Flock License Plate Readers: Difference between revisions
I didn't know Louis is a time traveler 0.o |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
===State audit findings=== | ===State audit findings=== | ||
California State Auditor's February 2020 investigation found Los Angeles Police Department, with a 320 million image database, had no ALPR-specific policy at all. The audit found 96% of agencies claim to have policies, but most are incomplete. Data retention periods varied wildly with no justification. LAPD maintained a minimum five-year retention period, yet couldn't demonstrate that images stored for years had investigative value. The audit found that 99.9% of the 320 million images Los Angeles stores are for vehicles that were not on a hot list when the image was made.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://information.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/summary.html|title=Automated License Plate Readers|website=California State Auditor|date=2020-02|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> | California State Auditor's February 2020 investigation found Los Angeles Police Department, with a 320 million image database, had no ALPR-specific policy at all. The audit found 96% of agencies claim to have policies, but most are incomplete. Data retention periods varied wildly with no justification. LAPD maintained a minimum five-year retention period, yet couldn't demonstrate that images stored for years had investigative value. The audit found that 99.9% of the 320 million images Los Angeles stores are for vehicles that were not on a hot list when the image was made.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://information.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/summary.html|title=Automated License Plate Readers|website=California State Auditor|date=2020-02-13|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> | ||
New Jersey provides a contrasting model with mandatory annual audits of all 523 law enforcement agencies. The 2024 audit reported only two significant violations, both involving users who hadn't completed required training.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://nj.gov/njsp/ALPR/pdf/2024_Audit_Automated_License_Plate_Recognition_(ALPR)_Data_Collected_Utilized_NJ_Law_Enforcement_Agencies.pdf|title=2024 Audit of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Data|website=New Jersey State Police|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> | New Jersey provides a contrasting model with mandatory annual audits of all 523 law enforcement agencies. The 2024 audit reported only two significant violations, both involving users who hadn't completed required training.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://nj.gov/njsp/ALPR/pdf/2024_Audit_Automated_License_Plate_Recognition_(ALPR)_Data_Collected_Utilized_NJ_Law_Enforcement_Agencies.pdf|title=2024 Audit of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Data|website=New Jersey State Police|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> | ||
| Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
===Cost-benefit analysis=== | ===Cost-benefit analysis=== | ||
Arizona Department of Transportation's 2008 study of generic ALPR technology (predating Flock Safety by nine years) estimated $9.98 million for a hypothetical statewide ALPR system. The projected benefit-to-cost ratio of 9.6:1 came entirely from registration and insurance compliance, not crime reduction.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://apps.azdot.gov/files/ADOTLibrary/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ637.pdf|title=Automated License Plate Recognition Technology Implementation Report|website=Arizona Department of Transportation|date=2008-06|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> | Arizona Department of Transportation's 2008 study of generic ALPR technology (predating Flock Safety by nine years) estimated $9.98 million for a hypothetical statewide ALPR system. The projected benefit-to-cost ratio of 9.6:1 came entirely from registration and insurance compliance, not crime reduction.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://apps.azdot.gov/files/ADOTLibrary/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ637.pdf|title=Automated License Plate Recognition Technology Implementation Report|website=Arizona Department of Transportation|date=2008-06-01|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> | ||
Colorado's Office of Research and Statistics reported that while ALPR systems are expanding, independent academic research contradicts vendor claims. A 2011 George Mason University study concluded ALPRs "do not achieve a prevention or deterrent effect" on crime.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/Docs/Briefs/2024-05_InDetail-ALPR.pdf|title=Automated License Plate Readers (In Detail)|website=Colorado Division of Criminal Justice|date=2024-05|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> | Colorado's Office of Research and Statistics reported that while ALPR systems are expanding, independent academic research contradicts vendor claims. A 2011 George Mason University study concluded ALPRs "do not achieve a prevention or deterrent effect" on crime.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/Docs/Briefs/2024-05_InDetail-ALPR.pdf|title=Automated License Plate Readers (In Detail)|website=Colorado Division of Criminal Justice|date=2024-05-01|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> | ||
Oakland Police Department reported 182 arrests from ALPR in the first year, representing 1.4% of homicides, robberies, burglaries, and firearm assaults. The Northern California Regional Intelligence Center states approximately 1-2 vehicles out of 1,000 initiate alerts—a hit rate of just 0.1-0.2%.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ncric.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/California-Law-Enforcement-ALPR-FAQ.pdf|title=California Law Enforcement ALPR FAQ|website=NCRIC|date=2021|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> | Oakland Police Department reported 182 arrests from ALPR in the first year, representing 1.4% of homicides, robberies, burglaries, and firearm assaults. The Northern California Regional Intelligence Center states approximately 1-2 vehicles out of 1,000 initiate alerts—a hit rate of just 0.1-0.2%.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ncric.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/California-Law-Enforcement-ALPR-FAQ.pdf|title=California Law Enforcement ALPR FAQ|website=NCRIC|date=2021|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> | ||