Police can request outside data
VERMILION — Vermilion City Council approved an ordinance prohibiting automatic license plate reader systems Monday after a lengthy debate over police access, privacy protections and penalties for violations.
The final ordinance prohibits the installation, operation or use of an automatic license plate reader system within Vermilion. It also separately prohibits city entities from purchasing, leasing, renting, contracting for, installing, subscribing to or accepting donated ALPR equipment or software. City money cannot be used for ALPR purposes.
The ordinance defines the technology broadly. It includes systems from Flock Safety and similar companies such as Axon and Motorola Solutions, along with fixed cameras, mobile cameras, vehicle-mounted systems, artificial intelligence-powered vehicle recognition systems and cloud-based ALPR databases.
License plate readers photograph or scan vehicles and license plates and create records that can be searched later.
Councilman Drew Werley, who wrote the ordinance, brought a revised version to council after members raised concerns during previous discussions about how a ban could affect police investigations.
“I think I hit almost everything that was asked for as far as changes going here,” Werley said while reviewing his revisions.
Police access remains
The final ordinance does not completely prevent Vermilion police from using information collected by license plate readers elsewhere.
It specifically allows the Vermilion Police Department to request or receive information from other departments. It also says the ordinance does not prevent law enforcement vehicles from other agencies from using equipment already on those vehicles while traveling or working in Vermilion as part of their normal duties.
That distinction became one of the major points of Monday’s discussion.
Werley had revised the ordinance to address concerns that Vermilion officers could lose access to information held by neighboring departments during investigations. He also removed earlier language restricting officers from accessing outside systems.
Councilman Greg Drew raised additional concerns about whether language involving subscriptions or contracts could create a problem for a Vermilion officer assigned to a U.S. Marshals task force or another outside law enforcement assignment.
“You don’t necessarily have to have a Flock camera installed in your city to have access,” Drew said. “So, if we have a member on task force or the U.S. Marshals or wherever, potentially it could conflict with that. That’s my only concern.”
Drew proposed simplifying portions of the ordinance to make clear that the city itself could not acquire a license plate reader system without interfering with an officer’s legitimate access through another agency.
He also objected to several of the ordinance’s introductory statements, saying some contained conclusions that could be debated.
“I think a lot of that is debatable and subjective to someone’s beliefs,” Drew said.
Council ultimately removed one of those statements before passage.
Emergency restriction removed
Another major point of discussion involved proposed language dealing with “exigent circumstances,” generally referring to an emergency requiring immediate action.
At one point, the proposal would have restricted Vermilion police requests for outside ALPR information to certain emergency circumstances or after obtaining a warrant.
Drew questioned whether that could prevent officers from using the information later during an investigation after the immediate emergency had ended.
He gave the example of investigating a violent crime days later and questioned whether that would still qualify as an emergency.
Council ultimately removed the disputed exigent-circumstances language before approving the ordinance.
The final ordinance simply states that the Vermilion Police Department “may request or receive information from other departments.” It does not include an emergency-only requirement in that provision.
Fine remains, jail removed
Council also spent considerable time debating what should happen if the ordinance is violated.
Werley’s earlier proposal included the possibility of up to 180 days in jail. He removed the jail provision before the ordinance was passed but supported keeping a financial penalty.
Drew proposed eliminating the violations-and-penalties section entirely.
Werley disagreed, arguing that the ordinance had been revised to provide enough room for legitimate police work that someone violating the remaining restrictions would have to go beyond those exceptions.
The final ordinance makes a violation a strict-liability first-degree misdemeanor and allows a fine of up to $1,000 for each offense. There is no jail sentence listed in the final version.
The ordinance also says any contract entered into in violation of the law is void and any data unlawfully collected must be destroyed. It directs the city to prosecute violations under the penalties contained in the ordinance.
Werley also read council portions of a memorandum from the ACLU of Ohio supporting restrictions on automatic license plate readers and raising concerns about large-scale collection of vehicle-location information.
After the final amendments were approved, council unanimously adopted the ordinance.
The ordinance establishes a new section of Vermilion’s codified ordinances dealing with emerging technology and takes effect immediately upon passage and mayoral approval if statutory requirements are met.