Lawmakers seek clarity on ‘inadequate’ license plate reader, body camera audits

The company in charge of looking over the Shakopee Police Department’s license plate data collection produced a recent report five pages long, plus a four-page appendix. A different company hired by the Golden Valley Police Department, tasked with the same job, produced a two-page report.

The Legislature passed a law in 2015 regulating automated license plate reader systems that included requiring audits of law enforcement agencies’ use of the technology. Now that the first audits are trickling in, some legislators see glaring inconsistencies they want changed.

Rep. Peggy Scott (R-Andover) sponsors HF3259, which would clarify what is required in ALPR audits and tighten restrictions on how law enforcement accesses body camera data. The House Civil Law and Data Practices Policy Committee heard the bill Thursday, and plans to continue the discussion on Tuesday before taking action. It has no Senate companion.

“We’ve had audit summary language that says, ‘Yes, we find this agency is in full compliance,’” Scott said. “And that just, in my opinion, wasn’t adequate information for the Legislature to determine how this new policy is actually working.”

While transparency and civil liberties advocates, still wary over government collection of personal data, touted the measure as a way to protect individual rights and cross-check law enforcement’s use of the technology, police chiefs and city officials questioned the additional burdens and costs associated with more detailed audits.

“One of the concerns we have with private firms – they don’t want to see police agencies, and I assume they don’t want to see the taxpayers get overcharged, or for lack of a better term, milk them for the process because no one understands it,” said Burnsville Police Chief Eric Gieseke, also representing Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association. “Some of the costs and the potential costs I’ve seen are outrageous, quite frankly.”

Rep. Debra Hilstrom (DFL-Brooklyn Center) suggested the bill’s deeper audit requirements could burden taxpayers with another unfunded mandate. While Hilstrom reasoned more money should be available to local governments for the audits, Rep. Eric Lucero (R-Dayton) countered that owning and using the technology isn’t mandated by the state – and part of local governments’ responsibility in owning it is paying for it.

“This is the first time Minnesota law has regulated a mass-surveillance program,” said Matt Ehling, a member of the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information. “Let’s not make a distinction – that’s what this is. This gathers data on a suspicion-less basis of anybody driving by an ALPR camera, whether you’re a law breaker or not, that goes into a government database.

“Knowing how that information is used is really critical to the regulatory framework that was set out,” he added. “That’s why there’s audits.”