There’s no question that automated license plate reading cameras need increased scrutiny. The only question is by how much.
Recently, Republican state Rep. Danny McCormick, over social media and the airwaves, served notice that next year he would introduce a bill to ban such cameras. He declared the Legislature had momentum to do so after last year banning traffic enforcement cameras in all areas except school zones and the city of Opelousas. As well, the presence of reader cameras has irked privacy advocates worried that this has become another big data source ripe for exploitation, if not a breeding ground for constitutional violations of probable cause for searches.
However, he should expect some resistance. Law enforcement agencies have found the technology, which captures plate images that a private vendor collates into a database that law enforcement may access, helpful in tracking down suspects, even almost in real time that improves apprehension and conviction rates. Simply, this pits privacy rights against public safety.
To complicate matters, it’s not that cut and dry. Rogue government officials, from street-level law enforcement up to high-ranking elected officials, could use the database for illegal (such as tracking an individual that another one has a vendetta against) and/or political purposes (such as spying on people with associations or viewpoints opposed by the abuser). Some argue the presence of such databases simply provides too much temptation for abuse and so it becomes necessary to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Yet surely all parties can attain a middle ground that allows camera use but sets strict limits. Several issues define the controversy.
First is retention period, where the shorter the period, the less likely privacy could be violated, which where state have legislated ranges presently from three minutes to five years. Second is who keeps this data and limiting their use, as private firm storage makes it more likely that it could be used for non-law enforcement activities. Third is a warrant must be issued to place a vehicle on a list that alerts when its plate is read, that require probable cause for vehicles owned or operated by someone subject to an active arrest warrant, or vehicles determined to be involved in the commission of a felony pursuant to a warrant. Fourth, to investigate more broadly such as checking on vehicles that were identified around a crime scene, a warrant must include strict limitations on both the geographic area and time period. Finally, audit trails of searches must be made available to defendants as well as the opportunity, if possible, to mine the data to buttress exculpatory claims.
Although some states have laws that reflect these safeguards, Louisiana has exactly zero. A good start that covers most of these considerations comes from the Institute for Justice. Additionally, a limit of one week should be placed upon data retention by any camera located in Louisiana, which should provide ample time to obtain a warrant and run an initial search.
While a serious issue, sufficiently strict guardrails should obviate the need to do away completely with such cameras, achieving benefits both of enhanced privacy protection and better crime-fighting tools.
No comments:
Post a Comment