerns that the public has. We want to make sure, as leaders in our agency and with law enforcement in Connecticut, that we implement measures that control that.”
Last Wednesday, State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) and Sen. James Maroney (D-Milford) called on the state’s municipalities to “voluntarily pause” the installation of ALPRs and Flock cameras. The two pledged to propose new legislation next session to address residents’ privacy concerns with the technology. They also called on the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) to “survey every city and town in Connecticut” for Flock cameras to give “the state and the public a clear picture of how far the technology has spread.”
“Communities across Connecticut are taking a hard look at these cameras and deciding they don’t want them, and they’re right to ask the question,” said Duff. “Flock cameras track the movements of ordinary people going about their lives, and that kind of surveillance carries real dangers. Town after town is saying they don’t want a permanent record of every car that drives down their streets. We’re calling for a pause because residents deserve real answers about who is watching them and why before a single new camera goes up.”
Last Friday, Gov. Ned Lamont released a letter calling on the Connecticut Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) Council to establish guidelines within the next 30 days on the use of ALPRs and safety cameras by state and local police. In a statement released alongside the letter, he too urged municipalities to “pause the installation of any new cameras and ALPRs until the council has finalized this guidance.”
“Citizens are justifiably concerned about technology that may keep roadways safe, on the one hand, but that may potentially collect a vast amount of data about drivers, on the other,” reads the letter. “While I believe that Public Act 26-14 went a long way in addressing and appropriately balancing these concerns, questions remain about what type of technology is being deployed, where these cameras are being installed, and how the data is being used and shared.”
Public Act 26-14, which Lamont signed in May, set several new restrictions on ALPRs, mandating a 21-day data retention period, requiring other departments to show the specific case they’re working on when requesting access to real-time streams or bulk data, and barring their use for immigration enforcement or monitoring based on protected characteristics. Furthermore, the law limits data sharing to departments in neighboring states that agree not to use the information for immigration, reproductive care, or gender-affirming health care investigations.
In light of Public Act 26-14’s passage, Lamont attributed his request to POST to the fact that many of its provisions “do not go into effect until October 1 or December 1 of this year.” He requested that POST’s guidance specify the “relevant statutory framework” for each of the “various camera and ALPR technologies in use today,” outline the state’s laws surrounding data collection, retention, and sharing, as well as how these technologies comport with the state’s Trust Act, Shield Law, and other data confidentiality laws, and include policy recommendations.
Late last Friday, House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora (North Branford) criticized Lamont’s request for a review, calling it “an acknowledgement that the Democrats’ legislation was flawed, as Republicans warned at the time, and a political play as he faces a strong Republican opponent as well as a primary challenge from within his own party.” Candelora argued that ALPRs and highway work zone speed cameras are “two very different things,” the latter of which was also included in Lamont’s request to POST, saying their inclusion was likely a surprise to the Department of Transportation.
“It is only adding to the confusion for towns trying to figure out what this means for them,” said Candelora of the speed cameras. “Whether you like them or not, and I don’t, communities throughout the state are applying for revenue-generating speed cameras as fast as they can find vendors. Republicans look forward to seeing how he gets the genie back in the bottle.”
Fusaro himself stressed that ALPRs and speed cameras are “two different issues,” and said that speed cameras are “totally separate and apart from license plate readers.”
“When someone is issued a ticket as a result of a speed camera, which happens in some municipalities — and it’s governed by state law on when they can be implemented — there have to be public hearings, conferences with the Department of Transportation,” said Fusaro. “People see them as one and the same, when in fact they’re entirely different technologies, and they’re not integrated.”
Paul Melanson, Chief of Farmington Police, said that he and another police chief on the POST Council, Chief Keith Mello of Milford Police, had discussed redrafting the state’s policy to ensure that departments were ready to comply with Public Act 26-14 prior to Lamont’s letter. He and Fusaro were a part of the legislative committee that drafted Public Act 26-14, and stressed that the legislation had bipartisan approval and was reviewed by numerous stakeholders.
“It was a bipartisan law that we worked on together with representatives from both caucuses, with the ACLU; we conferred with the FOI Commission,” said Melanson. “We conferred with a lot of people to try and get a law that we felt was protective of the rights of Connecticut residents, but also allowed this integral part of policing, this technology, this new technology in policing, to continue.”
Melanson argued that ALPRs have helped departments across the state solve crime, claiming that ALPRs played “a critical role” in solving three homicides in Farmington, helped locate a missing person, and secured five arrest warrants for a “highly sophisticated” burglar ring. He highlighted the provisions of the law that restrict its use to crimes only recognized by the State of Connecticut, explaining that while the law restricts Connecticut police departments’ ability to share data with out-of-state departments, it does not preclude Connecticut police departments’ ability to request data. Fusaro clarified that the only means through which Connecticut could be compelled to share its data with a federal agency is by judicial warrant.
“Now, Connecticut, we are allowed to search by the statute,” said Melanson. “Any of the other three states to do it, they have to affirm, they have to attest that they are not using it for the reasons that are illegal in Connecticut, and they cannot share it any further than them searching. We are going to slow roll that out. Make sure that these agencies outside Connecticut are following Connecticut law, which I think you’ll find is probably one of the most comprehensive ALPR laws in the country.”
Fusaro also touched on concerns relating to the misuse of ALPRs, and said Melanson has been working on policies to ensure “we don’t have officers or people out there misusing the system.” In other states, there have been a variety of recent instances of officers misusing Flock cameras and ALPRs, primarily for the purposes of stalking ex-partners or other people of personal significance. Fusaro said “we want to be particular in what our officers are using these for.”
“Another point that’s important to bring up, as far as this law goes, is there are consequences,” said Fusaro. “The POST commission, they can raise this as a decertification issue, it can be brought to them. But there’s also a disciplinary process internal to the police department where, if there’s any indication of misconduct or malfeasance with the use of ALPRs, then it would be incumbent on us to investigate that as an internal affairs investigation, and in some circumstances, it could also cross over into criminal prosecution of an officer.”
Melanson said that while the ALPR data itself will not be FOIAble, data logs and audits of the data can be FOIAed. The only exception to this rule is if someone wishes to FOIA for their own Flock or ALPR data. To get your data, however, all regular users of the vehicle, not just the registered owners, must agree to sign off on the inquiry to ensure domestic abuse victims can not be tracked by their abuser in the case of shared vehicle ownership, Melanson explained.
On the topic of data breaches, Melanson and Fusaro said that they were unaware of any particular language in the law that requires public notification, but that they support public notification and support refining the law to include such a provision.
“Obviously, we’re always willing to work on refining the law,” said Melanson.
They also said they were working towards creating a transparency portal that catalogs the number and location of ALPRs and Flock cameras, but were unable to say whether any municipality is deciding against installing new technologies in light of the Governor’s letter.
“I believe it’s a municipal decision,” said Fusaro. “I think coming from the governor’s office, you know, our elected officials in each city and town in Connecticut would evaluate that independently and decide whether that’s right. I don’t believe it carries with it right now the force of law.”
Flock’s Chief Legal Officer, Dan Haley, was also present to answer questions. Haley asserted that Flock is always working to ensure its compliance with state laws, and that it “strongly supports legislative guardrails.”
“We seek always to implement our systems in ways that are consistent with community norms, with the laws and regulations that apply in any given community,” said Haley. “Any community that uses our system owns their own data and controls their own data, and that’s always been the case.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
