Alachua Police Department: ALPRs are valuable tools that must be used appropriately
Release from Alachua Police Department
ALACHUA, Fla. – Alachua Police Chief Jesse Sandusky released the following message today about automated license plate readers:
The Alachua Police Department is aware of the ongoing local and national discussion regarding the use of License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology by law enforcement. We understand that the use of this technology has raised important questions among members of the public regarding privacy, access to information, appropriate law enforcement use, and potential Fourth Amendment implications. These are legitimate concerns that we take seriously.
The Department recently received notification from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) revoking active permits for Automated License Plate Recognition Systems located within FDOT rights of way and requiring affected equipment to be removed within 30 days. Nine LPR cameras located within our jurisdictional boundaries meet the criteria outlined in the FDOT notification. The vendor has been notified, and we have been advised that it intends to comply with FDOT’s 30-day removal requirement. As of now, the remaining LPR cameras in service that do not meet the FDOT permit criteria will remain operational while we continue to monitor relevant court proceedings, legislative developments, and guidance from state and federal authorities regarding the use of this technology and its potential Fourth Amendment implications. It is important to remember that as of now, the courts have stated that the use of LPR does not violate 4th Amendment protections. If and when those standards evolve, we will evaluate our practices and make the necessary adjustments to remain consistent with the law and our responsibility to protect the rights of the people we serve.
As we comply with the FDOT directive, we also believe it is important for our community to understand why law enforcement agencies have come to rely on this technology. LPR has proven to be a valuable investigative and public-safety tool for the Alachua Police Department and law enforcement agencies throughout the country. It has assisted officers and investigators in quickly identifying and apprehending suspects involved in serious crimes, locating missing and endangered persons and juveniles, recovering stolen vehicles, and removing stolen firearms from our streets.
The effectiveness of any law enforcement technology, however, does not lessen our responsibility to ensure that it is used appropriately, lawfully, and with respect for the constitutional rights of the people we serve. Law enforcement officers routinely have access to sensitive databases and investigative resources that are not available to the general public. That access carries with it a significant responsibility to use those systems only for legitimate law enforcement purposes and in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and procedures.
The Alachua Police Department has policies and safeguards governing access to and use of sensitive law enforcement information, including LPR data. As with other restricted law enforcement databases, allegations that an employee has improperly accessed or misused information are taken seriously and are subject to review and investigation. Appropriate action can and will be taken when violations of law, policy, or procedure are identified. That being said, a thorough review of our current policies will be completed to determine if even more stringent internal processes need to be implemented.
We do not believe that public safety and individual privacy have to be competing principles. Our responsibility is to pursue both. We will continue to seek an appropriate balance that allows law enforcement to use effective technology to identify offenders, solve crimes, locate vulnerable people, and protect our community while ensuring that those tools are used responsibly and with appropriate safeguards for the privacy and constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
“We do not believe that public safety and individual privacy have to be competing principles.”
The fundamental issue we all have with dragnet surveillance completely alludes this cop. Everyone knows these cameras help law enforcement. Everyone also knows that fourth amendment rights are violated, regardless of any previous lower court rulings. Americans have decided that the benefit to law enforcement does not override our right to privacy.
Tough titty said the kitty, but the milk’s still good.
*eludes
“We do not believe that public safety and individual privacy have to be competing principles.”
He is right. In a perfect world.
I’m former cop. I see the reason these cameras can be good. But I don’t trust everyone to do the right thing with them.
The real reason I’m fed up with this is I am a human. And AI and cameras everywhere have taken the humanity away from us. Ultimately, we are the product being sold.
Watch the Movie, I ROBOT (2004)
Thats A I abuse at its best! FLOCK CAMERAS NOT EVEN CLOSE!
Oh, it’s coming, hopefully Not in my lifetime!
I am sick and tired of people *itching about their “rights”. If you aren’t doing something nefarious you have nothing to complain about. Once a kidnapping of a child, a hit and run or a murder occurs (to name a few) that can’t be solved because we lack the tracking capability then you handwringers will all be begging government for their return. Guaranteed.(PS: Why not disconnect the school zone cameras – after all – its your God given right to speed through a school zone, right?).”
Did A.I. write this submission for the Alachua Police Department?
Try publicizing something else that’s 75% more brief and with 75% more substance.
They know this is an unpopular position, but they’re in essence saying, “we know you all hate these, but suck it, we’re experts. Our toys are more important than your freedom.”
Interesting a cop is saying they’re a useful tool when it’s cops nationwide committing the violations of proper use.
Could you imagine the misuse of the flock system if the general public had full access to it?
Don’t get drawn into the distraction of whether they are useful or not (of course they are), or whether they are abused or not (of course they are).
On a simpler level, this kind of broad and warrantless 24/7 government surveillance plainly violates the 4th Amendment rights enshrined in the US Constitution.
Random warrantless house searches would be a great tool for law enforcement too, but it’s un-Constitutional for a reason.
I respect and am grateful for law enforcement, but this type of government surveillance is a greater existential thread than all the crooks in GRACE Marketplace and City Hall combined–and that’s saying a lot.
“ He who sacrifices liberty for safety gets neither”…
Got a cellphone? You’re being tracked.
Travel on any of Florida’s many toll roads? They know where your car is.
Have a smart TV or streaming service? They know what you watch.
Shop in Publix? They know you’re there.
Purchase from Amazon? They know what you like.
That’s modern society and most have crawled out of their caves.
I normally agree with many of your posts, but this is a very weak and non-sensical argument.
Because private company Publix tracks the shopping data of its customers, it’s okay for the government to install a 24/7 warrantless surveillance system on all citizens?
Because many people choose to voluntarily carry a cellphone, location data from which can be accessed by law enforcement with proper warrant, it’s okay for the government to install a 24/7 warrantless surveillance system on all citizens?
Don’t be part of the propaganda. This technology can be a great help to law enforcement I’m sure, but it is simply a violation of our 4th Amendment rights and cannot be allowed.
In our own town, fancy tech is not needed to keep citizens safe–the police can actually start arresting bums that are panhandling on every corner instead of driving right by them and doing nothing, and our pathetic Eighth Circuit courts and prosecutors can actually start doing their jobs.
The only equipment needed are a good pair of eyes and a functioning pair of cajones.
The police need warrants for all of the “tracking” that you’re suggesting they have free access to, FLOCK cameras do not require a warrant just a request from law enforcement. Little to no oversight, RIPE for abuse (and has been abused).
Research Quantum Mechanics. On a subatomic particle level, electrons react differently when being viewed.
Both of my comments (responses to the posts of both “Joe” and to “You voted for it, you got it.” d*sappeared immediately right in front of my eyes after seeing them posted. I’ll try again with code words, but I won’t be g*slighted into believing this is just a random glitch.
Thr*ve C*mm*nts is just a neutral layer right, you believe that? Doesn’t seem like it on this end.
To summarize, whether private corporations do it or not, whether it is useful to law enforc*m*nt or not, and whether it is ab*sed or not, it still is not allowed under the Am*nd*ment of the C*onst*tuion that is numbered between three and five.
TC really seems to dislike these words, let’s see if we can get around the c*ns*rsh*p that always seems to pop up specifically around this issue.
I’ve turned off Thrive Comments. If that doesn’t fix it, I’m going to turn off all comments while we reevaluate providing this free service, since our readers don’t seem to trust that we’re doing the best we can with the ever-changing issues involved in running a website in 2026.
Jennifer,
I’m not alone in saying that I very much appreciate the reporting and public forum provided by your team. You provide a great resource to countless people! I have zero doubts about your intentions. Please don’t let a few haters ruin what you have built. Tech issues constantly screw with everyone…I think that is understood by most.
God bless!
Also – AC starting requiring verified email for comments this exact same time last year. This is not a coincidence.
This is my problem with partisans. They all go absolutely insane in the 2-3 months preceding an election. I don’t even like to talk to people much this time of year, especially if it’s a midterm or major election year.
Unhinged partisans really piss me off.
G’Ville Dad-
Something is wrong with comments here right now. It doesn’t matter what you type…all replies are instantly removed.
Just create a new comment/thread instead of replying for now. That’s what I’ve been doing.
Dear Alachua Police Department:
Nice letter.
We, your CUSTOMERS, aka taxpayers, recognize the law-enforcement value of LPRs. We just don’t trust YOU (read that last sentence twice).
We have read with horror the many stories of cops using these systems to stalk lovers, ex-wives, and romantic rivals. We get it. LPRs can help locate missing children and solve crimes faster. And when used by a jilted lover, they’re terrifying.
Until such time as CRIMINAL penalties, including real jail time, for police who misuse these systems become routine, and a *civilian review* of EVERY LPR login and use is established, we’ll fight you. You can never have too many checks and balances on a technology with such a well-documented history of abuse and such extraordinary potential for further abuse.
You can draft flowery letter after flowery letter espousing the value of this tool, but you’re missing the point. It’s not the tool. It’s the user. I notice no individual was willing to sign their name to this letter.
COWARDS.
You know you’re on the bad end of a 90/10 issue.
Flock you for writing this bull-spit defense of a reviled technology that is routinely abused by the police. And this comes from someone who otherwise supports the police at every opportunity. But LPRs and their ROUTINE abuse by cops? Nope.
Nice letter, though. Good luck with that.
Alachua PD is just wrong. PD’s have abused the systems endangering the public and even worse, FHP lazily used data to arrest an innocent person for traffic homicide (and cost her 13 days in jail). The case was publicized heavily in Daytona area (former Gainesville Police office Patrick McGeehan is her attorney and her name is Lindsey Brooke Isaacs).
It’s a great example of Flock cameras resulting in false arrests.