Consider Directing Staff to Develop a Recommendation on an Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) Program.  (Vice Mayor Knox White)
Considered directing staff to develop a recommendation on an automated license plate reader program. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Vice Fairfax by. Vice Mayor next week. Thank you. So my interest tonight is to well, you know, as many of you know, 2018 there was a discussion around the use of automated license plate readers in Alameda that was sent back for additional information on the use of the data setting, some privacy policies, etc.. In our last meeting, we set a number of those policies, including expanding to a surveillance policy. And I know that there's been a lot of interest in that in some aspects of the community to at least have a conversation around automated license plate readers. So I brought this referral to find out if there is interest from this body to look at license plate readers and then understanding that there are two different issues. There's the license plate readers which provide real time information about vehicles in cities. And then there's the second issue what do you do with the data once it's happening? And so there's a spectrum of how we how license plate readers could be implemented in Alameda. And there may be places where the police department and staff feel that there is a reasonable use of them and where they aren't interested in that . And so I wanted to again see if there's a interest on the council to ask staff to explore how they might propose using license plate readers in Alameda County consistent with our privacy policy, which is not yet an ordinance and consistent with the the San Francisco surveillance ordinance, which we sent to staff for their consideration to bring back is an ordinance as well. But in that it outlines a number of reporting requirements for when we move forward with surveillance type technology. So until we have our own ordinance set, it's pretty much the gold plated surveillance ordinance in the Bay Area and probably in this country. And it would be a good pilot for how does this work and how does it inform both the council and the community about the impacts of proposed use of technology in in Alameda? And then additionally, if data is being collected, if we were to move forward with license plate readers, where would we be comfortable having staff consider kind of the retention and use and possible sharing of any of that data data possibly providing staff with a menu or a spectrum of of or range of. Sorry. Brain freezing where they were with a range of options for how they might come back and talk to us if they were interested in bringing that back. So that is my refer counsel comments. Councilmember Vela Um, so I'm a little bit, um, I had a referral several years ago to get the privacy and data retention, um, ordinances in place. And, you know, one of the things that happened was that our police department asked for an exemption, uh, specifically for, for law enforcement. Um, and well, we discussed that exemption at the last meeting that was not with the thought of Alpers being adopted. Um, so I would like to see what the actual ordinance and we did give instruction at the last meeting about the ordinances and looking at the ACLU model ordinance as well as the San Francisco ordinance. Um, I think, Vice Mayor, you were, you were pretty clear on that instruction and helping us clarify that for staff. Direction. But I would also like to see, you know, to have staff come back with both of those, um, and with an explanation of how a law enforcement exemption would interact with this and what it would mean . Because I do have concerns about, you know, if we're going to adopt an ordinance for privacy and data retention. Um, I would like the ordinance to apply. And specifically part of it is to have it applied to all aspects of government, including law enforcement, so that there can't be, um, you know, abuses, maybe not even by our own city, but by vendors who we contract with. The other concern that I have, and it's something that we've discussed in the past, is while there is a Supreme Court case saying that cities are not bound to release kind of wholesale data collected by Alpers, the Brown Act still or not the Brown Act, but the the Public Records Act still compels us to release records to people that are the vehicles registered owner. And we've heard from a couple of speakers tonight regarding domestic violence concerns and things like that. Um, I would like to know if there's a way to, to, uh, you know, create a policy specific to checking on certain things, for instance, before we do a release, if we could have a policy in place to check to see if there's any civil or criminal restraining orders against the requesting party, that sort of thing. The reason being, you know, I think that we're all human. Our police officers are human. I was in my third trimester of pregnancy when Alameda Police Department came banging on my door in the middle of the night, woke both my husband and I up. Um, and we had multiple officers and there were four or five at our door searching for somebody who was not, uh, living with us because they had gotten a welfare call and this individual had a criminal and a civil restraining order against his former partner. And that former individual was, had been very abusive and violent and was harassing this individual and basically was calling in to various police departments, um, saying that this individual was a threat to himself and was essentially trying to weaponize the police. And so out of their good intention, they showed up at our house, understandably concerned for the welfare of this individual without realizing that the person calling was literally down the block trying to see if that individual was, in fact, staying with us. And, you know, my concern would be the same sort of thing. You know, if if your partner and you're an abusive relationship has the car registered to them, you know, somebody's putting in an information request and getting that information and then using it to stalk the person. And I don't want us to inadvertently turn over information that could help facilitate that sort of thing. Thank you. Councilman Brody. Sure. I had a couple of comments. I appreciate customer vela's comments that I share a lot of the same concerns. I guess the threshold issue to me is, I mean, do we have support to do this? Because, one, this is a tremendous amount of work for our police chief, who I imagine would be the one. Doing it. And if there's not a majority that want to move forward with license plate readers, it's a waste of time, in my opinion, for him to do all this work if it eventually gets voted down. So further. I mean, if it for me to vote on it, I would want this information. So I think that's a prerequisite even before it comes. And, you know, I'm not into setting the priorities of of the police chief, but we do have a shortage of of staff right now. And I know he's made that a top priority of his. We have eight or nine kids now that have been hit since the beginning of the school year. And I know he's made that a priority of his. So, I mean, my question to the city manager is, you know, where would doing this work fall in with those priorities? Because I'd rather have our police force working on not having kids get run over and filling vacancies than drafting a report for something that may have limited use or limited value. So, I mean, that would be one of my questions. So I don't know. You don't have to answer that now, maybe. So depending upon where the I would agree with you and agree with you, but those are high priorities that you mentioned. My recommendation would be that this would probably fall below those priorities and that we would bring back the parameters you want to see. And then he can move forward with the license plate readers depending upon whether or not the parameters work. But I would do the parameters prior to doing any work on the LP. Okay. Because I'd like to see, you know, information on, you know, exactly what it is that we would use this for because I mean, the original proposal was to put them at the bridges and the tubes. And I hear people, you know, I see on Facebook, well, I had a package stolen from my house and we have license plate readers. We would have caught that person. Well, no, because we don't know what that person doesn't have a car. So or you know, I was assaulted by so-and-so. You know, a license plate reader would have would stop them. Okay. Well, if you're not a car, you don't know when they're crossing the bridge. And I do have I mean, another example is, you know, so and so, you know, I was a victim of a crime by a a green person. So then if we want to find that green person, then we're scrolling through thousands and thousands of photos profiling a green person. I'm just using that as an example. I mean, that color I know we don't have green people, but I mean that that potential for racial profiling is concerning to me. The potential for, um, just the issue with the shooter was not to my tongue, but I forgot. But I'll come back to it. Um, the whole issue with domestic violence, I mean, I could easily see an instance like Councilmember Vela brought up where, you know, someone's the owner of the car, their wife or husband or whatever as a victim of domestic violence. They get their records, you know, they find out they go off the bridge every day at 933. Maybe they're in hiding. And then all of a sudden, the next day, that person's there, they stalk them, they kill them. So, I mean, and then, you know, I have concerns about that. I have concerns about, you know, this data being misused by someone who has a right to that if they own the car, you know, use it in a family law dispute. I used to do that as a as a living. And those things get vicious, you know. And I thought of the other one and I forgot again. But, um. Oh, and I think we were on the verge of adopting this a while back. And then we found out that, you know, data was going to ice, not because we wanted it to, not because our police were giving it, but because the vendor was doing it. Even though we were we were somehow told that that wasn't happening. I don't know if it specifically was for Alameda, but that vendor was sharing data with ice now three years ago. You know, this would not have been a problem. But, you know, I don't know where we're going in the next 3 to 5 years with with data that could be commandeered. You know, this is a different time than it was three years ago. So there's a lot of things I'd like to see. You know, these examples turn into use cases. You know, that's kind of is something where you kind of lay out what's going to happen in these certain circumstances that we can kind of see and show the public, yeah, this is going to be valuable for this. You know, this is going to be, you know, we're going to protect you in case of this or, you know, that type of thing. So I can visualize, you know, how this tool, if we decide to adopt that is going to be effective and how the civil liberties of our public, you know, are going to be protected. Because, you know, you could have you know, there's just so much potential for abuse. And, you know, I before I would vote on this, I'd want to make sure that I was satisfied that that that that potential was protected or prevented. Thank you. Councilmember Desai. Oh, well, thank you very much. I come at this from a different angle. Back in 2013, I believe it was, uh. Council. Lina Tam at the time took an interest in license plate readers. Both of us were asked to attend a meeting at Ruby Bridges Elementary School because residents at the Bayport neighborhood were very concerned about about the increasing increase of crime that was going on and saw in license plate readers as a possible tool to deal with safety and crime related issues. I continue to have that perspective and I saw that the City Council between 2013 and 2015, 2016, I think made incredible headway in terms of moving forward with implementing license plate readers . And we also had an audit report that was issued I think some time in December 2015 looking at, you know, what had been the record of the license plate readers that were put into place. And I believe they were for the four or so license plate readers. They were pretty effective in identifying a good number of vehicles that were associated in criminal activity. My hope is that we return to looking at license plate readers, especially from the lens of crime prevention, of making people who want to come into town, whether they cross the bridges or or come in through the to think twice about coming into Alameda using their vehicles to commit crimes. And I think license plate readers does that. I think there's been some considerable evidence that crime has reduced been reduced in the city of Piedmont because of license plate readers that were placed there. And I think they had expanded the numbers just recently in terms of issues of what you do with the data and in terms that particularly with regard to civil liberties, I believe the city of Alameda had a robust discussion around data, data management and, uh, and I think that certain policies were in place if they need to be tweaked and they ought to be tweaked. But in my opinion, I believe we need to get back to implementing license plate readers where we can within the budget that we have. Um, that's my perspective. I think it's a, it's first and foremost a crime prevention tool in a time of great changes in and in the region and in Alameda. I think this is one way of making people feel safe and secure when they come into the city of Alameda. And I think we owe that to the residents of Alameda. Thank you, Councilmember Desai. So here's my perspective. Um, I think that all of us are probably aware of a horrendous attack that occurred in New York State during Hanukkah where an intruder, a criminal, barged into a rabbi's home, a crowded home with children and guests there celebrating Hanukkah pulled out, I mean, a large knife, but it sounded more like a sword and injured a number of people badly and then fled in a car and was later arrested in Harlem, which was a considerable distance from this home in northern New York. And the way that that person was tracked down and so quickly, I mean, within hours was because there were fixed license plate readers that guests at the party had the presence of mind to get the license plate of this fleeing vehicle. The police came and then that information was broadcast out to jurisdictions and it went up into these license plate readers. And they were able to they ping when whenever a vehicle, a wanted vehicle is located and that person is now under arrest and, you know, will be facing charges for a horrendous hate crime, is what it was. So I was on the city council when we adopted the use of license plate readers on a number of our police vehicles. They don't all have them, but there's a certain number of maybe four, maybe half dozen, I don't remember. And there's a policy that governs the use of those. ALPERS And it's not terribly different than I would imagine a policy would be for license plate readers on fixed locations like our portals, our bridges and. The entrance to the tube. I think it's unfortunate and I know it wasn't intentional that we brought this item forward at a time when the police chief was going to be out of town. I suppose we could have delegated or designated someone from the police department to be here to answer questions, because it's not really fair for us to be speculating. But I will say and I attended there was a forum that was held at the library. Tony, I feel like you might have been there. Are you Jim? Were you. Okay. But you were in the audience, you know what I'm talking about. And there was a panel and there was someone from New Haven. The ACLU attorney was there, and there was a white paper that was published. But it was on the basis of the feedback from that workshop that our license plate reader policy was, was adopted, was, was formulated in adopted. And so I'm sure that rather than throw it out and start from scratch, I mean, I'm sure San Francisco does great work, but we're not San Francisco. I have huge regard for the ACLU. I'd be interested in what they say, and I know we use the ACLU, use white paper and examples in formulating the policy for the body worn cameras that our police department also uses. But I heard concerns raised and, you know, valid concerns that our police department is currently understaffed. And so how would we prioritize all this? But I've also heard our police chief say many, many times he would like to have these license plate readers. He refers to them as a force multiplier, that they're what they're able to do is to be collecting data and doing the work of officers manually having to do that or going out on on a bit of a wild goose chase, a retention policy. Retention policy is in the current the current guidelines. I haven't looked at it for a while. It's could well need to be revisited. Technology changes, but there's definitely a retention policy there. Now I share the concern that's been expressed with sharing. I would be want to be very clear about who does and doesn't get that. But I know there's there's been concern raised about, say, domestic violence victims. I'm more conversant with the of the body worn camera policy because that was more recent in time. There are definitely in our policy exceptions for even activating your body worn camera. If you are interviewing someone who's a domestic violence victim, they're very sensitive. They don't want to be on camera, a child victim. I mean, there's there are guidelines to that and there are certainly guidelines to who can access the the the footage from license plate readers. It isn't just that the, you know, disgruntled ex-boyfriend with bad intentions can can walk in and get that it is that is not the case. But we'd want to make sure that any policy has those protections, the potential for racial profiling. I'm confused here because we're talking about license plate readers that are reading the license plate and not the. I know there were other examples of well, it caught a screenshot of the driver of the vehicle, too. These are machines that are capturing the license plate data and so so it knows that that car with that and yeah it would capture a bit of the rear or the front of the the bumper. So you might be able to tell the make and model of the car. But using it for racial profiling, I'm I'm confused about how that could happen. And certainly this is not something we want to do. But but as far as the civil liberties, you know, we were reminded when we did this discussion previously about license plate readers that there is no expectation of privacy driving down a street or a highway with your car. You don't have a right to the privacy of your license plate as you drive down the street. But whatever we do as a council, of course, we balance competing interests. We want to look out for civil civil liberties. We want to protect vulnerable populations, domestic violence victims. But these are not mutually exclusive propositions. I do believe we can, and I know I certainly get these emails and I would imagine my counsel does to from residents saying, when are we going to get those? And so I think that even more so now at a time when we are short staffed as a police department, and I don't see that reversing or completely reversing anytime soon because we all know the challenges to filling law enforcement positions. I think we owe it to our police department. I think we owe it to our citizens to make these tools available that can help make us a safer community. And again, I give you the recent New York example. We have policies in place now. They should be revisited, updated. But I think I think it's time to move forward. And I had just a couple questions on the the wording of the staff report that on page two says the report should include effectiveness in reducing auto theft auto recovery. I would like to add should include but not be limited to because they're I mean I'm I don't do police work but I would imagine there are other things that license plate readers could help in in in capturing like a terrorist, you know, a hate crime that was in New York. I mean, that's not auto theft. That but that was that was a very important arrest that was made possible by an LPR. And then I, I was confused about the next to the last bullet on the second page, which says the report should include information on the level of interest of Alameda Police Department leadership in proceeding under each of the identified scenarios. And is that what what did you mean by that? I just think there would have been a sub sub bullet of the the bullet above it, which is options for addressing. So, you know, what options would we be if we were interested? Well, if we were interested in moving something forward and we had, you know, some members who were interested in just real time know, warehousing, etc. , that might be one thing we say, hey, please, you know that. You know, city manager, when you come back, look at this option. And another one might be right. This spectrum sharing your data with everybody in the world and not caring about who uses it. Not that I'm proposing that. You're right. Yeah. It may be that the police department says, you know what? Real time license plate readers with no data warehousing, retention and use for detective work in the future not interested in that. So what they. Said at the meeting. Right. So, you know, I think that there are there is a spectrum of what we do with that data. And to your point, there is probably some places where there's probably some places where all five of us are like, yeah, let's, let's, let's move forward this and the police might say we're not going to spend half a million dollars on that. It's not worth it. So I think I just wanted to well, I have some comments, but that was for that. Okay. Well, and that's the extent of mine. So. Vice Mayor. Sure. So, you know, I want to appreciate this. I actually think everybody made comments that I thought were very consistent with what I proposed. This referral is not to say let's do license plate readers. This is to take the temperature of the council and say, is there are there three people who who would be interested in seeing license license plate readers under certain under certain circumstances? And what would those circumstances be? I would say that it includes it requests a report that provides information on the effectiveness of. Yeah, we can we can talk about hate crimes and terrorist tax. I think those happened so infrequently. We have you know, I would I would like to be careful of is getting a report that goes to the hyperbolic very you know Timothy McVeigh you know you could have in court kind of thing which is unlikely where where our community is very much concerned about package theft, etc.. But, you know, to Councilmember Otis examples, I agree. I think that there is a lot of misinformation about how useful license plate readers are. And I think that having a well-researched report that actually uses effectiveness studies to talk about where this will work and be useful like it will help us find stolen vehicles. It will not likely capture most package thieves. One of the areas that our police department does talk about that I was interested in, it came up in our conversation is a lot of the smash and grabs are being done by crews in and when they and they they work the entire East Bay and they start in Fremont and they hit mile after mile after mile. By the time they get to Alameda, they often know that they are out, but they don't know who. But they they can get screengrabs, let's say, from Fremont. And they might actually know as they drive in from High Street that these folks that are going to hit, you know, bridge side, south shore, Alameda landing. Read a village and then leave town again. It might be possible whether or not that's going to happen all the time and it's worth the time and expense is. But but, you know, there are some places where some of these property crimes could could have an impact as well. I'd like to hear from the folks who know better, but I also wanted to be very explicit that I don't want anecdotal. Here's a newspaper article in which some, you know, small town police chief says, we put these in and they were great. That's not that's not useful data to me. The surveillance ordinance from San Francisco. So so I guess what I was going to say is we last meeting, we actually passed a policy for based on the ACLU use your best practice and directed that that policy become an ordinance. So I think that we've already given staff the direction pretty clearly. Well, and so, again, we're not approving anything. What we're asking is bring this back and tell us how any data that was collected would be used in the course of the collection of this, so that we can make an informed decision about whether or not we want to move forward with a license plate readers. You know, if there's not a scenario where a person wants to go or wants to support license plate readers, I wouldn't move this forward. Again, I didn't. I did mark this not urgent but important with the understanding that the the city manager and the police chief are going to have to choose their that their prioritization in terms of work plans. You know, I think, you know, how I would summarize this this referral and I'm happy to say not limited to it's basically is it are there scenarios where a majority of this council would support license plate readers? I would suggest, given that there are scenarios where I will in scenarios where I won't, you know, I would be interested in looking at not sharing with national and possibly state law enforcement agencies, but possibly sharing with local law enforcement agencies, at least for consideration, and then identifying the effectiveness and concerns so that it can come back at some point when the when the police department decides that it is a big priority for their goals and the goals that we've given them, so that we can have that conversation knowledgeably with all the information in front of us. I'm going next because I feel compelled to address something that you said, Vice Mayor. I take exception to the story, the incident that I described in New York being characterized as a hyperbolic example. In fact, it is reported that there is an increase in. It since that I minutes of your time is that council would need to vote to suspend the rolls to continue additional. Can I. Okay. Can I. Whatever time. See, time. I'll be allowed to do that. No. Okay. Okay. Well, you can vote to allow me to continue or not. I'll move. Okay. Are there others who would. Like 3 minutes or 4 minutes or what. Do you suggest? 3 minutes would be fine for me. Day three, then 3 minutes second. All in favor. I. Okay. So I don't think that that was a hyperbolic example, and it certainly wasn't a Timothy McVeigh. That's the reference to the Oklahoma City Federal Building. But Vice Mayor, it has been reported and documented that there is an increase in anti-Semitic incidents in our country just a week before the attack at the rabbi's home. There was an attack on a kosher grocery in New York. And so, God forbid anything should happen in our community. But we also can't put our heads in the sand and pretend that it won't. And what I'm considering are issues. And again, if we had the police chief or someone from APD here, they would tell you that they're concerned with crimes a lot more serious than package thefts and that they have you know, we're a very safe community, but there's some folks who do some pretty horrendous things that pass through here. And so, yeah, at the end of the day, I think we all do want a safe community. Thank you for sitting me more time. Okay. I saw that everybody's got their hand up. I saw Councilmember Avella first. I'm going to go to her, then Councilmember Desai, then Councilmember Odie. Councilmember Vella So I just my concerns from before were that I don't want this to give people a false sense of security. And I think that that's kind of what's underscored by what the vice mayor has put forward in terms of requesting data. And I, I would like I am interested in data, not allegorical stories or that sort of thing, but but hard data specific to prevention. We've we've heard a lot about how these can be helpful in solving crimes, to me, increasing public safety. It's great that we can solve crimes. I want to make sure what's the data around preventing them? And that's part of what's included in here. And I appreciate that. But and that's I just want to highlight that that's something that's of of importance to me. I think that there's often a lot of different tools that are available. For instance, China's using facial recognition software. We see biometrics coming up more and more with AI forms of identification. Even real ID is is kind of another method of of kind of harvesting data by government is. Here that right we're just talking about LPR is just for the sake of Browning correct. But but my concern is while it could be a substantial tool in solving crimes when we're do it, when I'm doing the analysis of the civil liberties, I also want to see what's the trade off. And, you know, I do think we're in a time of heightened anti-Semitic attacks. You know, a lot of this coincided also with, you know, the celebration of Hanukkah. But we're we're alternatively seeing that, you know, there was a report out this weekend that right after the airstrike that killed the Iranian general, that customs, customs and Border Patrol detained dozens of people and that the plane was Iranians. Right. Iranian-Americans that. Right. And and again, how how did they know they were Iranian-American? You know, they were detaining them at the border. Yes, it was the border crossing. And there's a. They had dual citizenship, too. Right. But but to me, I you know, I am worried about again, who are we sharing this data with? I frankly would be concerned with even sharing it with local law enforcement, depending on if those other cities had policies to share their information with other agencies in a time where these sorts of things are being used to to to look at individuals of certain ethnic descent. I also think that, you know, there was a lot of discussion when we heard this item the last time around, the value and this was not our police chief, but the product, the person that was representing the product around the value of the photo showing the surroundings and the people in the vehicle. And I think, you know, my fear, I guess my greatest fear would be that somebody says, I have a partial license plate, I have 6l2, but the person was this race. And all of a sudden we're now scanning through, you know, looking for everybody who's X race and has, you know, one of those things in their license plate. And I think that's. Part of at least what I think is Councilman Otis concern. And so I think structuring around how our police officers intend to use this and, you know, whether or not, again, whether or not they're exempt. To me, I wouldn't be comfortable with a blanket law enforcement exemption to either of the policies that we discussed before. If this is something that we're looking at getting, because I think that this is a tool that that does have the potential to be abused. Thank you. Okay. Councilman Woodside. Well, thank you. We in the city had lpas and and now we don't have lpas and and. Yeah. But we never had fix. But we need to have these kind of lpas as well. So if it means making trade offs, you know, then let's have this discussion and let's move forward with Vice Mayor Knox White Counsel referral. But, you know, there are some things that I'm interested in when it comes to whether there or LPR is on vehicles or whether there are mounted LPAS. There are some things that I'm interested in and I think the city of Alameda had already demonstrated its ability to move forward with, you know, a reasonable policy with regard to all those other important issues like data retention, like civil liberties. I think we've demonstrated that already with the vehicle LPR And I see no reason why we can't use that as a basis for moving forward with the other type of LPR is that the community is interested in having, but if it means, you know, some of the items that the Vice Mayor Knox White needs to be part of the discussion, then okay, we'll have that discussion. And if that's necessary, you know, make trade offs and compromises as I as I would as a council member because I think. That's what the residents want us to do, is to make this a safe and secure island as much as possible for everyone of all ages. Thank you, Councilmember Odie. So just I'll try to be brief. First of all, Mayor, I thought I'll. Give you more. First I thought your points are very eloquent and your understanding of Lpas is completely in line with my understanding. But I don't think the public knows as much about it as you do because. You know, I was there at that meeting. I supported the the the mobile ones, but the mobile ones are scanning and looking for stolen vehicles. And six years ago when we did that, you know, that was that was a big deal. Not just stolen vehicles missing. Right. Right. So to me, there's a difference. And I'm not saying I'm against them. I want I want all these answers. I could vote for them if my concerns were were addressed. But, you know, there's a difference between patrolling around and driving around in the city and capturing the license plate of every single person who comes on and off the island. I mean, that's the difference for me. And you were eloquent in the point that you pointed out exactly what these things do. They help solve crimes. They help solve that crime. And no one talks about it. But the Oikos shooter, we found him because the Oikos shooter was found in Alameda, my understanding, because of one of our mobile helpers. So remember that which incident? The oikos over in Oakland. The he shot. He shot the people at the at the Korean school. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, there's a value in solving crimes. I totally get that. But I don't see how it prevents crimes. I mean, maybe the incidents where, you know, there's a a truck that, you know, is smashed and grabbed up the East Bay and, you know, we can ping and then we know that person is there. Well, that's you know, that's an instantaneous use, you know, that I don't think anyone has any issue with that type of use. The concern I have and because we did a lot of discussion on this is from, you know, when I spoke to CHP and OPD years ago when they were doing this is you have to have a tremendous amount of data if you want to if you want to solve some of these other crimes that you have to look at. And so for it to be a really valuable tool, you have to keep a year or year and a half worth of data and we have to have a discussion on what if we want to if we want to do that. And B, if we do do that, what the tradeoff is. So the tradeoff is data that is at risk or that, you know, needs special controls around it. So I, I really appreciate, you know, those comments. So these are the things I want to hear about. I had one other thing to say, but I forgot. But I am concerned. And if it's as you describe, which I believe it is, Mayor, you know, where you're taking a picture of a license plate and you're never going to be able to, you know, look at the driver. To me, that's my understanding. But I don't think the public has that understanding. I think they they think if they call in and say a green guy, you know, in a in a tan suit and, you know, just did X, Y and Z that the police are going to be scanning license plate photos for green guys driving a tan sedan with or, as Malia said, the six L. S license plate. And that's where I think people want us to be able to do that. And my understanding is you can't do that. And if that's true, then I'd feel more comfortable. But if there's a chance that that could happen, I think there's that's where the risk of of racial profiling comes in. But, you know, I could be you know, it may not matter to me. But I was happy to support the mobile ones. I just want to make sure there's a differentiation. And if there is something that says it prevents crimes, I'm all ears. But, you know, I think it's effective tool solving crimes. But I have yet to see anything that says it's going to prevent crimes. So if I could address your points really quickly and the mobile ones I know, I love it. I should go. I'm had bet on the mobile ones. You know, the Council on American-Islamic Relations actually had issues because of it, as of an incident in New York, where police with Mobile Alpers were patrolling around a mosque and getting the license plates. But we don't do that. We have a policy. Our retention policy and LPR is, if I recall correctly, is six months. The police chief is still not happy with me because he would have wanted a year, but I really held out for six months. I just felt that that should be long enough. And so as far as could they prevent crimes, I would submit this scenario. So the attacker on the rabbi's home in New York, he had been following these, you know, hate filled websites. He was armed. Who knows what he might have done and where he might have gone if he hadn't been stopped. I know that our LPR as our roving ones have stopped people who are child abductors. I mean, that's preventing a crime and stop. The stabbing or the. No, but but but I can't. Yeah. Right. And so anything we do is going to require some public education. I hope we'll go forward with considering the policy. I hope we'll make sure to have someone from the police department here to answer our questions or draft the staff report or something if and when it comes back. Okay. Vice Mayor. So, I mean, if we're ready, I'd like to propose a motion that essentially moves. I really think all this conversation and the considerations is what I tried to do. I heard a few things that I wanted to add into it just to make it clear I heard concerns about photo captures. I think that at the very least, we should we should request any information might may improve their standing as most of the light. Our helpers do not take photos, but I do know that there were some old models that did so a clarification that photo capture would not be a part of that. And then I think also just based on the things I'm hearing, I think that we need clarification and as we're discussing the new data privacy policy, how that links up with our LPR policy, I would suggest the A LPR policy needs to be amended to align with our data policy in that we definitely part of the conversation when, if and when it comes back needs to be an express discussion on the public safety exemption and how that would apply to the data that's collected here, because it's not my expectation that we're just going to collect information and that does APD and other law enforcement agencies are. We need another motion? Well, actually, I think by 3 minutes. Um. I thought it was specific to the mayor, but if no. I think it was everybody. I think if that were my, my motion would be essentially the referral as written with the mayor's not limited to addition clarification about no photo capture and expressly asking for clarification on the LPR policy as it correlates to the new data policy, future ordinance and express discussion on the public safety exemption and how it might play into this vis a vis the data policy. We have a motion to have a second. I mean, I could second that, but I don't know if I want to. Go second and then the. Second. Unless you were making a friendly. There was a kind of be a friendly amendment. I'm I'm not sure we need to say no photo capture, but, you know, an analysis of what photo capture capabilities may or may not exist because, you know, maybe there maybe that'll never happen, but maybe they'll be some technology that can be an add on. I don't know. Maker of the motion. It's I think, you know, when I hear my colleague on the left not supporting front of capture, I'm not very. Much supporting. It either. I'm not supporting I wouldn't support photo capture. I don't think if we're not using I don't know why we need photo capture for this. So I don't think we do either. But my point was, what if the the product we get somehow has an ability to do that in the future? You know, I mean. Then we amend the. Way they did. Then they would have to come back. Where it's happening without us knowing. Well, that's that's that's its own problem. Like Councilmember Vela. I think my concern would be I want to I want an ordinance to deal with the technology as presented today. I want an ordinance that deals with the technology as presented in known today. And I think it's for a future for future council to amend the ordinance if they're going to expand it. And I think this helps prevent the situation that we had even with our last renewal of the license plate reader technology with the company that that was doing things that were in violation of our ordinance. So if we create the ordinance and there some somehow a violation, then we actually have a legal legal ground to stand on to say, hey, no, we said no, you should have known better and you're in violation and breach. So I'll just second it as it is then. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor or any discussion? No discussion. All in favor. Hi. All right. Thank you for the discussion. All right. Good work, everyone. Thank you. All right, now we move on to item ten Council Communications. Let's just go down the list. Councilmember Odie. So I. Didn't. Really do that first or second. I don't care to do that.