BY LWV OBSERVER CORPS

Editor’s note: Members of the League of Woman Voters of Los Alamos Observer Corps have been providing LWV members with reports on certain meetings in the County for many years. These reports have been included in the LWV’s monthly newsletter and now, at the invitation of the Los Alamos Reporter, will also be submitted to the Reporter for publication. The video of the full meeting for some reason is not available on Granicus.

Observer Corps Report – County Council – September 8

Automated License Plate Readers

The session was attended by Chair Randall Ryti, Vice Chair Ryn Herrmann, and Councilors Theresa Cull, Melanee Hand, Suzie Havemann, Beverly Neal-Clinton, and David Reagor.

Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)

Police Chief Dino Sgambellone briefed Council on community feedback received at the Town Hall held on August 27 about the use of ALPRs in the County.

Sgambellone reported that the event drew a strong turnout of approximately 100 community members. He added, “We heard diverse perspectives from individuals both supportive of and concerned about law enforcement’s use of this technology.”  Major topics of community concerns and questions fell into four categories:

●       Cyber security: protections against hacking and unauthorized access, including access by entities outside the County.

●       4th Amendment/privacy: safeguards against unlawful or overly broad surveillance.

●       Data governance: retention periods, who can access ALPR data, and rules governing its use.

●       Independent oversight: 3rd-party audits of Police Department use of ALPR data.

Sgambellone elaborated on each issue, how it was currently addressed, and recommended improvements in police policy. The latter included more frequent audits, strengthening officer accountability, reducing ALPR data retention times from 120 to 90 days, and engaging external auditor services. He said additional improvements will be considered as technology, legal requirements, and best practices evolve.

Sgambellone said that, “dismantling this program would not eliminate the sophisticated challenges our community faces. It would only remove a vital tool that helps us meet them.”  He concluded that, “the responsible path forward is not to abandon this tool but to strengthen the safeguards around it.”

Sgambellone requested Council’s input on the recommended changes to operational policy.

Public comments

Nine community members spoke out, all voicing strong objections to the use of ALPR technology for several reasons:

●       Cyberdata is not secure, especially with increasingly sophisticated AI.

●       Those with system access may be vulnerable to bribery to misuse the technology.

●       Successors to the current police administration may not be as trustworthy.

●       ALPRs provide the capability to track people who hold positions involving handling national security secrets.

●       The Police Department has not been able to provide data to show that this technology has been effective in reducing local crime rates.

The most commonly voiced concern focused on invasion of privacy. Heike Wilcox warned that, “Some citizens say they have nothing to hide and they have done nothing wrong. However, the definition of ‘wrong’ can be changed. … People who are being watched start policing themselves. They think twice about going to the gun store, the clinic, the protest, the mosque. Surveillance itself is a blow to freedom.”

Council discussion

Council discussion identified several questions that would need answers before they could decide how to proceed:

●       Is ALPR deployment warranted given the community’s very low crime rate?  What specific public-safety problems would this high-surveillance technology address?

●       What data demonstrate that ALPRs lead to a meaningful reduction in crime?  What are the system’s documented error or misidentification rates?

●       What would be the contractual cost if the County were to cancel its use of the ALPR system?  What would be the costs of implementing external/third-party audits or other proposed safeguards and administrative changes?

●       Has Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) or the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) been consulted?  Does either organization have concerns about ALPR data collection, access, retention, or security?

Councilors seemed receptive to a suggestion to codify ALPR policies in an ordinance, rather than leaving the safeguards solely within Police Department administrative policy. The purpose would be to make changes to retention, access, auditing, accountability, and related controls more difficult to make without Council involvement. Sgambellone was also supportive of consideration of this approach.

Next steps

Council reached a consensus to bring ALPR deployment back for further consideration and possible action at a future meeting.