Jill Schramm/MDN Jeremy Ensrud speaks to the Minot City Council Monday, Dec. 15, to share legal information on license plate reader technology. At left is council member Lisa Olson.

License plate reader technology already available in Minot Police Department patrol vehicles won’t be turned on without Minot City Council approval. That decision could come at the council’s next meeting on Jan. 5.

The council held an extended discussion on automated license plate readers (ALPR) on Monday, Dec. 15. The police department presented its use policy, but Deputy Chief Dale Plessas said the technology will not be launched unless the council gives a definitive green light.

“We didn’t want to operate without coming to the council first,” he said. “The council already agreed to the policy. The policy is something that was created to protect the community, and I think we did a good job of coming to a good balance on that.”

Sentiment on the council was mixed, however.

“I”ve been very clear that this is a tool that takes a step too far,” council member Mike Blessum said.

“They are widely used across the nation and have been repeatedly examined by courts, legislatures and law enforcement agencies,” council member Paul Pitner argued. “The question before us is not whether privacy matters, because it does, but whether ALPR technology violates constitutional rights. The answer, based on longstanding legal principles, is no.”

The council heard from several citizens on both sides of the issue as well.

“Police and their advocates have touted these emerging technologies as a means of increasing efficiency and lowering crime. Despite these seemingly definitive claims, the true effectiveness of automated surveillance on crime is still hotly debated and research is uncertain,” said resident Chris Brown. He cited abuse risks posed to the general public by increased prevalence of artificial intelligence-powered mass surveillance and data collection.

Resident Joan Hawbaker asked for specific penalties in the policy for inappropriate use, rather than a statement that violating law officers will be disciplined, which she noted could be a slap on the wrist.

“When you increase the power of government, you increase the opportunity for abuse in government,” resident Josiah Roise said. “The whole purpose of government – city government, state government, federal government – is to serve the people. And so, when the people are not pushing and demanding this, why does it keep coming up?”

Melissa Faris suggested it should be the people watching their government, not the other way around.

Attorney Jeremy Ensrud, offering a legal explanation of the ALPR, noted the technology use by law enforcement has never been found unconstitutional.

“LPRs are just one more tool to aid in a criminal investigation. If a cop is trying to decide where he wants to work, does he want to work for the agency that does everything it can to support the police department or an agency that has one arm tied behind your back while trying to solve a crime?” he said. “LPRs are legal and cost effective. Privacy concerns can be addressed through a robust policy on their usage.”

Pitner also read an email of support from resident Suzanne Watne, who stated observing public information is not surveillance and safeguarding the community is a core function of local government.

“It is not a tool that we’re wanting to use to abuse the community,” Police Chief Michael Frye said. “This is a tool for us to help the community.”

He advocated for ALPR technology to protect officers, through alerting them to potentially dangerous situations.

He also stressed that the Axion ALPR system being discussed is car-mounted and does not involve stationary, pole-mounted cameras as proposed last spring with the Flock system.

Plessas explained the readers are programmed to look for and alert officers to license plates that are in a prescribed database of license plates connected to stolen vehicles, missing persons or other crimes. Upon receiving an alert, an officer must visually confirm the scanned plate matches the alert before performing a traffic stop.

“All we’re doing is monitoring what you’ve already signed off on to be on the road – front and rear plates,” Frye said.

Under the department’s policy, the data may be used for official law enforcement purposes or to gather information related to active warrants, homeland security, suspect interdiction and stolen property recovery. It can be used in investigations related to narcotics distribution or manufacturing, stolen motor vehicles, missing persons or violent crimes or any circumstance in which there is a justifiable concern for the immediate safety of a person. ALPR may be used to canvass license plates around a major crime scene.

Recorded data is discarded after 30 days.

“I will continue to push on the policy to try to get it as restrictive as I possibly can because I think that’s the best alternative to saying no to this altogether,” Blessum said.

The council voted 6-0 to take up the matter again on Jan. 5.