Edhat Staff
The Santa Barbara City Council will discuss giving law enforcement access to license plate readers installed at parking lots to assist in catching criminals.
The city parking lots use Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) technology to track vehicles and parking fees. If a vehicle falls within the free 75-minute parking period, the exit gate automatically lifts; otherwise the driver is required to pay the required parking fee. The system also accommodates drivers with special passes.
Under the current policy, police have access to these camera images for investigations but only with a warrant, which can be time-consuming to obtain. The amendment would allow law enforcement to obtain images with a simple case number.
The Santa Barbara City Staff Report recommends the Council approve amendments to the City of Santa Barbara Automated License Plate Recognition Policy to assist public safety in response to critical incidents or investigations and improve customer service at Downtown parking lots.
“There are many occasions where there is an immediate need to obtain this information without the delay that the warrant process presents. Some examples of this need include the identification of missing persons, responses to AMBER alerts, and the presence of a stolen vehicle,” the report states.
This technology only captures a vehicle’s license plate number, entrance time, exit time, and fees due. These systems do not collect any information about the registered owner of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, the occupant(s) of a vehicle, vehicle registration status, or vehicle type.
The report states there are several federal and state court opinions that have determined that ALPR checks of license plate numbers do not qualify as searches under the Fourth Amendment; the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
City staff also recommend retaining ALPR data of the Downtown Parking Lots for up to 30 days instead of the current 72 hours to keep in line with Airport and Waterfront parking lots.
If approved, this change would have no financial/budget impact on the City. The Santa Barbara City Council will discuss the proposed amendments during Tuesday’s meeting.
The ALPR policy can be viewed here.
I really appreciate this conversation.
It’s crazy when you think what could be done with the camera infrastructure already in place in most cities / roadways when you add in a little bit of automation.
No more speeding, identify criminals, lessen hit and runs.
I fully support the city actively policing the parking lots, but how about also policing the streets like the PD is meant to
Now don’t get all excited thinking I’m seeking out your comments just to argue. This raises a valid issue. Allowing the police to have constant and continuous surveillance and be able to conduct “searches” via cameras raises not only privacy issues, but more importantly 4th amendment issues. The 4th amendment protects us from a Big Brother scenario where we are watched at all times and cops don’t have to establish probable cause for a warrantless search, thank goodness.
Sac – let’s discuss.
Do you think scanning license plates counts as a search?
I’m not for constant manned surveillance but I trust machine learning and algorithmic detection to monitor us basically 24/7.
If they aren’t accessing the feeds except when an alert is triggered by what is essentially a computer program, wouldn’t you want the police to be notified of criminal presence?
I think this use of cameras is probably OK since it only shows the # and time in/out. I was responding more to your comment about using existing camera infrastructure all over town. That could be problematic, I think.
Yes, I see how that could be invasive. I meant more so for the purposes of running ALPR.
Any camera that can view the plates can have its feed processed to run ALPR, so the technology the city wants to deploy in the lots could be on streets, the 101 and anywhere there is a camera and could be deployed such that it doesn’t require increased human monitoring. Similarly, those same cameras could also be used to automatically detect an array of traffic violations such as running lights/ signs and speeding, or even reckless driving. As we know, some cities already do the red light cameras but for some reason Santa Barbara doesn’t ticket for that
Well, there is an absolute right to photograph individuals and anything else in public that one wishes. So, no barrier there. The question of the legality of running a search on a license plate that has been photographically captured in public is another issue. Personally, I don’t see the problem. The notion of search would require an individual producing otherwise unaccessible documents on command, these documents (license plates) are visible at all times to anyone so, IMO, no issue there, automate away.
Alex – that’s very true. ALPR is highly regulated in CA to the point that only law enforcement can practically use it, but it’s not actually illegal for any citizen to install and use such a system. It’s only a no to commercialize the data.
But the question that people will hang up on is whether your plate coming in as hot, open warrants or etc allows the police to then pull up and search you.
To me it’s no different than if they published a list of known plates and had the public calling in when they see one, just much more efficient
Yep, agreed. As well, I don’t think that police need cause to run a license plate. That just automates it.
ALEX – Well, running searches on license plates is not what I worry so much about. I am more concerned with the cops using traffic monitoring devices, including cameras to carry out “searches” of the insides cars and even homes within range. With the technology level were it is, it’s feasible that cameras (or other monitoring devices such as infra red to detect drug activity – there are cases on that) could be used to monitor what is happening inside the passenger compartments of cars (and again, even homes within range) that would otherwise require a warrant. This may be a far fetched concern, but let’s hope it stays that way!
As for this particular ALPR system, I say go ahead. But let’s not let it go further.
Yes, I think that the right to privacy would negate admissibility of technology that can capture information through walls, etc..
That and the 4th Amendment.
Technology and the law, especially 4th amendment issues, is really fascinating and rapidly evolving.
Well lamezehta, what’s your take? Anything constructive to offer?
There are Pluses and Minuses to consider, council should speak with Menlo Park to see why the opted out of flocks use?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flock_Safety
See privacy concerns listed…
Privacy
There are privacy concerns about Flock’s systems. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that ALPRs like Flock create more problems than they solve.There are concerns that Flock’s system may cause harm, especially to minorities.
Privacy expert Jodi Daniels warns Flock’s technology “creates an environment where individuals may feel as though they are under constant surveillance. This can lead to a chilling effect on free speech and other civil liberties, as people might become hesitant to express themselves or participate in certain activities due to the fear of being recorded and possibly monitored by law enforcement.
The American Civil Liberties Union released a report in March 2022 criticizing both Flock Safety’s business model and its products. In 2023, the ACLU acknowledged some uses of ALPRS could be OK, but emphasized the need for careful controls.
We don’t find every use of ALPRs objectionable. For example, we do not generally object to using them to check license plates against lists of stolen cars, for AMBER Alerts, or for toll collection, provided they are deployed and used fairly and subject to proper checks and balances, such as ensuring devices are not disproportionately deployed in low-income communities and communities of color, and that the “hot lists” they are run against are legitimate and up to date. But there’s no reason the technology should be used to create comprehensive records of everybody’s comings and goings — and that is precisely what ALPR databases like Flock’s are doing. In our country, the government should not be tracking us unless it has individualized suspicion that we’re engaged in wrongdoing.
Flock states its cameras and technology only captures data from vehicles, and the machine learning is specifically designed not to identify people. Flock has defended itself against “myths” about license plate readers.[18] Although Flock Safety claims their cameras reduce crime, opponents argue that there is no clear evidence for this.In 2023, Atlanta police (Cobb County) credited a Flock license plate recognition system for helping them track down a gunman.
Flock’s surveillance model has also brought debates into towns between supporters and opponents of the technology. Menlo Park, California opted out of a contract in 2023, bucking trends of nearby cities.
Flock investors tout its surveillance power:
“What magnifies the power of Flock Safety even more is that the digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies for a short period of time, making it more powerful as adoption scales within a community and across the U.S. more broadly…The power of Flock Safety is in its network. The more devices deployed, the more evidence there is to solve crimes.”
Meanwhile, a report by the University of Michigan found:
“Recent studies examining the accuracy of ALPRs show that they often misread license plates, leading to disastrous real-world consequences, including violent arrests of innocent people. ALPR errors arise not only from shortcomings internal to their technology but from the hot lists they depend on to provide matches.
Even when ALPRs work as intended, the vast majority of images taken are not connected to any criminal activity. As most jurisdictions have no policies regarding retention limits, many agencies keep these scans on innocent people indefinitely. This can allow the government to maintain an overarching and potentially unconstitutional level of surveillance and can lead to abuse.
In some instances, officers have misused confidential databases ‘to get information on romantic partners, business associates, neighbors, journalists and others for reasons that have nothing to do with daily police work.’ Professional abuse includes targeting religious minorities and communities of color. Reproductive rights advocates are now raising alarms about the ways police and others could use ALPRs for the targeting of abortion clinics in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.”
This is a bit more nuanced than discussed here so far, I suggest. The problem I see is that looking at a plate for a specific purpose is not the same as keeping a record for future possible purposes. I agree that we can save personnel cost by having a computer recognize a plate, count time and calculate a fee for parking. I don’t think that, however, means we can collate every camera record in the city over weeks to recreate the travels of the car. This is intrusive as, even though the car is in public, because it denies our reasonable expectation of privacy in the conduct of our everyday lives. To me we may as well defend the implantation of chips that will monitor our presence everywhere and be recallable when the authorities get interested in us. A little chilling.
Yes but under the law there is no legal right to or expectation of privacy in public places. Thus the right to film anyone anywhere in public without their consent.
Personally, it doesn’t bother me in the least if we have cameras all over the place in public. I think that the ultimate impact is one of actually protecting people as there is a record of what occurs in public. For example, I strongly support requiring all police to wear and use body cameras. That protects the public from some abuse and also the police from some manufactured claims.
Alex, you are wrong about the expectation of privacy rules. Someone who is sunbathing in their backyard has a reasonable expectation of privacy from surveillance drones or long distance telephoto lens even though the viewers are not intruding on the property of the subject. The USSCt has also ruled that police use of infrared scans to detect, from a public place, unusual heat emanating from a residence (evidence of a drug lab) is prohibited. I think the use of the camera tech which includes searching records may be such a technological intrusion as well.
You’re incorrect. Read it again, “there is no legal right or expectation to privacy in public places.”
Your backyard is not a “public place”.
The interior of your house is not a “public place”.
Beyond that, even your claim about someone sunbathing in their backyard having legal privacy protection is almost certainly wrong. If that were the case then satellite technology which gives the public access to photos of people’s backyards would not be legal. As well, the Barbara Streisand case would not have been decided the way it was. You can walk down the street and hold up a camera and take a photo over someone’s fence if you want. So, no.
It is a violation of one’s privacy to take photos of them in their backyard or other place that they have reasonable expectation of privacy. Intrusive acts that facilitate such intrusion (holding a camera to peer over a fence, for example, using any technology, especially long distance lenses or satellite cameras support the idea that one has created a privacy expectation that can be asserted. (The Streisand case did not involve this issue–she wanted to block photographs taken from over the sea showing her mansion/estate location on the coast of CA because she didn’t want people to know where she lived. She had no expectation that such would be private.)
I doubt cops will get too concerned whatever the council chooses to do. I don’t believe they will spend any time checking film from a parking lot unless a significant crime was involved? I’ll guess they check plates all the time without a warrant and this likely occurs during an investigation and for many reasons. I understand cops can’t stop a car and search the driver or interior unless they have probable cause no matter where it was seen, parking lot, street or someone’s driveway. Yes, some may do this anyway. But, whatever they find will probably be inadmissible in court. I don’t see a reason to be worried about this.
Maybe I missed it but will the cameras capture images of front or rear license plate or both?
ALPR readers fun but scary. I turned my home surveillance camera into ALPR reader and can track all my neighbors, cars heading to/from SBHS & concerts, tells me when parking enforcement loops around my block, and as of recently data logs when my representative for my district drives past my house. I’ve noticed lots of unregistered cars and one stolen car drive by. I see why police want to use them as anyone can create a network. I’ll keep my downtown shopping & activity’s to under 75 minutes and park in the street.
For someone saying they will avoid these ALPR cams your username checks out 😂
Do they only capture the front license plate? 10% of registered vehicles in SB don’t have front license plates and 50%of Tesla’s don’t have front license plates. Not fair.