In response to criticism and concern from members of the community, the San Marcos Police Department (SMPD) has established a policy for the use of License Plate Reading cameras (LPRs).
The policy comes after community members expressed concerns about mass surveillance and other law enforcement agencies being granted access to San Marcos’s LPRs. Due to the criticism, city council rejected purchasing additional cameras during its June 3 meeting.
“There is no reason that San Marcos needs to have 33 flock cameras. The city of Austin, with the population tenfold of that of San Marcos only has 40 and allowing our police department to operate 33 cameras, just seven less than Austin, which I learned today is the city with the most Flock cameras in the state, is complete overreach,” San Marcos resident Sam Benavides said at the June 3 meeting.
Concerns around the sharing of data with other agencies came after reports of other agencies using LPR data for non law enforcement purposes surfaced, such as in Wichita, Kan., where their police chief used LPRs to stalk his ex-girlfriend.
There were also concerns about how the LPR data was being handled and that SMPD’s LPR data could be used for immigration enforcement.
SMPD’s new policy, which went into place on June 12, but was not formalized until Friday, June 28, halted all automatic sharing of LPR data. Now, other departments wishing to access San Marcos’s LPR data must confirm that it is part of a specific criminal investigation, submit a formal request form and sign a non-disclosure agreement before the data can be released.
“Turning off automatic data sharing with other law enforcement agencies allows the department to audit its own personnel directly,” the city wrote in a press release emailed to The Star. “All inquiries into the ALPR system must now be tied to an active investigation and users will be required to enter both a reason for the inquiry and an associated case number.”
According to the policy, the case must be: at least a Class B state offense or above, related to a missing or endangered person, a stolen vehicle, hate crimes, sex crimes or a be on the look out (BOLO) report, such as an Amber or Silver alert.
As well as stopping automatic sharing, SMPD also deactivated five of the LPR cameras they were using. According to their press release, that leaves them with 14 operational LPRs.
The policy also requires annual audits to the LPRs uses and ensures it is only for investigative purposes. Furthermore the city’s legal team is working with FLOCK, the provider of the LPRs to ensures that data is not collected unless the city requests it.
“Building and maintaining public trust is fundamental to our mission,” San Marcos Police Chief Stan Standridge said in a press release about the new policy. “As we leverage FLOCK ALPR technology to enhance community safety, we will ensure that clear expectations and usage protocols for FLOCK ALPR data are regularly communicated and understood throughout the department, reinforcing our commitment to privacy and responsible data stewardship.”
Council member Amanda Rodriguez said she is “cautiously optimistic” about the changes.
“I truly appreciate my colleagues who opposed expanding mass surveillance technology, especially given today’s political climate,” Rodriguez said. “We must think beyond potential benefits, but also acknowledge the harm that can result when technologies are implemented without transparency and oversight.”
According to Rodriguez, nearly 700 law enforcement agencies outside of San Marcos had access to the LPR data.
“That level of access without clear parameters is unacceptable,” Rodriguez said.
Rodriguez said even though the new policy requires LPR data only be shared for actual investigations, she worries they could still be used for cases outside of SMPD’s jurisdiction, or in cases like the recent raid in Dripping Springs, where the alleged wrongdoing was not proven.
“With the newly implemented restrictions on data sharing and clearer council-approved guidelines on what constitutes permissible use, I’m hopeful that this data will only be used for investigations strictly within the scope of our department’s authority,” Rodriguez said.
Rodriguez said there was no possible LPR policy that could fully address her concerns.
“For decades, we’ve seen signs of a broader shift toward criminalization over care, and I refuse to be the kind of policymaker who offers a false sense of safety through surveillance,” Rodriguez said. “The reason no policy here can fully satisfy my concern is because those concerns stem from a deeper issue, which is our failure as a society to invest in real safety at its roots.”
