License plate cameras OK’d in Burlingame

The council did not reach a vote on the subject, but agreed to draft a policy for use to be approved at a later date.

“When this was brought up years ago I was prepared to go at this then,” Mayor Ricardo Ortiz said. “My thought has always been if you’re driving in the city, your license plate is exposed, so any assumption that it’s not being recorded or not being seen, I don’t agree with that.”

The cameras, called automated license plate readers are an increasingly popular law enforcement tool, with the majority of cities in the county now employing their use. By collecting plate numbers and vehicle descriptions, they allow officers to be alerted to the whereabouts of vehicles suspected of being involved in a crime. Data is also stored for a set amount of time, able to be accessed for later investigations.

Ortiz, along with councilmembers Donna Colson and Ann O’Brien Keighran have been ready to move forward with implementation while Councilmember Emily Beach and Vice Mayor Michael Brownrigg have raised civil liberties concerns.

Beach and Brownrigg during the council’s meeting Monday urged their colleagues to, along with a use-policy for the cameras, commit to drafting a more in-depth surveillance ordinance later this year to govern the cameras and other similar technology. But Ortiz and Colson said while they were open to the idea, they were not ready to pledge to move forward with such work, which would require an impact study and consume staff time.

O’Brien Keighran said an ordinance was not necessary, and would further drag out the process.

“I want our constituents to feel safe, I want our merchants to feel safe, and so think it’s our duty to implement this program,” she said.

Beach, meanwhile, said she felt “very strongly” that the in-depth ordinance should be part of implementing the cameras.

“An important part of this conversation is to commit to really putting some policy in place that makes sure we are vetting stuff thoroughly in the future,” she said. “It’s really just providing a more robust, data-driven study of the social impact, on the civil liberties impact.”

Unlike the broader ordinance, the policy for the cameras alone is required by state law. A draft of a potential camera policy was provided, written by Lexipol, a firm that specializes in police policies.

The draft indicates data collected would be deleted after 30 days, and shared with other law enforcement agencies only by request. The council agreed an annual review of the program should also be included. Beach, in addition, requested that city staff examine a use policy adopted in Alameda that she said had been vetted by “folks who are really watching the civil liberties on this.”

Police Chief Mike Matteucci said based on reports from other agencies, the cameras are primarily used to identify stolen vehicles, with occasional use for missing persons investigations or for crimes that have been linked to a plate number. He said ordinarily an arrest warrant would not be associated with a plate number, and therefore the cameras would generally not be used to alert officers of drivers with warrants for their arrest.

Crime in the city, he said, has been “steady, if not dropping.” He said residential burglaries have been declining since 2015, when there were an average of five per month to last year that averaged two per month. He cited similar trends for stolen vehicles and commercial burglaries, and reported only a minor uptick in vehicle burglaries, up to 25 per month last year from 22 per month in 2015.

“There are some in our community who believe we are in the middle of a crime wave,” said Brownrigg, who requested the crime statistics. “I don’t think making policy on a basis of fear is ever really a good idea, especially if the fear isn’t warranted.”

The cameras would be placed at intersections on Skyline Drive, El Camino Real, California Drive, Rollins Road, Airport Boulevard and Bayshore Highway.

corey@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200, ext. 105