From: Kristan LaVietes
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment: Opposed to License Plate Readers in Alameda Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 7:33:22 PM
I'm a resident of Alameda, and I strongly oppose the installation of license plate readers. There is little evidence they deter crime very well, they cost way too much money, and I have serious privacy concerns--I don't want my City monitoring and collecting data about where drivers go, now or in the future.
Many Alamedans have a very real concern about public safety, but pursuing license plate readers fails to address that concern in a way that engages the community and involves community experts who can advise.
I'm hopeful license plate readers will get a firm NO from the council, and everyone will move on from this dangerous, expensive, useless proposal.
--
Kristan LaVietes (she/her)
310/430.2568
[email protected]
From: Jeanne Nader
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; City Clerk; Manager Manager Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-A License Plate Readers
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 5:44:26 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I respectfully request that you oppose the implementation of License Plate Readers for the following reasons:
- there is no proof that these systems do anything to prevent crime or clear cases. In fact, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, "in aggregate, ALPR data can paint an intimate portrait of a driver's life and even chill First Amendment protected activity". -APD has provided no information on how data collected will be shared with outside agencies, e.g., ICE - creating more unease for vulnerable Alamedans.
I also have strong objections to the APD asking for $250,000 towards ALPR beyond their approved, incredibly bloated budget.
How can we chant the mantra - Everyone Belongs Here if we codify what amounts to racial profiling?
Please do the right thing and vote NO on Item 7-A.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Nader
305 Spruce St., Alameda
510-928-0357
From: Bill Garvine
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Comment on item 7A (APD-ALPR) on 02.01.22 council agenda Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 5:08:25 PM
Hi Laura,
On January 20, 2022, I sent the following email to the council re: item 7-A on tonight's agenda. I inadvertently forgot to copy you on it. I would ask, even if it occurs after the meeting, that it be added to the public communication file. Thanks and apologies for neglecting to copy you on the original email.
Thanks, Bill G
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Bill Garvine <[email protected]
>
Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 5:33 PM
Subject: Comment on item 7A (APD-ALPR) on 02.01.22 council agenda To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]
>, John Knox White
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Trish Spencer <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: Eric Levitt <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
This email is an expression of my unqualified support of the proposed use of both fixed and mobile Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) by the Alameda Police Department (APD) as detailed in item 7A of the February 1, 2022 City Council meeting agenda.
ALPR's, under the strict "authorized use" guidelines and principles submitted as a response to prior council and citizen input, will be a valuable crime-fighting and investigative tool serving the public interest of the community in public safety and security.
I sincerely believe that there is no city council duty more sacred than making Alameda, and its residents, safe and secure. I support, and ask you to do likewise, any tool that APD requests (which can be legally utilized in responsible and respectful fashion) that enhances its ability in support of its primary mission.
I strongly support the use of technological-based tools, like ALPR's, in this endeavor.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Please support item 7A (APD - ALPR) as proposed and responsibly make Alameda more safer and secure.
Regards,
Bill Garvine
2828 Marina Drive
Alameda, CA 94501
From: Jeff Atwood
To: Manager Manager; Trish Spencer; John Knox White; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Alameda Budget Item 7-A: Use of Fixed and Mobile Automated License Plate Readers Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 4:54:12 PM
Hello,
My name is Jeff Atwood, I'm the co-founder of Stack Overflow and Discourse, and I've been heavily involved in the tech scene since the early 1980s. This is my wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Atwood
As of December 2021 I now permanently reside in Alameda, at 1240 Hawthone Street, so I have a personal interest in the improvement of my new home and neighborhood.. which has been wonderful so far!
I'm writing to you about Item 7-A
Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding
the Use of Fixed and Mobile Automated License Plate Readers, an agenda item for Feb 1, 2022.
I would strongly advise against spending $250,000 of the city's money on ALPR systems, that is, systems dedicated to license plate reading from agencies who profit greatly from this specific activity.
https://www.eff.org/cases/automated-license-plate-readers What I would recommend is instead spending that money on higher quality general purpose cameras, because cameras are an inevitable part of modern life. Cameras can be useful in so many scenarios, and should not be stuck with the oddly specific (and arguably privacy invasive) task of tracking license plates. Furthermore, higher resolution cameras can provide all kinds of useful information in the future for any number of data analysis projects in the public interest.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my opinion. Thank you for everything you do to make Alameda a great place to live.
Regards,
Jeff Atwood
From: Joe VanWinkle
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] License Plate Reader Crime Data
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 4:35:57 PM
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msg Part 1 Crime 2014-2021.pdf
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Mayor and City Council,
Part 1 Crimes, the serious ones, are up 51% since 2014.
The attached PDF summarizes the data for you.
However, the real impact is not on numbers, but on peoples lives.
Too many Alameda residents are victims of crime
or know friends or family that have been victimized.
Please give the police the tools they are asking for to do their job.
Thank You,
Joe Van Winkle
Sent from Mail
for Windows
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Alameda Part 1 Crimes Reported
Murder/Man Rape Robbery Assault Burglary Grand Theft Petty Theft Auto Theft Arson Alameda Crime Statistics: 2014-2021
Serious Crimes Continue to Climb
• 51% Increase in Part 1 Crime
• Rape Increase 160%
• Robbery 31%
• Assault 101%
• Grand Theft 118%
• Auto Theft 88%
• Arson 45%
• Total Part 1 Crimes Reported
• Year 2014: 1885 reports
• Year 2021: 2849 reports
• 964 more victims of serious crime in
2021 vs. 2014.
Source: Alameda Police Dept Crime Reports
From: msatobrown
To: John Knox White; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1 Feb. 2022, Item 7A: Automatic License Plate Readers Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 4:32:12 PM
M. Brown
Alameda CA 94502
1st February 2022
City Council Members
City of Alameda, California 94501
re: Automatic License Plate Readers
Council Members,
To photograph the license plate of every car that enters Alameda describes a police state.
Furthermore, to do so will not solve the problems that presumably so worry its proponents who are willing, nevertheless, to surrender their privacy, their individual personhood in their support of a policy that will steal the same from those of us, residents of this city, equal in our rights and responsibilities, who prize our privacy and who adamantly believe our lives are not for the public nor private companies to scrutinize at will. We do not volunteer to be victims of crime, but equally, we reject tactics of a police state.
I appreciate people are fearful of being robbed, of being accosted, of being hurt or killed (the fear heightened, perhaps
, as we continue to be constrained in various ways during this drawn-out Covid pandemic); but what guarantee is there that if such a thing should occur, that the perpetrator is not an Alameda resident, that he/she drove into town, that there is no other way to find the perpetrator except, and specifically, a photo of his/her car license plate among all photos taken by a police camera of every car coming into town 24/7, sanctioned by you, City Council members, our representatives and civic leaders? Such filming produces meta-data that cannot be totally protected from theft and/or misuse, and you, Council members, will be responsible should you vote to make such filming City policy.
There are many and far-reaching threads in this fear before us today, and each should/must be thoroughly examined, as should all possible responses and their ramifications, including the "solution" of police action/method so quickly presented here. Additionally, police are important to any city, but not every problem is best "solved" by the police; and far too often people immediately call the police rather than another agency or department or professional(s) better equipped and trained to handle a particular situation or concern. Our problems and concerns are many and deep, similar to those of other cities near and far. Bandaids are no cure. We need to all come together, to take the time and effort to really listen to each other and together weave a response that includes us all and for which we are each responsible.
Democracy is not easy.
I urge you most strongly, Council members, to reject the filming of every car that enters Alameda; reject Alameda becoming a police state.
Most sincerely,
M S Brown
1 Lara Weisiger
From: Michelle Macarai <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 4:24 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on ALPR for city council meeting tonight 2/1/22 Hello,
I wanted to write and share my perspective that ALPRs are terrible idea for the City of Alameda.
The APD budge is quite robust and installation and data storage would call for an additional $250,000 expansion of the budget. I would rather see additional funds used for the Community CARE project to address mental health crises
instead of law enforcement involvement.
There is no substantial proof that ALPRs prevent crime. There had not been encouraging evidence for the APD ALPR pilot project that shows prevention or reduction of crime.
Finally, we all know about implicit biases and racial profiling. Police Departments and law enforcement don’t need to
have reinforcement of these unfair practices.
I understand that people want to feel safe in their homes; my neighbors had an armed home invasion last year. That violence and harm should never happen. But I do t see how ALPRs are going to prevent crime or assist in finding those who commit crimes. The City of Vallejo found that approximately 35% of hits were misreads!
Please protect privacy.
Please spend funds on schools and social programs to combat poverty and institutional racism.
Sincerely,
Michelle Macarai
Sent from my iPhone
1 Lara Weisiger
From: Elizabeth Burton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 4:21 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ALDR proposal opposition
Hi,
I am writing to the city council to register my opposition to the planned installation of automatic license plate readers (ALDR). There are several reasons I am opposed to this:
1. There is little data to support the effectiveness of ALDR to prevent crime. Berkeley recently instituted a similar program; why don’t we wait and see the effects of their program and gather more information before implementing this program?
2. The small pilot ALDR program in Alameda has been hampered by maintenance issues and expansion of the system will not correct these issues and could potentially compound them, costing even more money.
3. This program expands community surveillance, something this council has previously opposed with regard to the use of facial recognition. What information do we hope to gather with ALDR? What will happen with the data generated by this surveillance? These questions need to be answered and full transparency is required if we want to avoid further distrust of law enforcement and the city government.
4. If plans for this program do move forward, the funds should come out of the existing budget. No new budget allocation should be made.
I appreciate you forwarding this message to the city council, and allowing my voice to be heard.
Elizabeth Burton
From: Marian Breitbart
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ALPR
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 3:40:16 PM
I have reviewed the posted documents on this issue. The information provided is a vast improvement over the documents available at the last meeting where this was considered.
I have informally polled my HOA Board and friends and find overwhelming support for ALPR. It is unclear if an increase in the police budget is contemplated. I also find it somewhat appalling that 2 council members seemed opposed regardless of the arguments and 2 in favor regardless of the arguments.
Thank you for your consideration. In this defend the police atmosphere, we should probably consider showing our support for the police while continuing to hold them accountable where appropriate.
From: Ashley Gregory
To: City Clerk
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposed to ALPRs
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 3:35:41 PM
Dear City Clerk, Councilmembers and City Manager,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of APD's budget to include the funding of ALPRs. With an assounding one third of our city's budget already going to APD, this is absolutely an unnecessary
expenditure.
Let's be brave and innovative enough to use funds to invest in programs that actually keep people safe. I urge the council to take direction from the Police Reform and Racial Equity subcommittees' recommendations. Notably, increasing APD's budget to include ALPRs is not included.
Respectfully,
Ashley Gregory
From: Diane Molter
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council: APPROVE AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READERS (ALPRS) TONIGHT Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 3:27:26 PM
Importance: High
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella, and Council Members Knox White, Daysog and Spencer:
I urge you to act and approve the installation of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR’s) at all exit and entry points of Alameda and to install mobile readers for our police.
There is an increasing
amount of crime in the Bay Area, including in Alameda.
Please help to protect Alameda from serious
crime by voting for Automated License Plate Readers at tonight’s Alameda City Council meeting.
We
need to help deter crime by sending a message to criminals that Alameda is not an easy mark for criminal activities.
Many residents of Alameda are concerned for their safety.
We would like to safely move about
without the fear of being assaulted.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Diane M. Molter
Alameda homeowner since 1982.
From: Marc Eisenman
To: City Clerk
Cc: Marc Eisenman
Subject: [EXTERNAL] License Plate Readers
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 3:27:18 PM
Attachments: ME ICON.LETTERHEAD.png
I am a citizen of Alameda and I am concerned about the rising crime here. I fully support the installation of license plate readers in Alameda.
Marc Eisenman
917 Lincoln Ave
Alameda, CA
94501
From: Jason Biggs
To: John Knox White; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council Mtg 2/1/2022 - Agenda Item 7 - Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 12:10:33 PM
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am not against implementing ALPRs. My gut instinct says they should work,
they should be
a force multiplier. However, it surprises me that, to this day, after 4 long years, we still have not seen any data proving their efficacy. In fact, we have seen several data proving their lack of correlation with crime - thanks to councilmember John Knox White, I was made aware that crime in Piedmont and Tiburon actually went up after their implementation of ALPRs.
ALPR supporters will show you only one data point - 80% of Nextdoor users polled are overwhelmingly in support of ALPRs.
And that is exactly the problem.
Crime in Alameda is at or near a 30-year low, but the increasing prevalence of social media platforms has amplified our awareness of any crime happening anywhere on the island.
And a
social media platform like Nextdoor not only amplifies this awareness, but funnels people's paranoia into an echo chamber that can be detrimental to the city's ability to evaluate proposals in an objective and level-headed manner.
Which is why I'm circling back to the main thrust of my letter - where's the data?
Otherwise,
let's spend the money on things that we know work - recruitment bonuses, improved retention measures, more officers, more mental health services.
Thanks,
Jason BIggs
From: D Zachariah
To: City Clerk; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager Subject: [EXTERNAL] No Thank You! No APLRs in Alameda~ (agenda item 7-A, 02-01-2022 Alameda City Council meeting)
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 9:35:37 AM
City Clerk, Mayor, Councilmembers and City Manager,
This is a letter to comment on agenda item 7-A on the February 1st City Council meeting.
I’m writing to express my opposition for allowing the Alameda Police Department to install, use and monitor APLRs in Alameda for the following reasons:
1. NO PROVEN TRACK RECORD THAT APLRs REDUCE CRIME: I do not think these cameras will prevent any crime or act as a deterrent. I'm not even sure what "crimes" these cameras are intended to monitor for ~ how will knowing a license plate help to stop theft and/or property crime?
2. NO NEW ALLOCATION OF FUNDS: The added expense to the city (and addition to the APD budget) is extraordinarily high for any projected return on the investment. If APLRs are a foregone conclusion, the funding
MUST come from the already approved budget of
APD and not include any new allocation of funds. I believe (and is fairly obvious from comments on Nextdoor) that Alamedans prefer additional APD staffing/police on the beat if our tax dollars are to be spent on crime prevention and detection.
3. INVASION OF PRIVACY/RIGHTS VIOLATIONS: Privacy rights of citizens is paramount; there is a history of using private gathered information for purposes other than intended.
Please enter my comments regarding agenda item 7-A into your official record.
I sincerely hope that the City Council will consider other options for supporting the Alameda Police Department while remaining aware of their fiscal responsibility to and the privacy rights of the citizens of Alameda.
Signed,
Denise Zachariah
From: David Teeters
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council Mtg - 2.1.22
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 9:36:53 PM
Attachments: DRTALPR 2022.pdf
DRTALPR 2018 .pdf
We sent you safe versions of your files.msg
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Re: ALPR agenda item for Feb. 1, 2022:
I assume that Council meetings are not yet open for public attendance. In lieu of a personal delivery, I would like to re-submit my original 2018 letter on the matter of ALPRs and my 2022 update to that letter, both attached:
Thanks,
David
January 31, 2022ꢀ
Dear Council Members,ꢀ
When the City of Alameda was considering in 2018 the installation of ALPRs on the entrances to our bridges and tunnels, I submitted the accompanying letter in opposition. I was comparing such an installation to the security systems of the gated community to which my parents retired in 1980 and I questioned the need and the wisdom of such cameras in Alameda. I repeat one of the final paragraphs of that letter, which still expresses my concern:ꢀ
“I don’t want to live in a gated community. I don’t want my community to move in that direction. I consider the present proposal for cameras a move in that direction. The use of such cameras, once in place, is subject to decisions far down the road, made by persons with different motivations than yours, at a time, perhaps not so distant, when the forces of social unrest bring about conditions that are deemed to require extreme measures.
If anything, with the events of the last two years, my concern is expanding.
I had the recent opportunity to discuss ALPRs with a friend well-informed on issues of privacy. I understand that it takes a warrant, presumably signed by a judge, to use the data gathered by ALPRs to identify a car’s owner. But I didn’t know, since the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, the degree to which a coordinated analysis by government authorities, also subject to issuance of a warrant, can use information gathered from many more sources, both governmental and corporate, including all the platforms of social media popular with a growing share of the population. Such an analysis describes all of the patterns of behavior that can be deduced therefrom, the scope of which and application thereto I, and probably you, can only guess at.
And the analysis is immediate, completed in an instant, because the software is in place and the data is in storage. The access is simply a matter of decision. The information gathering will only get more intrusive and the analysis more sophisticated. Is this really the direction we want to support? Especially, when the studies of the benefits, as recent as 2021, are so stubbornly inconclusive?
I have no reason to believe that our current police chief is anything but informed, diligent, and upright. I am concerned about the future. What do we want it to look like? To what use will surveillance technology be put as fear rises, as judgement falters? I ask you,
David
David Teeters, citizen
January 6, 2018
Dear Members of City Council,
When I was a kid, gated communities did not exist in my part of New Jersey. There were new developments springing up with landscaped entrances that included low stone walls, and we mocked the pretension that was employed by the sales team to convince buyers that such appendages lent both charm and grandeur to the otherwise rather pedestrian projects.
Little did we know what was in store. Twenty years later my parents moved into a retirement village in the same community in which I had grown up. Shadow Lake, a sprawling community with a single entry point had a guardhouse and a gate, manned by uniformed personnel who made a phone call to my parents when I arrived by car. I couldn’t see well enough into the guardhouse to tell if they were armed, but I thought the whole thing was pretty silly. And I marveled that this safety feature was deemed desirable enough for condo sales to justify the investment. This was about 1980.
Fast forward to 1999. My wife and I visited Alameda and I was struck by the reminders of my childhood on the Jersey shore. A low-key community with a 50’s feel to it, a culturally diverse population, good schools a little worn at the heel, and affordable to middle class and upper middle class couples looking for a home. Even the bridges were reminders of river and estuary crossings that would occasionally be held up by a passing sailboat, all very charming and picturesque. What a lovely place to raise kids.
We have become what is commonly referred to as solid citizens - knocking on doors for bond measures, cleaning beaches, writing climate action resolutions that gave rise to the Climate Action Plan and CASA, speaking out at AUSD board meetings to address bullying in the schools, supporting socially responsible lecture series, and trying to keep up with the actions that various Alameda boards present on their agendas.
Fast forward again to 2018. I found out only 4 days ago that this city is about to put cameras on those same bridges that I cross every day, cameras which would read and remotely store the license plate numbers, 24 hours a day, of every car entering and leaving Alameda, presumably to aid in the deterrence of car theft.
I don’t want to live in a gated community. I don’t want my community to move in that direction. I consider the present proposal for cameras a move in that direction. The use of such cameras, once in place, is subject to decisions far down the road, made by persons with different motivations than yours, at a time, perhaps not so distant, when the forces of social unrest bring about conditions that are deemed to require extreme measures.
I don’t want to be a party to any decision that might provide tools to aid the enforcement of such extreme measures. I want the record to show that until the case is made in a convincing and public way to the people of Alameda, I am against this proposal.
David Teeters
Citizen of Alameda
From: Rachel Wilson
To: City Clerk
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment for City Council Meeting 2/1/22, Item 7-A Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:57:28 PM
Dear Clerk,
I am opposed to expanding Alameda Police Department's budget in order to fund additional Automated License Plate Readers in Alameda. I am concerned that ALPRs have not show evidence to prevent crime or clear cases and will be used for racial profiling. If APD is determined to get more ALPRs, then they should do so within the framework of their existing budget.
Thank you,
Rachel Wilson Wheeland, Alameda Resident
From: Ashley Mullins
To: Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 7-A
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 7:01:29 PM
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to urge you to direct staff NOT to move forward with the implementation of fixed ALPR technology OR expand the use of mobile ALPR. While community concerns about increases in crime are real and valid, there continues to be no substantive data supporting the use of ALPR in preventing crime or solving cases, and there is plenty of evidence that ALPR technology poses worrying threats to the privacy of citizens.
In 2020, the Council agreed to take direction from the Police Reform and Racial Equity subcommittees to change the way Alameda
is policed. It is my hope that the current
Council will uphold that commitment in every police-related decision going forward.
With no compelling evidence that ALPR will make our community safer, I believe it would not be in our best interests to spend more money on this technology.
The
Alameda Police budget already accounts for a third of the city’s total budget. If reduction in crime is the real concern, we should focus on investing funds in community services that will actually prevent crime: affordable housing, affordable
childcare, access to mental health treatment, sustainable jobs, youth development programs, NOT license plate readers.
Thank you,
Ashley Mullins
West End Resident
From: Lorin Laiacona Salem
To: City Clerk; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
Subject: [EXTERNAL] No on Item 7-A ALPRs
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 6:23:50 PM
Mme. Mayor and Council,
I am writing in adamant opposition to approving the use of Automatic License Plate Readers and expanding Alameda Police Department's budget to do so. APD already has a generous budget - one third of the city’s expenditures - and I oppose increasing it, particularly for a technology that does not prevent crime or improve our quality of life. There is no proof presented by the APD or in the staff report that these systems do anything to prevent crime or clear cases.
There are also serious privacy concerns with the data collected by ALPRs. APD has, in the past, proven itself to be untrustworthy when it comes to use of facial recognition software (see Buzzfeed's article 4/9/21) and has provided no outline of how newly collected data would be shared with outside agencies, such as ICE. I do not trust that APD would not misuse ALPR data.
Above all, this council has agreed to follow the Police Reform and Racial Equity subcommittees’ recommendations relating to changes to policing in Alameda. These recommendations do not include ALPRs as a solution to crime or as a way to prevent police wrongdoing. Council should focus on following their recommendations for reducing police harm in our community, not looking for new ways to expand it.
Thank you,
Lorin Salem
Alameda Resident