By Kathryn Watson | Watchdog.org, Virginia Bureau
A City of Alexandria Dodge Charger police car equipped with mobile ANPR produced by ELSAG North America (Mobile Plate Hunter 900). Two forward facing ANPR units are mounted on the trunk of this vehicle.
RICHMOND, Va. — The room was still as 15 state senators offered an “aye” or a “no” one by one, indicating whether they wished to expand a proposal for how long police can keep automatic license plate reader-collected data from seven days to 60 days.
At first, it wasn’t clear which side would win the Monday battle over how long police can keep information that conveys the exact coordinates of a citizen’s vehicle — quite possibly, your own — at a given second.
A bill from Democratic Sen. Chap Petersen called to limit it to seven days, which was already longer than he wanted, given that former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli called the random collection of such license plate data without a warrant illegal. Cuccinelli issued that opinion after word broke that Virginia State Police had been using the cameras to capture plates at political rallies for Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. But Republican Sen. Dick Black pushed for a 60-day retention period in the Senate Committee on General Laws and Technology.
The seven-day limit eventually passed out of the committee, 12-3, with Sens. Jill Vogel, Dick Black and Bryce Reeves — all Republicans — dissenting. It now heads to the full Senate.
As in many committee meetings related to police authority, the voices of law enforcement were clear and well represented. In a state Legislature dominated by Republicans, the clash between the liberties those lawmakers claim to hold dear, and their loyalty to police and public safety is all too real.
“We oppose this bill,” said Dawn Harman, an assistant chief for operations at the Prince William County Police Department, who said 60 days is still far too short. She pushed for a six-month limit. Lt. Thomas Bradshaw with the Virginia State Police mentioned 9/11 and the Boston Marathon Bombing as grounds for being able to track the whereabouts of currently unsuspected citizens.
Dana G. Schrad, executive director of the Virginia Associations of Chiefs of Police, also stepped up to oppose a seven-day retention period. The Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Lynchburg, Michael R. Doucette, dubbed Cuccinelli’s analysis that collecting and retaining LPR data is illegal as “flawed.”
John Jones, executive director of the Virginia Sheriffs Association, said police should be able to keep the data, but non-police shouldn’t be able to access it.
Only Claire Gastañaga, executive director of the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, argued the need for liberty and for the most limited data retention period possible. “The current state of the law we believe is that there are no days, and frankly, we would prefer that,” she told lawmakers.
Following the vote, Peterson released a statement noting the “formidable opposition” of law enforcement, “who are usually my very good friends and allies on legal issues.
“Suffice to say there is a fundamental philosophical disagreement between our views of government data collection. My premise is pretty simple: the state should not use surveillance technology to collect information on its citizens when there is no discrete reason to do so.”
So far, this particular attempt to temper police authority and protect civil liberties has fared better than many other attempts in the General Assembly.
Another bill in the House to limit ALPR data retention to just 24 hours hasn’t moved from committee since the start of session one month ago. Bills to have the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission study the militarization of police in the commonwealth and to equip police with body cameras failed. And lawmakers in both chambers are pushing to give local and state authorities greater powers to use subpoenas for search and seizure.
This doesn’t surprise John Whitehead, civil liberties advocate and president of the Rutherford Institute. He said he’s seen a “shift” towards “pro-police” in general since the riots in Ferguson, Missouri.
“The other thing is, the police unions are very, very powerful,” he said. “They run the show.”
The Fraternal Order of Police, the Southern State Police Benevolent Association, the Virginia State Police Association and the Virginia Sheriffs Association all employ lobbyists at the General Assembly, and many members of local police orders show up at legislative meetings and donate to candidates. Since 1996, for example, the Virginia Sheriffs Association has donated more than $1.2 million to political campaigns and candidates in Virginia, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
Lately, Whitehead said talk radio and even entertainment stations that normally have him on their shows have closed off the lines of communication, citing pushback from law enforcement unions.
Republicans in particular may say they stand for liberty, but when it comes to anything to do with police authority, they cave, he said.
“It’s hypocritical,” Whitehead said.
The retention of license plate information or the use of drones may seem harmless, but watch out in the future, Whitehead warned.
“Sooner or later with all of the intelligence information, if you speak out, they’ll use it against you,” he said.
— Kathryn Watson is an investigative reporter for Watchdog.org’s Virginia Bureau, and can be found on Twitter @kathrynw5.
The post Law Enforcement Agencies have Strong Pull in Debate to Limit their Power appeared first on The Virginia Free Citizen.