Eugene police advised to limit license-plate data sharing to county agencies

A revised Eugene Police Department policy on license-plate readers should limit data-sharing agreements to law enforcement agencies within Lane County, the city’s Police Commission voted Thursday, Nov. 13.

Chief Chris Skinner spoke at a Thursday commission meeting about wanting to bring an updated policy to council discussions on the pole-mounted cameras, stating he’s open to a recommendation from the commission, a citizens’ advisory group.

But after an Oct. 8 city council vote to pause use of the cameras, which were first installed in May, those discussions may not take place for several weeks.

The council won’t renew discussions about the technology until next year, Greg Evans, council president, said in an interview Friday.

“The cameras are off,” city Councilor Jennifer Yeh said at Thursday’s meeting. “So, you know, I think that some of the urgency is not quite the same as it was before, when they were still on.”

To which Skinner remarked, “I guess it depends on whose urgency.” In the meeting, Skinner again spoke about the importance of the technology to law enforcement agencies.

Police have credited cameras installed by Atlanta-based Flock Safety with helping catch criminals, including a murder suspect and also seven men arrested in connection with a burglary ring targeting Asian American households.

But the council vote came after outcry from citizens at numerous public meetings, with many expressing concerns that outside agencies — including federal law enforcement agencies under President Donald Trump — could gain access to data from the camera and target vulnerable groups.

Already, Eugene police had opted out of Flock Safety’s nationwide data-sharing option and limited sharing to other law enforcement agencies in Oregon.

Skinner spoke Thursday about wanting a recommendation from the Police Commission related to data sharing.

“Is there a level of restrictiveness that we could take this down to that still puts some measure of the tool in our hands to do the work that we need to do?” Skinner said.

Springfield Police Department had cameras installed by Flock Safety in September, but police have said the cameras will not be activated until further community discussion.

The Lane County Sheriff’s Office also has entered into an agreement with Flock Safety, but a spokesperson last month said the sheriff’s office had no timetable for installing the technology.

Florence police also use pole-mounted Flock Safety cameras.

Among other agencies in Lane County, the Junction City Police Department has used in-car license-plate readers since the summer from a different manufacturer, Axon. The Oregon State Police also uses in-car license-plate readers from Axon.

The Police Commission vote to amend the police department’s policy specifically recommended entering into data-sharing agreements only with Lane County policing agencies able to enter into reciprocal agreements, so agencies using Axon technology would likely be excluded.

Asked his thoughts on data-sharing, Skinner said, “I certainly have a public safety recommendation which would be, at the very least Lane County, because Springfield and the county both have systems that we would, we could leverage.”

Skinner added that he did not think the department needed to share its data nationwide.

The department also brought forward internal draft revisions to its license-plate policy, which include:

• Specifically stating that license-plate reader data “shall not be used for the purpose of immigration enforcement (ORS 181A.820) or out-of-state abortion prosecutions.” The law citation references Oregon’s sanctuary law, which generally prohibits local and state law enforcement agencies from assisting with immigration enforcement unless there is a judicial warrant.
• Prohibiting the tracking of vehicles going to and from health care facilities. The draft revision now states: “ALPR data shall not be used to specifically target or track the movement of vehicles traveling to or from health care facilities, including but not limited to hospitals, clinics, mental health providers, and reproductive health care centers.”
• Adding prohibitions against monitoring “expressive activities” protected by the First Amendment and also tracking individuals “based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other protected characteristic.”

Skinner said the policy “we would all agree, is a living document that can be changed as we learn more, if, in fact, the system is salvaged at this point.”

Correspondent Grace Chinowsky contributed to this report.