Transparency a concern in use of license plate readers
Police in Connecticut have used stationary license plate readers in recent months to solve some crimes and track down a missing child. But the lack of oversight of the devices, including knowing how many are in operation and where they are located, continues to raise questions about just how they are being used.
There are no state laws requiring police to publicly disclose where the devices are placed, leading to some lawmakers to consider legislative proposals that could bring regulation to the practice.
The technology has been used recently to take illegal guns and fentanyl off the streets in Southington as well as to help find a missing 12-year-old Vernon girl.
In the Southington incident, two Waterbury residents were found with a handgun modified to be fully automatic, as well as more than 600 bags of fentanyl packaged for sale. The arrests began with a notification from the police department’s stationary license plate system that identified a stolen vehicle that had just entered town.
Two other arrests made in Southington also began with “hits” on the devices: police say an East Hartford man was found in a stolen car with several sets of car keys and a New Britain man was arrested on various charges, including drug possession and risk of injury to a minor.
“Essentially, we put these cameras in locations that we felt would give us the best opportunity to capture vehicles that would be coming into town or leaving town that would be of interest to us,” said Southington Police Lt. Keith Egan, declining to disclose how many cameras the town has and where they are. “We’ve had some really big success stories recently in terms of stolen vehicles. We’ve made sizable drug arrests, recovered guns.”
A 12-year-old Vernon girl who went missing in October was later found in New York, in part, because Vernon police were able to track a vehicle of interest using stationary license plate readers, Lt. Robert Marra said.
“It definitely came into play in that case,” he said, as police received a notification of a vehicle of interest based on the last known location of the child and were able to track the vehicle using “a wide selection” of cameras in town.
Secret locations
Police remain tightlipped about where specifically the cameras are
placed in their communities, arguing criminals would avoid the areas if they knew where the devices are.
“Somebody would find a way to defeat the cameras somehow if we disclosed that information,” Egan said, but added that “our goal is to ultimately increase the number that we have throughout town.”
When asked this week, Manchester Police Lt. Ryan Shea could not think of any recent high-profile arrests in town using the technology, but did say that the devices have collected information related to ongoing investigations, the specifics of which he would not disclose.
Likewise, Hartford Police Lt. Aaron Boisvert said that he wasn’t immediately aware an any recent examples of stationary license plate readers being used to solve significant crimes in the capital city.
When asked where the devices are located, he would not say because “people would avoid them.”
In Southington, stationary license plate readers were historically more useful when identifying misused license plates, but it has become more common to find stolen vehicles and even some violent offenders, Egan said.
When getting a notification from their stationary license plate system, police departments must first vet the information before taking any action to ensure that the information is still accurate.
Once it is determined that the vehicle is of interest, officers can immediately begin to track it through live feeds of their cameras, Egan said.
“Since we’ve had the system, the amount of activity is surprising,” he said. “You don’t realize actually how many stolen vehicles or misused plates are running through town.”
Egan said that on some days the system gets “several hits a day.”
“It’s a great system; it’s become very popular throughout the state,” he said. “It’s just a great investigative tool.”
Civil rights and taxpayer dollars
While law enforcement officials are touting the technology as another useful tool at their disposal, David McGuire, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, said the recent arrests using the devices “does not change our view on this.”
“Honestly, community engagement and traditional law enforcement methods often would result in the same outcome,” he said, adding that there should be a balance between what he views as intrusive technology and keeping the public safe. “License plate readers are not the silver bullet,” he said.
McGuire’s concerns include the collection of data without sufficient oversight, as well as placing the devices at town borders to see who comes in and out of a community.
He said the practice of “border fencing” could perpetuate racial profiling by tracking people of color at a disproportionate rate.
“We have continued, long-standing concerns around racial profiling and bias in policing here in Connecticut,” McGuire said.
He further objects to police using public funding for devices without informing taxpayers where the technology is being used.
“When law enforcement uses public resources to buy technology, the public has a right to know why they’re being utilized and where they’re being utilized,” McGuire said. “This is basic government transparency at the end of the day. Police are in existence to serve the public, and it’s important that there be complete transparency. It goes to issues of confidence and trust in police.”