Arizona Senate panel advances bill that shields police surveillance cameras from public scrutiny

This article was originally published by Arizona Mirror.

A Republican bill that shields police use of controversial license plate reader technology from public scrutiny, even as the sponsor claims it will prevent “government overreach” and provide oversight,  took its first step toward becoming law on Tuesday. 

The legislation  would change state law to codify certain standards for how police can use automated license plate readers, commonly referred to as ALPRs. Senate Bill 1111 is backed by the Arizona Police Association, the state’s largest police union, and the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police. 

ALPRs, specifically those made by the company Flock Safety, have been a source of controversy, both for the wide-ranging network of cameras — the company claims to have more than 80,000 AI-powered cameras in over 5,000 communities across 49 U.S. states — and how law enforcement uses them. 

For example, the Glendale Police Department used an anti-Romani slur last year when conducting a search, and Arizona police have used the tech to spy on protesters exercising their First Amendment rights, according to reporting by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And the Scottsdale Police Department’s prolific use of the tech has also raised concerns among privacy advocates. 

In one instance, police in Texas used the system to search for a woman who had received an abortion in a state where it was legal. 

There are also concerns with how Flock manages the vast amounts of data it collects each day, including cybersecurity researchers discovering that its AI-powered cameras were exposed to the internet without a log in, allowing anyone to track their own or any one else’s movements. Recent reports have also revealed errors in Flock redactions in public records releases that revealed millions of potential surveillance targets. 

Before the Senate Appropriations, Transportation and Technology Committee Tuesday, Payne said his bill is about putting “some sort of guardrail” on the technology without taking it away from law enforcement. 

The proposal defines what ALPRs can be used for, something its sponsor, Sen. Kevin Payne, R-Peoria claimed in a press release announcing the bill earlier this year that “draws a clear line” and allows law enforcement to use the technology while “protecting innocent Arizonans from government overreach.” 

The bill also mandates audits and mandatory training on the technology, though it leaves that up to the agencies to figure out. 

But one thing Payne didn’t mention during the committee hearing is that his legislation snuffs out public scrutiny of how license plate readers are used in Arizona by exempting all ALPR data from public records. 

The bill states that any “captured plate data is not subject to public review” or a public records request. Instead, any data captured by ALPR cameras could only be viewed by a law enforcement or a subpoena. 

Public record requests on ALPR data have been instrumental in understanding how police have used Flock and similar ALPR devices. Information released to EFF and later confirmed by the Mirror showed that the Glendale Police Department used an anti-Romani slur last year when conducting a search of its Flock system. 

Public records have also revealed how law enforcement in the state and across the country share the data, even when they say they have opted out. 

Law enforcement at the committee on Thursday testified that the bill was necessary to ease fears of misuse of the tech and said it is instrumental to their jobs. None of them addressed how the bill exempts ALPR data from public record requests, though a lobbyist for the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association told lawmakers that one reason for shielding the information from public view was to protect domestic violence victims.

The lobbyist, Jen Marson, said there was some “potential gray area there” that could be addressed in a future amendment. 

Tempe Police Department Lt. Greg Bacon said that the technology allows for “real-time data tracking” and only looks at “public-facing license plates,” adding that the city safeguards the data and does not sell it or share with third parties. 

Last year, the Tempe Police Department was one of several police departments that searched Flock to surveil anti-Trump protestors.

Civil libertarians say the bill doesn’t do much to allay concerns about how law enforcement uses — and can abuse — the massive trove of data.

“We are concerned both with the retention length of data and who can access the data under what circumstances,” Paul Avelar with the Arizona Chapter of the Institute for Justice told the committee. His organization has been involved in a major case in Virginia where residents found they had been tracked hundreds of times, sometimes multiple times within a matter of hours with no investigative reason. 

Avelar told the committee that, while ALPR usage is currently the “wild west” and his organization welcomes any regulation, Payne’s bill does not do much to install any actual guardrails. The Institute for Justice also believes that a warrant should be required for the use of historical location information.

A major point of debate during the legislative hearing ended up being what the retention period should be for data captured by ALPR systems. 

Privacy advocates have pointed to states like New Hampshire and Virginia, which have put strict data retention and collection policies in place. For example, in New Hampshire, ALPR data is retained for three minutes, cross-referenced against known databases and then deleted if the plate is not tagged for an alert. 

“We would encourage this committee to look really hard at that question. We can’t say there is a magic number,” Avelar said in response to a question about what number he’d recommend. 

While Avelar voiced concerns about how the legislation could stall meaningful reform or regulations, Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, who helped craft the legislation with Payne, along with a strike-everything amendment that added some additional definitions to the bill, claimed that cell phones are far more intrusive. 

“Reforms in this area should look to what the U.S. Supreme Court said in Carpenter,” Avelar said, referencing the 2018 ruling in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government generally needs a search warrant to access historical cell-site location information. 

Goodyear resident Jennifer Barber shared her experience of getting her own license plate information from her local police department, which led to her getting images of vehicles that were tied to her but were not hers. 

“The problem is this AI technology is not always accurate by the photos,” Barber said, noting that she was told that the incorrect information would not be deleted or corrected. 

Police extolled the technology, saying it has been instrumental in a number of cases. 

Prescott Valley Assistant Police Chief James Edelstein gave examples of how ALPRs helped them find a missing man with dementia, a shooting suspect and a person with a warrant for manslaughter. Other law enforcement officials similarly praised the utility of ALPR cameras. 

Critics of the technology said they supported legitimate uses of the cameras, but worried about transparency and wanted stronger regulations on how they are used. 

“We need to make sure it is being used for the kinds of purposes you described,” Sen. Mitzi Epstein, D-Tempe, said. “I’m hoping we can get some good regulations in this state.” 

Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, echoed Epstein’s concerns, mentioning reports of how ALPR data has been used to track women who have sought abortions in other states. 

“We’re treating everybody as a suspect first,” Kuby said. “Without the guardrails, they put fundamental rights at risk.”

While Sen. Carnine Werner, R-Scottsdale, voted in favor of the bill so it could advance to the full Senate for consideration, she said she had concerns about privacy and wanted to see the public records exemption addressed. 

Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, a retired law enforcement officer, claimed that those who voted against the bill because the regulations and oversight were too weak were voting for “unfettered” use of ALPR technology. 

“A vote against this bill means there will be no regulation on law enforcement. So, I can’t understand why anyone who has concerns is voting no,” Kavanagh said. “I believe that rules can curtail that, and most of the abuse that you see is by people with access to these records misusing them.”

There have been multiple reported instances of law enforcement personnel misusing ALPR data for personal gain or for political reasons. 

Other states, like South Carolina, have proposed more comprehensive legislation that would have required a warrant, had criminal penalties for misuse of the technology and required annual reports. However, that bill, along with similar legislation in at least 10 other states, failed to gain any traction last year. 

The bill passed out of committee and will now head to the full Senate for consideration.