|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell says a new ordinance he’s proposed on automatic license plate readers such as Flock will place greater restrictions on their use. But a civil-liberties advocate is skeptical that the mayor’s proposal includes enough safeguards.
The mayor’s office released the proposed ordinance Wednesday, the same day Mitchell vetoed the City Council’s temporary ban on operating license plate readers. The mayor says his ordinance is an effort to balance the technology’s public safety benefits with concerns about how police collect, retain and share the information.
The measure includes “several common-sense reforms,” Mitchell said in a press release, such as limiting searches to trained personnel and establishing procedures for reviewing allegations of unauthorized access.
Mitchell declined The Light’s interview request through public information officer Jack Thuon, who referred The Light to the press release.
On social media on Wednesday, Mitchell posted a video announcing the proposed ordinance and giving residents an update.
“License plate readers have been around for almost 20 years, and they’ve been very useful to law enforcement in tracking down abducted children or finding dangerous and sometimes armed criminals,” he said. “So there is an appropriate use for license plate readers to keep the public safe, but the technology has to be used responsibly.”
He said his ordinance includes restrictions that “allow law enforcement to utilize this powerful technology without running over people’s privacy rights.”
Wednesday, during his weekly appearance on WBSM radio, Mitchell said, “If passed in this form, I think this will probably be the national model, dare I say, in how these things can be regulated responsibly.”
The city stopped using Flock cameras in August. Its contract with Flock expires Nov. 12, and the city is not renewing it. Still, Mitchell and some city councilors are interested in using license-plate readers again in the future.
The focus now is on what restrictions should govern any future use of them.
Flock cameras have sparked sharp division in New Bedford following multiple cases of misuse by police departments across the country.
In New Bedford, oversight remains a concern after two police officers, Emily Pacheco and Sgt. James Marinelli, were fired in October because internal investigators found they had used the city’s Flock camera system to track current or former romantic partners.
City Council deals with an ordinance, a ban and a veto
The City Council voted 8–3 on both Sept. 24 and Oct. 22 to temporarily bar the city from operating license plate readers or renewing contracts for them.
Alongside the temporary ban, Councilor-at-large Shane Burgo introduced a draft ordinance in September to regulate automated license plate readers and other mass location-tracking technologies.
Burgo and Council President Ryan Pereira said Mitchell’s ordinance is similar to Burgo’s, including provisions requiring City Council approval.
“For the most part, we agree on a number of provisions that he has included,” Burgo told the Light late last week.
But Burgo said he wants to tighten some provisions and add others “to make this ordinance stronger to make sure that our residents are protected from this technology, as well as our officers.”
On the same day Mitchell introduced his ordinance, he vetoed the council’s temporary ban on operating license plate readers.
That ban will now return to the council, which it expected to acknowledge receipt of the veto at its Nov. 12 meeting, then take up an override vote on Nov. 24. The ban is not currently law, Burgo said, and it’s important because it would prevent the administration from signing a new contract while councilors and the mayor negotiate regulations.
“If those eight votes hold, at that point, it would become law without his signature,” Burgo said.
What Mitchell’s ordinance would do
Mitchell’s ordinance would require a public hearing and City Council approval before the city enters or renews a contract for automatic license plate readers.
It would restrict searches to trained police personnel and require the Police Department’s Professional Standards Division to conduct monthly reviews of the system’s use. The reviews would examine officers’ searches, including their stated purposes and associated case or incident information, and their maintenance of “hot lists” — of license plates repeatedly searched as part of investigations.
The city would delete data after 30 days, unless it is relevant to an open criminal or internal investigation or retention is otherwise required by law.
Police could share data upon request with outside law enforcement or criminal justice agencies that acknowledge the department’s restrictions on its use.
One of those restrictions includes a ban on running searches where the primary purpose is civil immigration enforcement.
DA-elect supports mayor’s ordinance
State Rep. Chris Markey, who will be sworn in as Bristol County district attorney in January, said he doesn’t know whether the mayor’s ordinance could become a national model. But he said he fully supports the automated license plate readers, calling them “an invaluable law enforcement tool when used properly.”
The first 48 hours after a homicide, for example, are crucial to an investigation, he said. But in many cases, witnesses are reluctant to speak with police, slowing the process.
“So, if you can use those hours productively without relying upon witnesses who are not cooperating, and you can use the technology to track down people who give a bit of a description of a car, that’s an effective tool.”
Markey said he agrees with sharing data with other agencies as long as it is done “in the proper fashion,” such as helping another local police department track a criminal suspect.
As for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Markey said the state’s new PROTECT Act would bar the Police Department from sharing data for immigration enforcement unless the agency had a criminal warrant.
“Under the PROTECT Act, we could not provide them that information if it was for a civil warrant,” Markey said. “If ICE calls New Bedford police, the PROTECT Act requires it to be a criminal warrant for them to be able to assist ICE in using the ALPR or having any communication with a criminal matter.”
To help prevent misuse of license plate readers, Markey said he supports requiring a police supervisor to approve searches before an officer conducts them — a requirement not currently in Mitchell’s proposed ordinance.
“I think a two-step would be better,” Markey said, “but that’s something that the city council, the chief and the mayor can discuss.”
ACLU’s critique
Some of the measures in Mitchell’s ordinance are not strong enough, said Gideon Epstein, attorney and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts’ Technology for Liberty Program. He said he sees the ordinance “more as a permission slip rather than true restrictions.”
Monthly reviews would help the department detect abuse after it has already occurred, but they would not prevent it, Epstein said.
The ordinance does not expressly require a supervisor to approve individual searches, Epstein noted, nor does it require officers to document reasonable suspicion or investigators to obtain a warrant.
Requiring officers to enter specific reasons for searches has been proven insufficient, Epstein said.
When reviewing Pacheco’s and Marinelli’s searches, investigators found that they had entered reasons such as traffic infractions, trespassing, hit-and-run incidents, alcohol offenses, disorderly conduct, assault and battery, and welfare checks when searching for their current or former partners’ plates.
To prevent misuse, Epstein said, he supports near-immediate deletion of license plate reader data for vehicles not suspected of wrongdoing. For vehicles under investigation, he said, police should obtain a warrant.
When it comes to the ordinance’s regulations on data sharing with other law enforcement agencies, “I see good intent,” Epstein said, “but I think the language is still not sufficient.”
The mayor’s ordinance allows sharing data with agencies upon request if they acknowledge its restrictions on data use, retention and further sharing. Preventing automatic, ongoing access is a good first step, said Epstein, but the requirements for third-party searches are not strong enough.
“There’s certainly the possibility that other department officers won’t have the kind of oversight and accountability mechanisms built into their departments that prevent misuse,” Epstein said.
“There should also be basic restrictions on how widely the department is going to share data geographically.” The Police Department began restricting searches from nationwide to Massachusetts and Rhode Island agencies in November 2025, but that policy is not part of Mitchell’s ordinance.
The ordinance would also give the Police Department sole authority to decide where to install license plate readers and says it “shall not be required to disclose their locations to the public in the absence of a court order.”
“I definitely think this kind of language raises transparency issues,” Epstein said.
Email Eleonora Bianchi at ebianchi@newbedfordlight.org.
