Gov. Ned Lamont is urging all Connecticut municipalities to immediately pause the installation of any new “safety cameras” and automatic license plate readers.
The governor sent a letter to the Connecticut Police Officers Standards and Training Council on Friday asking the group to conduct a review of the increased use of all automated cameras, including automated speed cameras and ALPR technology such as Flock cameras. Many of the state’s residents are “justifiably concerned” about the privacy issues that can result from the use of this public safety technology, Lamont said in his letter.
Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, and state Sen. James Maroney, D-Milford, last week called for cities and towns to voluntarily pause the installation of all new such devices due to privacy concerns. The senators also said they plan to ask the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection to survey every city and town for the number and location of Flock cameras within its borders. This would give the state and the public a clear picture of how far the technology has spread, they said.
There is currently little state oversight of the license plate readers, and it is unclear how many ALPR or Flock cameras there are across Connecticut. However, the legislature in this year’s session set new rules on ALPRs as part of a broader law on government accountability and federal immigration enforcement, which Lamont later signed into law. That law has not yet taken effect.
Residents in Milford, Middletown and Cheshire all voiced their concerns at meetings last week about the cameras and the plan for some police departments to contract with Flock Safety for surveillance drones. Flock is one of several companies departments contract with for license plate readers.
Two municipalities – Windsor and Killingworth – recently ended their contracts with the Georgia-based company and said they plan to take down their Flock cameras. Killingworth First Selectman Eric Couture told CT Insider last month that the cameras had not added any value to local policing efforts.
“I am in agreement with the many residents across Connecticut who are seeing this technology being implemented by their towns and are wondering what types of privacy protections are being implemented for ordinary people who are just going about their lives,” Lamont said in a statement.
“I understand that this equipment is intended to keep our towns and roads safe — and that’s a good thing — but we must have clear policies in place regarding what is happening with this data, who has access to it, and how it can be used,” he said.
Automated speed cameras require state approval through the Department of Transportation. So far, 17 municipalities have been approved for such devices, including New Haven, Stamford, West Hartford and Wethersfield.
Law enforcement officials have testified in front of the legislature and during public hearings in local towns that both speed cameras and license plate readers are necessary to help police solve crime and keep residents safe. They point to the ALPRs in particular as helping solve burglaries, robberies and missing person’s cases.
Lamont asked in his letter that the POST council develop guidance in the next 30 days to the state’s law enforcement agencies on the use of the cameras, and that no new cameras be installed until such guidelines have been formalized.
The governor asked the council to identify the various cameras and technologies in use, whether fixed or attached to drones or vehicles; to outline requirements for permissible use of the data collected; to clarify how long information may be stored; and discuss confidentiality provisions and legal uses under the Trust Act and Shield Law.
Some Republican lawmakers, however, said Lamont is only doing “damage control” ahead of Tuesday’s primary and the general election in November.
“Gov. Lamont signed this bill into law. And he apparently did so despite having significant unanswered questions about it,” state Sen. Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield, said in a statement Friday afternoon. “He signed it without knowing what type of technology would be deployed, where these cameras would be installed, and how the data would be used and shared?”
House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora said Lamont’s letter is an acknowledgment that the Democrats’ legislation was flawed, “as Republicans warned at the time.”
“But by folding highway work zone speed cameras into a review driven by the controversy over license plate readers, he is conflating two very different things,” Candelora said. “It is only adding to the confusion for towns trying to figure out what this means for them.”
The ALPRs, usually seen atop tall poles with a rectangular solar panel, take photos of the rear license plate of each vehicle that passes by. It does not capture images of the driver, officials have said.
Speed cameras, on the other hand, photograph a vehicle going 10 mph or more over the posted speed limit and a citation is mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle once the image is verified by a law enforcement official. Red light cameras photograph vehicles that drive through a red light and automatically a ticket gets mailed out.
“Whether you like them or not, and I don’t, communities throughout the state are applying for revenue-generating speed cameras as fast as they can find vendors,” Candelora said. “Republicans look forward to seeing how (Lamont) gets the genie back in the bottle.”
Most of the opposition from Connecticut residents have been voiced against Flock cameras, and other license plate readers like them.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut last year called for a statewide moratorium on the use of Flock cameras, saying the cameras put residents at risk, especially immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and those seeking reproductive or gender-affirming care out of state. Concerns have also been raised over some police officers misusing the database to stalk women.
Flock Safety officials have testified in front of the Connecticut legislature about the devices, how the data is stored in the cloud and that all searches in the system are tracked and require a justification, which can then be monitored or audited by each municipality, which owns its own data. Unless required for an ongoing investigation, the camera data is only stored for 30 days, officials have said.