Anchorage Assembly Work Session on Surveillance Technology Ordinance - September 25, 2026

The Anchorage Assembly held a work session on September 25, 2026, to discuss proposed Ordinance AO 2026-108 and its substitute versions (S and S1), which establish rules for the use of surveillance technology by the Anchorage Police Department (APD), particularly the Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) and automated license plate readers (ALPRs). The session included presentations from ordinance sponsors, invited legal experts, the Municipal Attorney, and APD Chief, along with extensive deliberation on privacy protections, data retention, interagency data sharing, and oversight mechanisms. No votes were taken; the ordinance is scheduled for debate and possible amendments on October 20, 2026.

Presentations and Discussion

• Sponsors' Presentation: Assembly members Sydney Scout and others outlined the history of the RTCC, noting that the $12.4 million RTCC build-out and a $598,000 asset forfeiture approval preceded any code protections. They presented three versions: the original AO 2026-108 (broad definition of surveillance technology, 14-day retention in code), the S version (narrowed definition, retention in policy, sharing for criminal justice purposes), and the S1 version (tightened sharing to require warrant/court order, lower suspension threshold, prohibition on sharing ALPR data with DMV without assembly approval). Key questions were raised about scope, retention, and suspension provisions.
• Invited Guest – Daryl Thompson (Attorney): Mr. Thompson discussed Alaska’s express constitutional right to privacy (Article 1, Section 22) and argued that warrantless use of ALPR data for historical tracking may violate both the U.S. and Alaska constitutions, citing United States v. Jones and Carpenter mosaic theory. He urged the assembly to require warrants for accessing stored data.
• Invited Guest – Mike Garvey (ACLU of Alaska): Mr. Garvey recommended preserving the original broad definition of surveillance technology, including an explicit data retention limit in code (rather than policy), and strengthening the private right of action to allow direct court access rather than an administrative exhaustion requirement.
• Municipal Attorney Eva Gardner and Chief Case: Ms. Gardner explained existing guardrails (state/federal law, APD policies, assembly oversight) and walked through the S version’s structure. Chief Case described current APD technologies: RTCC staffed by sworn personnel, ALPRs on dash cameras with 14-day retention, traffic cameras (250+ intersections, 3-5 day overwrite, limited live access due to copper wiring), and private camera integration (one commercial site). They noted that APD’s Axon contract (approved September 23, 2025) includes body cameras, dash cameras, tasers, and other items, not solely RTCC technology.
• Key Debate Points:
  • Sharing Standard: The S version allows APD to share surveillance data with other law enforcement for criminal justice purposes without a warrant. The S1 version requires a warrant or court order for any sharing with non-municipal agencies. Ms. Gardner argued the S1 could hinder joint investigations (e.g., human trafficking, drug operations). Mr. Thompson and Mr. Garvey supported warrant requirements.
  • Data Retention: The original ordinance had 14-day retention in code; the S and S1 versions place retention limits in internal policy with mandatory 30-day notification of changes to the assembly.
  • Definition of Surveillance Technology: The original broad definition was narrowed in the S version to technology “primarily designed to surveil using automated ML/AI.” The ACLU urged restoration of the original definition to avoid loopholes.
  • Suspension Provision: The S version requires a “knowing, material, and consistent” violation before the assembly can suspend a technology’s use; the S1 removes that qualifier, allowing suspension for any unresolved code violation.

Key Outcomes

• No formal actions or votes were taken; the session was informational.
• The ordinance will return for public hearing and possible amendments on October 20, 2026.
• Sponsors agreed to accept written questions from assembly members through the clerk and will provide responses.
• A follow-up work session may be scheduled, and a red-line copy of the S1 version was requested.
• The assembly noted that the existing contractor (Axon) does not have access to APD’s data, and that current APD policies include robust auditing and training requirements.