We-Ha.com welcomes Letters to the Editor from the public, including endorsements. Letters submitted by political candidates will be considered for publication up to 14 days prior to an election and most will be published within 48 hours of receipt. Letters that contain personal attacks or include profanity of any type will not be published. Rebuttals to letters should be submitted as a separate document if possible. Please provide your full name and town, as well as your phone number at the end of the letter. Phone numbers will not be published but are required in case verification is needed. Please submit letters to [email protected].

To the Editor:

Over the last several days, West Hartford police have been involved in two high-profile cases where automated license plate readers helped officers locate vehicles they were looking for.

So, what exactly is an automated license plate reader?

Simply put, these cameras read license plates and can alert police when a vehicle connected to a stolen car, wanted person or criminal investigation passes one of them. Here in West Hartford, we know many of these devices as Flock cameras because they are made by Flock Safety.

I think we need to have an honest conversation about them, especially as we approach another election season.

I understand the concerns about Flock cameras. People have legitimate questions about privacy, how long information is stored, who can access it and which agencies can receive it. Those questions deserve answers.

At the same time, we shouldn’t ignore what has happened right here in our community.

On September 29, Middletown police were searching for a suspect in a homicide. Information about the vehicle connected to that investigation was shared with other law enforcement agencies. A Flock camera in West Hartford alerted police to the vehicle. Officers located it, and after a pursuit that continued into Hartford, the suspect was eventually taken into custody.

Just a few days later, West Hartford police received another automated license plate reader alert, this time for a stolen BMW M6 in the New Park Avenue area. Detectives located the BMW and another vehicle that had been traveling with it. Two men were arrested. Police said one was driving the stolen BMW and the other was found carrying an illegal firearm.

These aren’t the only examples.

In August, an officer in Saratoga Springs, New York, received a license plate reader alert for a vehicle wanted by Rocky Hill police in connection with a homicide. The officer located the vehicle and the suspect was taken into custody.

Think about that. A police department in Connecticut was looking for a vehicle connected to a homicide, and an officer in another state was able to receive that information while on patrol.

That is what this technology can do.

So where does the controversy come from?

For me, the concern isn’t whether the technology exists. The concern should be how we make sure it isn’t abused.

Put policies in place. Limit how long information can be kept. Make sure officers have a legitimate law enforcement reason to search the system. Keep records of who accesses it. Audit those searches. Establish consequences when someone misuses the information.

Connecticut has already taken steps in that direction with new rules governing how automated license plate reader information can be accessed, retained and shared.

Law enforcement agencies have shared information with each other for decades. That isn’t new. What has changed is how quickly information can now get from one department to another.

When police are looking for someone accused of a serious violent crime, minutes matter.

Could police have eventually located the individuals involved in these three cases without license plate readers? Maybe. We will never know. What we do know is that in each case, this technology provided officers with information that helped them locate a vehicle they were actively searching for.

I believe Flock cameras, when used properly, can be a valuable public safety tool.

That doesn’t mean giving law enforcement unlimited access to people’s information. It doesn’t mean ignoring privacy concerns. And it certainly doesn’t mean operating these systems without oversight.

It means recognizing the value of the technology while putting strong protections around its use.

We can protect people’s privacy while also giving police tools that can help locate stolen vehicles and people accused of serious crimes.

Those two things don’t have to be in conflict.

We should demand both.

Alberto Cortes
West Hartford