Automated license plate reader cameras lining Utah’s state highways face a potential roadblock that bypasses the slow machinery of the state Legislature entirely. According to Utah News Dispatch, the nonprofit group Utah Civic Compact announced Friday that state transportation managers hold the power to cancel the core contracts supporting the surveillance technology.
Finding an Exit Clause in State Contracts
During a Friday news conference at the Capitol in Salt Lake City, members of the Utah Civic Compact pointed to specific wording buried inside the Utah Department of Transportation’s contract with Flock Group Inc. The agreement allows the state agency to terminate the arrangement for installations in the event it “determines that the public does not support the Company’s activities.”
Clark Dice, a spokesperson for the Utah Civic Compact, told reporters that leveraging this existing contractual clause would provide a faster resolution than lobbying lawmakers for new statutes. Widespread public outcry over privacy incursions and documented national abuses of license plate data demonstrate that Utahns disapprove of the technology, Dice said.
“They do not trust this new technology, and they do not feel safe when they are being surveilled, cataloged, and surveilled and and watched,” Dice said during the Friday briefing.
Public pushback against the automated cameras has grown in recent months. Citizens have expressed privacy concerns, pointing to documented nationwide instances where police officers improperly used the tracking devices to stalk people they know. In some cases across Utah, the cameras have been vandalized or cut down.
Weighing Administrative Oversight Against Enforcement Needs
While the Utah Department of Transportation acts as a third party granting permits for the cameras along state highways at the request of law enforcement agencies, the Utah Civic Compact argues the agency bears responsibility for helping restore trust in government that’s been damaged by misuse of the cameras, Dice said. However, agency officials emphasize their narrow regulatory scope.
John Gleason, a spokesperson for the Utah Department of Transportation, confirmed that agency attorneys were reviewing the contract on Friday. Gleason noted that the department’s focus right now is on verifying that all cameras bordering state roads possess the proper permits—a process that remains ongoing.
“We wouldn’t be determining the big-picture questions of whether these cameras should be out there or, you know, what the purpose is,” Gleason told reporters. “So those types of questions would have to go to the law enforcement agencies that put them out there.”
Gleason explained that the transportation agency considers matters of equipment, highway safety and paperwork rather than operational oversight. The department cannot access data obtained by the devices, nor does it determine the location, number of cameras or how they operate, Gleason said. Although the state agency is required by law to permit cameras designated for official police use, Gleason said he didn’t know under which circumstances, if any, the department could pull a particular permit.
Balancing Crime Solutions with Executive Scrutiny
Law enforcement agencies across the country use the cameras, with police saying it’s a major help in solving crimes. During a hearing at the Capitol last month, law enforcers urged lawmakers to keep the technology in Utah, pledging to use it responsibly. Flock Safety asserts that its platform helps to solve about 2,000 crimes per day.
State leaders have expressed their own misgivings about the technology. In August, Gov. Spencer Cox stated that he thinks Americans “should be deeply concerned” regarding police combing through the data for personal reasons.
Gov. Cox directed the Utah Privacy Governing Board and the Utah Privacy Commission to review the state’s rules and regulations for the cameras, “especially how they’re being used with local agencies to make sure that they are not being abused, to make sure that the public understands how and when they can be used, and if there are abuses taking place, people are held accountable.”
Current Utah statutes restrict use of the cameras to law enforcement for an active criminal investigation, to arrest someone with an outstanding warrant, find a missing or endangered person, or track down a stolen car. Using or sharing the data for another reason is a misdemeanor offense. Yet, the Utah Civic Compact maintains that a gap in the law persists because there’s no way to ensure out-of-state agencies are following Utah’s requirements.
