West Virginia lawmakers got a primer on controversial cameras that capture images including license plate numbers, vehicle make, model, color and unique features like bumper stickers or temporary tags to create a searchable digital database of vehicle movements.
The technology, often referred to as Flock because of the most prominent company, has stirred passion in West Virginia communities like Huntington and Monongalia County.
Advocates say the technology provides law enforcement with objective, searchable vehicle and license plate data to help solve and prevent crimes quickly.
For example, the cameras can spot stolen vehicles instantly by reading license plates and alerting police. Or they can help track vehicles linked to abducted children or missing vulnerable adults.
The overriding concern about the automated license plate readers is the creation of a massive, passive surveillance network that tracks and logs the movements of ordinary citizens, including people not suspected of any crime, without a warrant.
The Washington Post recently reported on dozens of law enforcement officers across the country accused of using license-plate readers for unauthorized purposes, including to stalk women without their knowledge or consent.
West Virginia’s Joint Standing Committee on Government Organization heard two hours of discussion about the automated license plate recognition systems on Sunday afternoon during legislative interim meetings, perhaps a prelude to consideration of a statewide law focused on how the cameras are used.
“We want to make sure our community is safe, and that our police officers and police department have all the tools necessary,” said Delegate Patrick Lucas, R-Cabell.
“We also want to protect our Fourth Amendment rights, and we don’t want people coming into our city or people that already live in our city thinking they’re under surveillance.”
Lawmakers asked a series of detailed questions about how the technology works, what safeguards are in place and what further safeguards governments should be considering.
Presenters were Alasdair Whitney, who is legislative counsel for the Institute for Justice that has challenged the technology’s use on constitutional grounds, and Kevin Kane, director of government affairs for Flock Safety.
“The question before legislatures and city governments across the country, is this: Should government be able to look back through your location history, or in a in a manner that is easily as running a Google search, or should they first ask ask a judge for permission in certain situations?” Whitney said.
“IJ’s response to that question is simple: we ask that the law enforcement, that government, gets a warrant before doing that.”
He added, “A tool can work and still be too powerful to be left ungoverned.”
Whitney urged lawmakers “to protect West Virginians from warrantless mass surveillance.”
He said that in their everyday use, “These systems do not show a day in the life; they show a way of life. They deserve and need to be regulated before these things are expanding on every street corner or in every road that we drive on.”
Kane, representing Flock Safety, said the company encourages elected officials across the country “to pass robust guardrails concerning this technology, its use, obligations from the vendor, clear restrictions on data retention, and transparency requirements that can quickly identify any potential misuse as well as associated punishments with abusing this critical technology.”
Flock values transparency, Kane said, participating in conversations about “how this technology is being used, what exactly this means, what other police departments may be partnering with your local police department.”
Lawmakers asked a wide range of questions.
Some focused on who controls the data collected by the cameras, who has access and how it could or should be shared. Kane clarified that customers include law enforcement, home owners associations and private businesses, but not private individuals.
Lawmakers also questioned how the national lookup tool works, what percentage of agencies opt in, whether one agency can export another’s data and whether federal agencies could piggyback on it.
Questions also focused on whether images in the systems capture vehicle occupants, pedestrians, bumper stickers, guns, facial features or clothing color — and whether or how those can be searched.
And lawmakers considered whether West Virginia should institute a warrant requirement.
“Does the constitutional rights of American citizens erode in the advancement of technology as it’s be able to track you, monitor you, or detect what you’re doing throughout your daily life?” asked Senator Chris Rose, R-Monongalia.