Automatic license plate reader (ALPR) technology remains actively utilized by law enforcement agencies across Franklin County, despite growing public concerns surrounding privacy and surveillance issues. The ongoing debate has centered on the use of Flock cameras and similar systems, with residents questioning how data collected by these devices is utilized and shared.
Some community members have called for the removal of certain cameras, expressing fears about vandalism and potential damages to the equipment. In response, Franklin County Sheriff Ben Sites acknowledged the validity of these concerns and emphasized the importance of addressing them accurately. “I think that the different groups made their way around to anybody and everybody that they could,” he said, noting that some discussions strayed from the initial focus on privacy.
While the Franklin County commissioners opted not to renew a contract for cameras at the courthouse, Sheriff Sites confirmed that other ALPR systems continue to operate. He clarified that “Flock” has become a commonly used term to refer to ALPR technology, irrespective of the manufacturer.
Sites took residents’ concerns seriously and reviewed his department’s policies on data retention and sharing. He noted that Pennsylvania lacks specific guidelines on how long such information should be preserved, which led his office to establish a 30-day retention period. “Most agencies, they could keep it longer… that’s what we did,” Sites explained, adding that the system is mainly designed to target serious issues such as stolen vehicles and missing persons.
Regarding private business cameras, Sites explained that ownership does not automatically grant law enforcement access to all footage captured. For instance, businesses like Lowe’s have the option to share camera data with police to aid in investigations. He likened this to residents voluntarily providing security camera footage following a crime.
Chief Deputy Daniel Foy brought up a previous initiative involving Ring cameras, where residents could register their devices, allowing police to request footage if relevant to an investigation. “It’s up to me whether or not I want to say yay or nay on it,” Foy stated, highlighting that the sharing of information remains voluntary.
While some communities have adopted more advanced measures, such as allowing live camera feeds to be shared with real-time crime centers, Sites mentioned he is not advocating for such practices in Franklin County. Local townships have opted to fund the ALPR technology for law enforcement, and those agreements remain effective.
Addressing the challenges of managing public records requests, Sites noted that the volume can strain law enforcement resources. He expressed frustration about repeated criticism following public announcements, which can detract from police work. “It gets to the point where you just honestly get drained from it because you’re trying to do your job,” he remarked.
In light of the controversy, Sheriff Sites expressed his desire to create an online transparency portal to provide residents with insight into how law enforcement employs ALPR technology. While there has been some resistance from government officials, he believes that transparency can foster greater understanding of the law enforcement process and its successes. “People should know what the law enforcement officers are doing in the wins,” he said.
