Ex-Riverside Chief: I Won't Choose Between Surveillance And Safety. I Choose Accountability

This submission is from former Riverside Police Chief Tom Wetzel:

I've spent 37 years in law enforcement, including my tenure as Chief of Police here in Riverside, Illinois. Over that time, I've seen technology improve policing, and I've also seen it misused badly enough to break a community's trust. Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) systems, like those built by Flock Safety, are now at the center of that same tension, and I believe it's time to say plainly where I stand.

Subscribe

I'm releasing a position paper today outlining a comprehensive accountability framework for ALPR technology. I'm doing this because I keep watching the debate and feel stuck between two bad options: leave these systems running with no real oversight or rip them out altogether. I don't accept either option. I've seen ALPR data recover stolen vehicles, locate missing people, and crack violent crime cases that would otherwise have gone cold. Walking away from that capability doesn't make anyone safer.

At the same time, I won't defend a system that can't demonstrate it's being used honestly. That's why my framework calls for an independent civilian oversight board with real subpoena power, mandatory written justification and case numbers for every search, immutable audit logs, a strict 30-day retention limit on non-hit data, and a public discipline matrix with zero tolerance for personal misuse. I'm also proposing public-facing steps most departments haven't tried — a live transparency dashboard, an "Explain My Stop" portal for drivers, lottery-selected community audit seats with real access to the logs, and an annual town hall where residents can ask hard questions directly.

I'm not asking anyone to trust these cameras. I'm asking departments to earn that trust through enforceable guardrails, independent audits, and real consequences when officers cross the line. That's the standard I held my own department to, and it's the standard I'm asking every department using this technology to meet.

The real question was never surveillance versus no surveillance. It's whether we deploy these tools with guardrails or without. I know which side of that I'm on.