lauren
By Lauren Bray, edhat staff
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office will install license plate readers to aid in law enforcement investigations as part of a one-year trial.
The trial is part of the National Policing Institute’s Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) study which states the readers can be effective for increasing the recovery of stolen vehicles and arrests for auto thefts and, under certain conditions, may improve clearance rates for auto theft and robbery.
Sheriff Bill Brown told County Supervisors the trial of 25 cameras will be used to help locate missing persons, stolen vehicles, and active warrants, among other investigations. The one-year trial will be with Flock Safety technology, who will cover the cost of installation, and will be reassessed next year to determine whether to it’s a service worth paying for.
The vote was unanimous by the County Board Supervisors to move forward with the program.
Flock Safety creates solar-powered cameras that collect information on every vehicle that drives by. The data includes license plate numbers and the make, model and color of vehicles. The cameras can even record dents, racks or a total vehicle fingerprint. The data is stored for 30 days and it’s only searchable by an administrator or police departments, according to the company.
Flock cameras typically cost $2,500 each, with a $2,500 annual renewal fee. Following the one year trial the cameras would cost the county an estimated $62,500 plus an annual fee.
The Sheriff’s Office stated it would not use the cameras for traffic enforcement or facial recognition, but would share data with other law enforcement agencies. The Santa Maria and Oxnard Police Departments are already using ALPRs.
The Santa Maria Police Department reportedly made 86 stolen vehicle arrests and recovered 106 vehicles due to ALPR. The Richmond County Sheriff’s Office in Georgia stated the use of 25 Flock Safety ALPR cameras to two homicide arrests and 18 stolen vehicle arrests. One homicide arrest took place within 24 hours after the incident thanks to the cameras.
While law enforcement agencies state the use of ALPR is effective, others are questioning the ethics of using such technology, privacy concerns, and trusting police to not use this data outside of its intended purpose.
In 2020, the Los Angeles Times reported a state audit proved the Los Angeles Police Department and three other California law enforcement agencies did not provide sufficient privacy protections for the hundreds of millions of images collected by automated license plate readers and shared with other jurisdictions.
The Independent Institute, a non-profit public policy research organization, published a report in 2021 that focused on a study in the California city of Piedmont that analyzed its $500,000 ALPR system. The study stated the program failed to justify its cost, especially given the potential compromises to the privacy and civil liberties of its citizens. It also found that ALPR technology failed to catch criminals but stuck municipal taxpayers with huge costs, including an instance where ALPR misidentified vehicles as stolen which led to at least one incident where innocent citizens were thrown to the ground at gunpoint by law enforcement.
“The research in the report casts doubt on the practical significance of the reliability of ALPRs to translate hits of license plates into investigative leads for law enforcement and that the systems fail to demonstrate the desired responses and that the costs of the ALPR systems are not recuperated. Taxpayers are on the hook for the costs, while being put at risk of their civil liberties being violently abused,” the report states.
And, again, a sole source contract is awarded even after the terrible experience from the City of Piedmont and in spite of the fact that there MANY license plate reader companies that would want to compete for the business. STINKS IN EVERY WAY!
Privacy is not valued nearly enough. It is a slippery slope trading away privacy for a perceived safety benefit. At some point, the erosion of privacy becomes more dangerous than the crimes it was intended prevent.
I wish they would use them for traffic enforcement. 101 is full of reckless drivers and CHP isn’t doing much about it. A few speed cameras on the highway would be a blessing.
Doesn’t really bother me. If you have nothing to hide, who cares?
Was there any discussion over privacy concerns or did the Supes hear 1 free year and voted yes?
It says: The Sheriff’s Office stated it would not use the cameras for traffic enforcement or facial recognition…” ,so ok I feel all better now? /s
No right to privacy on public streets and highways. Sorry to break it to you…
25 cameras!! Jesus christ. Big brother has arrived.
It ONLY reads the license plate and make/color of vehicle. San Luis Obispo has had these in use for a couple years already… Great tool to help find stolen vehicles and warrant jumpers… I have to laugh at the big bother comments- Yeah, like GOOGLE doesn’t know WTF you’re doing….LMAO!
Lick those boots.
What kind of Big Brother, CCP Xi Jinping madness is this?
You can even buy a license plate reader and put it in front of your house. The only difference from the law enforcement version is that they have access to registration and stolen vehicle/plate info, etc, with their subscription. See: https://www.flocksafety.com/ The small wealthy enclave of Tiburon, CA was one of the first to set up license plate readers to capture every vehicle entering or leaving town.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
“The Sheriff’s Office stated it would not use the cameras for traffic enforcement or facial recognition, but would share data with other law enforcement agencies.”
But what law do citizens have to fight concerns or wrongdoing against this governmental step?!
No law enforcement can be fully trusted not to overstep the legal bounds they are given.
I generally support our SB County law enforcement. But given the news of the past 2, 5, 30 years, let alone the past 100-200 years, non-critical trust in law enforcement is wholly misplaced.