Pawtucket Police Trial License Plate Cameras, ACLU Objects

PAWTUCKET, RI —The Pawtucket Police Department announced Wednesday that it will be one of three local police departments taking part in a 60-day trial program to use automated license plate recognition cameras. The departments from Cranston and Woonsocket also are involved, WPRI reported.

However, the Rhode Island ACLU has voiced its objections to the program.

During a Wednesday press conference in Cranston, police officials revealed that 17 cameras made by a company called Flock Safety already have been installed in "strategic areas" around Pawtucket. There are 29 cameras in Cranston and 13 are in Woonsocket. All are on city-owned property.

Officials said the cameras capture still images of rear licenses plates and can alert police when a stolen vehicle drives by. The cameras don't record video, don't have facial recognition technology and won't be used for traffic enforcement, officials said.

Pawtucket Police Chief Tina Goncalves said the cameras are not the first in the city, which also has school speed zone cameras and red light cameras, both of which have been in Pawtucket for 18 to 24 months.

Goncalves said she expects the license plate cameras to be helpful in solving several types of crimes.

"For the city of Pawtucket, a lot of the crimes are associated with motor vehicles, so it is helpful for us, especially when we have any type of major crime, violent crime, any drive-bys, any shootings, we usually have a vehicle that's associated with it," Goncalves said. "This will give us a step up into locating that vehicle."

Goncalves said the department already works with businesses in the community that share their surveillance video, but the new cameras will give the department a "real-time" tool to use in fighting crime.

The chief said it will be important to prove the technology is useful during the trial period.

"If it doesn't show a benefit to our communities, obviously the administration wouldn't want to support something that's not benefitting the residents of the community," Goncalves said. "The whole goal of the program is obviously to keep the residents safe within our respective communities."

However, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Rhode Island was quick to voice its opposition to the license plate camera program and that it was implemented without input from the public.

"The installation of surveillance tools that directly impact the privacy of Rhode Island residents and others driving through the communities where they are installed is disturbing in itself. But the clandestine nature by which the cameras were placed, and the failure of the three cities in which the trial implementation of this tool is known to be happening to seek any advance public input, only make this action more concerning," the ACLU wrote in a statement.

"These are not decisions that should be unilaterally made by law enforcement agencies. Members of the public should have a say as to whether they support these potentially invasive technologies in their community – before, not after, they are installed."

The ACLU said Flock Safety's website promotes the ability to use the technology to identify license plate numbers, but also to identify vehicle attributes like color or make of car.

"The public shouldn't be deluded into thinking that these cameras act solely as 'license plate reader' devices, when they, in fact, track and store much more detailed information than license plate numbers," the ACLU wrote. "The capability that these cameras have to indiscriminately track when and where drivers go can create an oppressive system of government surveillance in a free society."