Isabella Vanderheiden / Today @ 4:35 p.m. / Agendizer

Eureka’s Police Oversight Board Weighs Pros and Cons of Automated License Plate-Reading Cameras; City Council to Review Draft Policy Next Week

PREVIOUSLY: Eureka City Council Tables Decision on Police Surveillance Cameras, Citing Privacy Concerns

###

At next week’s meeting, the Eureka City Council will revisit a proposal from the Eureka Police Department to install 21 automated license plate-reading (ALPR) cameras along the city’s main thoroughfares to help local law enforcement track vehicles involved in crimes. 

During the first review of the proposal in October, councilmembers expressed concerns about privacy protections and data sharing, despite EPD Chief Brian Stephens’ repeated assurances that the encrypted data would be stored in a “secured cloud base” only accessible by certain department staff. The council ultimately agreed to table its decision until the city’s Community Oversight on Police Practices (COPP) board had a chance to review the draft policy.

The technology, which would be provided by Georgia-based manufacturer Flock Safety, uses stationary cameras to collect license plate details from passing vehicles and stores that information in a database that allows law enforcement agencies to compare license plate numbers against those on stolen vehicles or associated with individuals wanted on criminal charges. ALPR cameras are positioned and designed to capture images of license plates, not vehicle occupants, and do not use facial recognition technology. The data would be deleted after 30 days, according to the draft policy.

The technology has received widespread praise from law enforcement officials, including Stephens, who believe ALPR cameras help officers solve crimes more quickly and efficiently. The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office implemented the county’s ALPR program in April 2024. Other local law enforcement agencies have looked into technology as well, including the Arcata, Fortuna and University police departments.

During the COPP board’s meeting on Jan. 28, Stephens recounted a situation where ALPR technology could have helped local law enforcement find the suspect vehicle within minutes.

“Last night, we had a stabbing in Old Town around First and W streets [where] the suspect left the scene … in a white sedan,” Stephens explained. “We knew enough about the car at the time [that] we could have put a white sedan into the Flock system and gotten some hits in that immediate vicinity [from] a camera that was close. … We were able to pull a picture of the [vehicle] off a surveillance camera. One of my officers recognized the suspect and the vehicle, and then we had a license plate.”

If ALPR cameras were being used in the city at the time of the incident, officers could have entered the license plate into the Flock system and “gotten a hit” on which direction it was headed, Stephens said.

“Luckily for us, the driver was very unstable and crashed his car near Weott in a single-vehicle collision and was taken into custody by the sheriff’s office,” he continued. “That’s just one of many examples that we have of crimes that have been committed recently in Eureka [where it] would have been very helpful to have this [technology].”

Like the city council, COPP board members expressed concerns about data sharing and security. Board member Mark Pardoe felt the city’s policy addressed most of his concerns surrounding privacy but asked if it was necessary to store ALPR data for 30 days.

“I read somewhere that the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] said you should save [the data] for three minutes,” Pardoe said, likely referring to this article. “Here we say 30 days. I think the CHP said 60 days. What’s the thought behind the 30 days? Why not three minutes? Why not 60 days? Why not longer?”

Hector Soliman-Valdez, director of community affairs for Flock Safety, said the company’s standard is 30 days, though some jurisdictions keep data for shorter and longer period of time.

“Our goal is to provide law enforcement with a tool that helps them solve the majority of crimes,” Soliman-Valdez explained. “We feel that the 30 days does that while protecting privacy, right? … There are many crimes that are not immediately reported, and that’s and that’s why it’s important … to have at least some time for law enforcement to investigate.”

Julie Ruhlin, a principal with OIR Group, the city’s independent police auditor, said her organization has helped Eureka and various other jurisdictions develop ALPR policies that are aligned with state law as well as best practices for the technology. 

“It’s all about the balance and how you make the most use of the technology, while also limiting the potential downsides,” Ruhlin said. “While there may not be a national standard, 30 days does seem pretty standard. … Taking into account how law enforcement intends to use this, cutting it shorter than 30 days really can limit the usefulness in some key investigative ways.”

Board Chair Dino Novello expressed concern about ALPR data being accessed on a mobile device, such as a cell phone. Stephens couldn’t say whether the Flock system would be available on cell phones but noted that he can access someone’s “entire criminal history” on the mobile computer in his vehicle. 

“There’s no information obtained [through the ALPR cameras] other than your license plate number, the color of your car and the type of car it is,” Stephens added.

The draft ALPR policy would require EPD to conduct an audit of the “ALPR detection inquiries” at least once per year. Novello felt EPD should conduct an audit more regularly. 

Eureka City Manager Miles Slattery said the draft policy, as written, does not prevent the city from conducting an audit more than once a year. “We can do it more frequently than that if that’s what the board wants to recommend,” he said.

Overall, board member Melinda Ciarabellini felt the potential benefits of an ALPR system far outweigh “concerns of the officers’ potential impropriety,” adding that the technology could help EPD solve crimes much more quickly.

The COPP board did not vote on the item but directed staff to share its feedback with the city council. 

###

The Eureka City Council will meet at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 4, at Eureka City Hall — 531 K Street. You can check out the rest of the agenda, including creative interpretations of the document from our AgendaBot Gennie, below.

---

Eureka City Council

Feb. 4, 2025, 6 p.m.

A. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. Administer Oath of Office - Curtis Davis, Deputy City Attorney

B. PRESENTATIONS

C. BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS

D. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

E. PUBLIC HEARINGS

F. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Council Minutes

2. Fishermen's Terminal Pilings Replacement Project Bid No

3. Board and Commission Appointments

G. LEGISLATIVE ACTION CORRESPONDENCE

H. ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS

I. REPORTS/ACTION ITEMS

1. Budget Allocation for Eureka Operations Complex

2. FLOCK Safety Automated License Plate Recognition cameras and technology

J. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

K. CITY MANAGER REPORTS

1. Graffiti Abatement Update

L. PUBLIC COMMENT CONTINUED

M. COUNCIL REPORTS / CITY-RELATED TRAVEL REPORTS

---