POST FALLS — Public outcry and a SCOTUS decision prompted Post Falls Mayor Randy Westlund to condemn governmental mass surveillance.

Westlund called on legislators to amend Idaho code to prevent construction of citizen databases and called for traffic data to be deleted within 90 days of its collection, rather than the state requirement of two years. 

“Our laws were not written for a digital age, nor with the threat of mass surveillance in mind,” he said.

He said Post Falls uses Motorola cameras for license plate reading and checking against the National Crime Information Center wanted list. He said the city never shares the data. 

“We do not and will not track movement of law-abiding residents; the system is configured for real-time notification against active wanted lists only,” Westlund said in a statement. 

Westlund said the city walks the line between safety and surveillance by controlling camera use in the city, keeping data access limited and secure and auditing access logs. 

“Technology may be a tool, but never a crutch. We will never have a surveillance state in Post Falls,” Westlund said.

He also said the city would release its policies and procedures around its limited use of cameras soon.

The source of the conversation, Chatrie v. United States, was a June 29 SCOTUS decision that deemed “geofence” warrants are subject to the Fourth Amendment. 

In the case, police used a geofence warrant to obtain evidence used to convict a Virginia man of a 2019 bank robbery. Using the warrant on Google, police obtained the suspect’s location.

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the technique violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches.

Coeur d’Alene Mayor Dan Gookin also opposes governmental use of the technology, noting that it is costly and the license plate readers the city uses are “far more secure and have a lot of specific regulations and procedures involved, which make it impossible to do citizen spying."

"I understand people don't want to be spied on," Gookin said. "Not only do we not want to do it, it would be really expensive."

While some debate governmental use, private use is quietly growing in the background with several businesses in North Idaho opting to use Flock cameras in their parking lots or adjacent areas.

The customer that purchases or uses Flock and other ALPRs owns the data the technology collects and may choose to share the data.

No agency has access unless the organization intentionally grants it. If a customer decides to share data, that choice remains in the customer’s hands, per the Flock Safety website. 

As of now, there are no local municipal pushes to regulate how private citizens can store and share data collected by private ALPRs or security footage. 

Westlund said the city has little control over private recordings and data.  

“Many residents and businesses have Ring Doorbells or other security cameras, and they can do what they like with their own recordings," he said.