Rhode Island’s review of automated license-plate readers is approaching an October 19 deadline with disagreement over privacy protections and who helped shape the recommendations. Rhode Island Current and Ocean State Media reported that State Police were preparing recommendations for Governor Dan McKee. As of those reports, the proposals were not a completed statewide policy, and the review had not shut down existing cameras.
McKee’s August 18 directive ordered Colonel Darnell Weaver and the Department of Public Safety to conduct a sixty-day review with police chiefs, municipal representatives and other stakeholders. The governor sought consistent standards covering the technology and the information it collects. The immediate question is what safeguards that process will recommend, rather than whether a new legislative framework has already taken effect.
A pause on expansion, not existing operations
The governor’s announcement drew an important distinction: State Police would not install or activate additional cameras during the review, while existing State Police cameras could continue operating under current policies. McKee urged cities and towns to pause new installations as well. Ocean State Media’s account corroborates that the pause did not require existing cameras to stop operating.
The review has become a statewide governance issue because municipalities are making different choices about contracts and oversight. Rhode Island Current reported that several communities had voted to cancel Flock Safety contracts, while Tiverton had approved additional cameras. Ocean State Media described continuing local disputes over access to records and the uses of camera data. Uniform recommendations would arrive against that uneven municipal backdrop.
Privacy groups and police differ on limits
In an October 9 letter, the ACLU of Rhode Island, Alliance to Mobilize Our Resistance, Office of the Public Defender and Planned Parenthood of Southern New England urged statutory safeguards rather than reliance solely on police policy. They said meaningful public input appeared absent from the review. Rhode Island Current reported the complaint and the groups’ request for stronger oversight; it remains their assessment of the process.
The letter’s proposals include limiting retention to no more than seven days, restricting data sharing, requiring municipal approval and public input, and making audit information available. The groups also favor limiting use to specified serious offenses and searches involving stolen vehicles or missing and wanted people. These are recommendations from the signatories, not established statewide requirements.
Police representatives do not accept every proposed restriction. Rhode Island Current reported Police Chiefs Association executive director Sidney Wordell’s support for close monitoring of officers’ access, but also his objection that restricting use to certain offenses could exclude property-crime investigations. That disagreement illustrates a central issue for the review: how to preserve investigative uses while placing enforceable limits on access and sharing.
McKee’s original announcement also called for working with lawmakers to put protections into statute. The distinction matters for residents and local officials: the anticipated recommendations, any subsequent agency policies and future legislation are separate steps. The privacy groups’ letter similarly asks that baseline safeguards be written into law, leaving the content and implementation of a statewide framework unresolved.
