Editor’s Note: The following is an op-ed submitted to BeaverCountian.com by Scott L. Bohn, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, and Patrick Molloy, Chief of Police in Abington Township and President of the Association. We are publishing their opinions in full as written.
Recent reporting about opposition to Flock Safety cameras and automated license plate readers (ALPRs) has renewed an important debate in Pennsylvania: How do we protect individual privacy while ensuring law enforcement has the tools necessary to keep communities safe?
The discussion too often presents a choice between public safety and personal freedom. Pennsylvania can, and must, protect both.
As leaders of the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, we understand that protecting communities and safeguarding constitutional rights are not competing responsibilities. They are fundamental obligations of professional policing.
ALPRs are valuable investigative tools. They capture license plate information and associated vehicle data, helping investigators identify vehicles potentially connected to violent crimes, stolen vehicles, missing persons, and other threats to public safety.
For departments confronting staffing shortages, complex investigations, and growing demands for service, this technology provides capabilities that would otherwise require substantial personnel and resources. It can also help connect investigations across jurisdictional boundaries.
Consider a missing child, a violent offender fleeing a crime scene, or a vehicle connected to a serious investigation. Timely information can mean the difference between developing a critical lead and losing an investigative opportunity.
Importantly, ALPR information does not establish guilt or replace traditional police work. It provides leads that trained officers must evaluate and corroborate while observing constitutional protections.
Concerns about government surveillance, data retention, information sharing, and potential misuse deserve serious consideration.
Citizens have every right to ask who can access their information, how long it is retained, whether vendors or outside agencies can share it, and what safeguards prevent unauthorized use. Law enforcement should welcome those questions.
Public confidence is essential to effective policing. Technology deployed without transparency, accountability, and reasonable safeguards risks undermining the trust departments work every day to earn.
That is why Pennsylvania needs a consistent statewide framework governing ALPR technology.
In September, the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association presented its perspective before the House Judiciary and Transportation Committees: Pennsylvania should regulate responsible ALPR use rather than eliminate a potentially important investigative tool.
The General Assembly has considered legislation, including House Bill 2771, to establish standards for the use of these systems. The debate provides an opportunity to develop practical safeguards while preserving legitimate investigative capabilities.
A responsible framework should define authorized uses, reasonable retention periods, access controls, documented searches and audits, vendor responsibilities, and meaningful consequences for intentional misuse. Personnel should be trained, and access should be limited to legitimate law enforcement purposes.
The public should also have access to understandable policies and meaningful oversight information without jeopardizing active investigations.
Yet safeguards must reflect how investigations actually unfold. An overly narrow list of qualifying offenses, impractically short retention periods, or unnecessary procedural barriers could prevent investigators from identifying patterns, connecting offenses across jurisdictions, or developing important leads.
Information that seems insignificant today may become essential days or weeks later as new evidence emerges or a victim reports a crime.
Judicial oversight is fundamental to constitutional policing. Legislation should also recognize the distinction between developing an investigative lead and accessing information in circumstances that require heightened legal protections. Emergency situations may demand appropriately defined exceptions and prompt accountability.
Pennsylvania’s police chiefs are not asking for unlimited surveillance authority. We support clear rules, effective oversight, and responsible tools that help investigators solve crimes and protect victims.
Nor should this debate revolve solely around Flock Safety. Every vendor entrusted with sensitive law enforcement information should meet enforceable standards for cybersecurity, data ownership, access, sharing, and contractual accountability. Police departments must also be accountable for compliance.
We reject the notion that supporting investigative tools means opposing civil liberties. Public safety depends on public trust, and that trust depends on the responsible exercise of government authority.
The Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association stands ready to work with lawmakers, privacy advocates, and community leaders on standards that safeguard constitutional rights while recognizing the operational realities of policing.
Our responsibility is neither to embrace every new technology nor to reject innovation whenever legitimate concerns arise. It is to determine how useful tools can be employed lawfully, transparently, and effectively.
Pennsylvanians deserve police departments equipped to address modern criminal threats. They also deserve confidence that government technology will not be used to improperly monitor their daily lives.
These goals are compatible.
The question before Pennsylvania is not whether to choose privacy or public safety. It is how to protect both.
