As Mayor Mueller pointed out, there is always one bad apple in every organization. We trust the police will follow their existing policies, which include being unable to fire bad cops that are arrested while naked and on duty in hotel rooms with hoockers that are being busted for selling drugs. When the department is unable to fire a cop like that, the residents need strick laws so that these bad cops will get a time-out in county jail before being returned to active duty. If cops break the ordinance, it is unclear anyone will ever know about it because they have confidential binding arbitration in their contract.

Mountain View cop arrested on suspicion of child porn possession, sale Web Link

I agree with the caution exercised by the Menlo Park City Council's action regarding a privacy ordinance and license plate readers. It is prudent to be vary cautious about such new technologies. One can loosen regulations later if needed. It's much harder to go the other way.

Our former State Senator Joe Simitian was an outstanding leader in protection of our privacy rights. He introduced SB-1330:

Web Link

asking data not be kept for more than 60 days.

which unfortunately did not pass into law.

Don't let our Police department take away our privacy.

Mt. View arrest is for a FELONY, and could be a federal case depending where the photos came from and age of victim. Hardly the same discussion on the web.

I mean, what could possibly be wrong with plate readers?
Web Link

The public records act requires municipalities to keep video recordings for TWO YEARS. Where do these people get off thumbing their noses as California Law and shortening the time to 90 days??

Anyone else notice the 3-2 vote went along party lines. The Democrats voted for the ordinance and the Republicans voted against it.

Sunshine, the ALPR data is not covered or protected under the FOIA.

Regarding Party Politics, even though Democratic leaders like San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed have been standing up to the police union and pushing for pension reform, there is no indication that pro-union elected Republican leaders like Redwood City Mayor Jeff Gee (whom Ohtaki endorsed) are acting along party lines when they push for the union agenda.

@Thumb -

34090 of the CA Government Code says 2 years for every public record, unless specifically stated otherwise by statute. It does not call out ALPR records one way or the other for a longer or shorter retention schedule.

In my view, ALPR data is a record generated by the Government. It is indeed subject to the PRA. Whether one can successfully obtain that data through a PRA request is a matter completely separate from whether the Government must retain it the period defined in the law.

My original post was about VIDEO surveillance, something also considered in this ill-conceived ordinance. The retention of that material can be reduced to 1 year through a council resolution.

I question why the Menlo Park Council thinks it can reduce the retention period of any of this data to a period less than proscribed by state law.

The Menlo Park City Attorney Bill McClure worked with the subcommittee and actually drafted the ordinance. The Police Department wrote the transmittal that went to City Council. Neither raised any objection related to the Public Records Act at the City Council meeting.

One possibility is that Vasquez is the only officer to ever use a hooker while on duty, and he was busted during his first and only visit to a hooker. If not, I hope the Chief will use the LPR data to identify and bust all our officers that are regularly using hookers while on duty.

I am happy to see Menlo Park vote create such an ordinance. However, there are a few issues I'd like to suggest that ought to be ironed out, however.

For instance--

1) If the MP Police are not actually holding the data, which is held by another agency--this ordiance doesn't apply to them directly, does it?

2) If the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center fails, in any way, to protect this data, or to comply with MP instructions about its storage--who is responsible?

2) Images generally are collected on a daily basis. So, they would need to be deleted ninety-days hence. This could be done by the computer, without human intervention; however, if human intervention is required, then some deletions might take longer than 90 days. How should these overruns be handled?

3) How long should the MP Police Chief have to hold the requests for access to any images from other agencies? Will the requests from outside agencies themselves become public records--which can be readily provided to the public upon request (and in eForm)?

4) Will there be a threshold of need established by the MP Police Chief that might restrict some casual requests (fishing expeditions) by other law enforcement agencies?

Has anyone seen anything in writing from MP on this topic?

Who are they, talent and training for a safer society? Who has oversight?

Web Link