Oh, let's move this quickly.

Like to call the uh criminal justice committee the order.

Seeing that the hour of 1035 is coming gone.

Uh roll call.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Aguilar.

Here.

Thank you, Commissioner Naya.

Commissioner Britton.

Commissioner Daly.

Is present.

Thank you.

Commissioner Degnan.

Commissioner Gaynor.

Is asking?

Commissioner Laurie.

Present.

Commissioner McCasco.

Commissioner Miller.

Miller here.

Commissioner Marita.

Commissioner Marita is present participating remotely.

Commissioner Kevin Morrison.

Commissioner Sean Morrison.

President.

Commissioner Scott.

Vice Chair Stamps.

Present.

Commissioner Trevor.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Mr.

Chairman is present.

Chairman, you have all you have a quorum.

All members present with the exception of an absence for Commissioner Gaynor.

Thank you.

Can we have a roll call for remote participation?

Mover and seconder.

So move.

Second.

I missed that.

Who's the first one?

I did.

Oh.

Commissioner Lowry.

Commissioner Aguilar.

Thank you.

Commissioner Aguilar, your vote, sir.

I Commissioner Naya.

Commissioner Britton.

Aye.

Commissioner Daly.

Commissioner Degnan.

Aye.

Commissioner Gaynor.

Absent.

Commissioner Laurie.

Aye.

Commissioner McCasco.

Commissioner Miller.

Aye.

Commissioner Marita.

Commissioner Kevin Morrison.

Commissioner Sean Morrison.

Commissioner Scott.

Aye.

Vice Chair Stamps.

Aye.

Commissioner Trevor.

Aye.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Aye.

Mr.

Chair.

All right.

Thank you.

16, one absent, Commissioner Gaynor.

Thank you.

Any public speakers?

Chairman, we please add Commissioner Gainer to the role.

And previous roll calls.

And the previous roll call vote.

Thank you.

Chairman, we had three.

I believe they're all gone.

George Blakemore.

Jessica Jackson.

Taiwan Sims.

And then those that were pre-registered.

Chief Mitchell Davis the third.

Are you here, sir?

Thank you.

And then there are two virtual speakers that I'll call next.

And we also received public.

I'm sorry, we also received written testimony from three other uh participants.

Thank you.

You may begin, sir.

Good morning, Chairman Brother Stanley Moore and Commissioners.

I'm Chief Mitchell Davis of the Hazel Crest Police Department.

I am here today to speak in favor of law enforcement's proper investigative use of license plate readers.

I'm a past president of the South Suburban Association of Chiefs of Police and the only person of color to ever serve as president in the Illinois Association of Chiefs as a president.

I currently serve on the Board of Directors for the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

And July 28th, uh in Dallas, I will be sworn in as the national president of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.

Congratulations.

Fifty years ago.

That's right.

Thank you.

Fifty years ago, Noble was founded with the motto of Justice by Action, and we accomplished this by serving as the conscience of law enforcement.

Our focus is on equitable policing for all persons and all communities.

There are those that believe that LPRs are being weaponized for targeted enforcement initiatives like abortion, immigration, race, and other things.

Let me be clear.

Misguided targeted enforcement initiatives by anyone should result in accountability for the perpetrators, but not the obstruction of access to one of the most powerful tools since NCAR computers.

On August 1st, 2024, at about 11.15 p.m., 24-year-old Tamia was crossing Kedsey near 175th when she was struck by a car and knocked in front of another car that ran her over.

Both vehicles had just gone through 175th in Kedzie and fled towards 167th in Kesy.

Because we didn't have LPRs at that time, Tomia's death still remains unsolved.

On October 22nd, 2025, at 10 p.m., 47-year-old Russell was killed by a vehicle crossing as he was crossing Kedzie in the area of 175th.

But this time we had LPRs.

As a result, we were not only able to identify the offending vehicle, but we were able to track its pass back to the owner's residence.

Three subjects exited two adjacent vehicles with guns and carjacked her.

Using LPRs, detective obtained information on the offending vehicles to broadcast.

Only 20 minutes later, one of the vehicles was spotted on East 79th Street in Chicago.

Officers approached a female driver who fought and attempted to draw a gun.

Through further use of LPRs, the other three offenders were also apprehended.

Just yesterday morning, our department received an assist an alert for assistance in locating the vehicle of an elderly woman with dementia that was missing from Arlington Heights because her car had gone through an LPR in our town.

Stories like these happen every day in the Southland of Cook County, where LPRs are being used as proper investigative tools to bring justice to victims and to hold offenders accountable, not as weapons of misguided targeted enforcement.

I respectfully ask that when you are weighing your decision that you think about people like Tamiya, Russell, T.

L, and the elderly woman from Arlington Heights.

Please help us to continue to help them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Chairman, we have two connected virtually.

Matthew.

Rimar Ramanis.

And then John DeVries.

Are you connected?

Is Johnny?

Yes, uh, good morning.

This is Matthew Ramirez.

Please begin, sir.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Matthew Ramirez.

I'm the chief of police of Marionette Park, Illinois.

Uh good morning to everyone.

First and foremost, um, I'm honored to speak with you today about automated license plate readers, and I'm allowed to relay some uh my concerns and insight.

Some facts regarding license plate readers are based on my experience in law enforcement, where I've served for over 25 years and in many levels of command and supervised units that rely on additional technologies to help support their mission and the safety of the community.

Automated license plate readers are invaluable tools for police agencies, which provide uh alerts based on many critical factors in different situations.

It is important not to vilify uh license plate readers as they are designed to uphold public trust rather than to breach it.

The benefit of license plate readers far outweigh their drawbacks, leading to numerous positive outcomes that contribute to the safety of our communities.

Most importantly, these systems can alert law enforcement about vehicles that may be involved in serious felonies or other non-criminal circumstances that require immediate attention, adding safeguarding layers.

In our community, we have used automated license plate readers to help our officers identify vehicles involved in violent crimes that may be passing through our village.

This includes monitoring for vehicles involved in recent crime trends, such as we've been experiencing with burglaries at gaming establishments, most importantly, victims of domestic violence, particularly those connected orders of protection where we need to be alerted immediately.

Automated license plate readers may be also be used in critical situations such as a excuse me, emergency medical situations, missing elderly persons, and or child abductions.

There have been many reported positive outcomes related to license plate readers, uh, including uh recently located a 78-year-old with dementia 30 miles from his residence.

Licensed plate readers are not always used in situations that are classified in criminal incidents, however, however, can be affected to help resolve and prevent disastrous outcomes.

Law enforcement remains ethically sound when using license plate readers and follows the established laws in place, including information related to the status of an individual of one's expectation of privacy, which by state law is not permissible, most particularly not sharing state to state or with federal federal immigration authorities.

This can all easily be accomplished and monitored to guarantee that this is not occurring.

My belief that if automated license plate readers were removed from law enforcement, the impact would be immediate.

The critical information needed to identify vehicles involved in crimes and at-risk individuals would be limited to a smaller group of officers and first responders.

This reduction in access to crucial data would hinder efforts to assist the community and could increase overall risk.

It is the responsibility of law enforcement and the government to provide the necessary tools.

Uh they trust to protect the public.

For this, I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

John DeVries is our next speaker.

He's connected remotely.

Harwood Heights Police, John, are you there?

I see you.

Is your mic open?

Please begin, sir.

John, open your mic and if you have a camera, turn it on.

Yep, John.

Uh hold tight.

If you can hear me, we don't have a sound for you.

Control room, is there anyone that can help us?

John, is your mic open?

Yep, we can't hear you.

Yeah.

John, I'm gonna ask you to uh disconnect and come back.

We'll wait a few minutes for you.

Your testimony is important to us, but we can't hear you right now.

Chairman, we asked him to uh disconnect and come back.

And there were two correct.

Well, let me tell you about the three writtens that were submitted.

Chief William Alexander from Posen Police.

Then Barbara McDonough.

McDaniel was also written.

And Darya or Lauva also submitted uh written testimonies.

So those have been added to the file.

Okay.

Um, are you back with us?

Let's see.

We still can't hear.

We're gonna give him a phone number, Chairman, to call in.

And John, get our attention when you have connected.

Chairman, if we can go on to the rest of the business, we're gonna ask John to uh call in via other phone.

Is that him?

John, is that you John, there you go.

Okay.

John, there you go.

We can hear you.

We can hear the speaker.

You gonna you're gonna have to turn the speaker on your device off.

Um your camera and your laptop or computer off.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, in the mention.

Yes, smob small reverb, but we can hear you.

I apologize for this.

I'm not sure what's going on.

I'm not too c crazy about these Zoom meetings, but I'm the chief of police with the villager Howard Heights.

I've been a policeman now over 40 years, and I'm gonna speak regarding the LPRs.

We had the LPRs installed in our town back in 2023, and about a week after it was installed in our towns, and I did a lot of research on the LPRs, you know, because there was a lot of controversy on the demographics of them, you know, what they capture, big brother and stuff like that.

But I learned that these LPRs were only the focus on the license plate reader of the car, at the demographics, and who's in the vehicle, at the color of the skin of anybody driving the vehicle.

And because of that, I thought it was an excellent tool that we needed in the police field.

And right after we installed them in our town, we had a horrific homicide with a 67-year-old woman.

And thank God to the LPR that we had in our town.

I was able to get that message out across Illinois immediately, and within an hour and 40 minutes, that car was stopped, the subject was taken into custody, and Urbana, Illinois, which is about an hour, hour and 37 minutes from my location, to be honest with you.

And if it wasn't for that, I would have never been able to uh succeed moving forward with this case.

We had nothing to work on.

The family were the print closure.

We made a successful arrest, and um it did a lot for our community because a lot of people were scared.

To this day, my midnight shift, my shifts are 12-hour shifts.

They start from 7 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

They're constantly using the LPRs because of these readers picking up stolen cars at our location.

I'm I'm a small town that's on the outskirts of Chicago, so I'm like an island within the city.

So we get a lot of people coming in from the city and to our location.

Harlow, Miami is a big main thoroughfare.

We have seven LPRs in our town, and we utilize each one of them for the reason why I'm explaining.

As soon as those cars cross one of those LPR sensors, it gets focused.

It sends it to an MDT to my officers working on the shift, and what that allows us to do is get to that area, see if we can locate that car, and deter if there's gonna be any more crime in town.

And that's what we focus it on.

So in my opinion, and my officers' opinions that work the street right now, what's going on in society?

There's more tools being taken away from us than given to us.

And with the way the laws are going right now, the police got our hands tied.

We feel like the criminals out there.

We can't go out there and do what we need to do, but help protect the residents in our village.

So I'm asking to please allow these LPRs to be a tool for us to use to help us get through our job, along with other things that we need with the laws that be changed with our politicians that are running it.

And I'm a pretty outspoken man, I've been told.

But I talk from experience.

Sir, please wrap up my statement.

Time has expired.

Please wrap up your statement.

And I want to thank everybody for this opportunity for allowing me to give this speech.

Thank you.

Be safe.

Stay healthy all you.

Thank you.

Chairman, that does conclude your list of speakers.

All right.

Let's move forward.

Madam Secretary, I'd like for Commissioner Stamps to move to approve the minutes of the meeting 26 1431, the approval of the minutes from the meeting on November 19th, 2025, seconded by Commissioner Daly.

All those in favor of approving say aye.

All opposed.

No nays.

Motion carries.

Commissioner Stamps will now move to approve item 26 1043.

It's a proposed contract requesting authorization for the Chief Procurement Officer to enter to into and execute a contract with InSight Public Sector, Inc., Chandler, Arizona, to allow the continuation of services and increase the number of stationary automated license plate readers.

Seconded by Commissioner Vasquez.

No, I do not second that motion.

I'm sorry.

I have questions about this.

Uh we're going to have the sheriff come up to give a I mean Jason Hernandez come up to give a PowerPoint presentation.

Chairman, and a motion on the floor is to approve, move by Commissioner Stamps, second by Commissioner Britton.

Got it.

Okay.

Yeah, I did.

I do.

I did.

Oh, Commissioner Steps.

Yes, I'd like to remove the second.

Okay.

Moved by Commissioner Daly.

Seconded by Commissioner Britton.

The motion was corrected to reflect uh motion to approve by Commissioner Daly, second by Commissioner Britton.

Got it.

Go right ahead.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Uh thank you, Chairman, Vice Chair Stamps, Steam members of the County Board.

Thank you for having us again here today.

Um, we brought several members of our team, and I'd like them to take a moment to introduce themselves.

Let's start with my colleagues who are logged in remotely, please.

Hi, I'm Douglas McLean.

I'm the deputy CIO for the Cook County Sheriff's Office.

I am Amar Patel, the Chief Information Officer for the Cook County Sheriff's Office.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Michael Haupin.

I serve as technology counsel for the Cook County Sheriff's Office.

Good afternoon.

Uh Tim Kinsella, Deputy Director of Finance of the Cook County Sheriff's Office.

Good afternoon, Commander Mike Where Cook County Sheriff's Office.

Good afternoon.

My name is Sajid Hadari.

I'm the detective commander of investigations for the Cook County Sheriff's Police.

I am Michael Dwyer.

I'm the Deputy Chief of Investigations for the Sheriff's Police.

Hi, I'm Sol Jarna Culvert, the Chief Financial Officer for the Cook County Sheriff's Office.

Thank you.

Uh Tiffany, are you standing by?

Yes, I have the presentation up.

Okay.

Yeah, then go right ahead.

All right.

Good morning.

Um we're here today for proposed contract number 26-1043.

The vendor is insight public sector, and these are for our automated license plate readers.

Um, the manufacturer flock safety.

Contract value is $900,000, and it is a uh two-year contract period.

Next slide.

So before getting into the operational details, I want to start with the broader purpose behind the program.

Uh at its core, this technology exists to support public safety and help those close the critical investigative gaps in some serious cases.

Violent crime, missing persons, stolen vehicles, fugitive apprehensions, and incidents where time matters.

In many cases, these systems do not solve crimes on their own, but they can provide timely investigative leads to help move investigations forward faster and more effectively.

Another important component is officer and partner agency coordination.

The system is designed to provide actionable information that can assist investigators, improve situational awareness, and help identify offenders or vulnerable inter individuals during rapidly evolving incidents.

You know, ultimately, our objective is to balance two very important responsibilities at the same time, protecting the public and protecting civil liberties.

And we believe both obligations can and must coexist within a properly governed program.

Next slide, please.

So one of the most important points to understand about this program is that camera placement is not random, arbitrary, or driven by convenience.

Deployment decisions are based on specific public safety considerations, operational data, and identified investigative needs.

You know, we look closely at violent crime trends, stolen vehicle activity, high calls for service areas, organized retail theft routes, reoccurring shootings, transit corridors, hit and run incidents, and critical infrastructure concerns that we may have, and certainly any gaps in existing coverage.

Most importantly, none of these locations are approved by a single individual or unit.

Every proposed deployment goes through a structured multilayer review process involving supervisory personnel, command staff, executive leadership, and legal review.

Next slide, please.

I want to talk a little bit about prohibited use under policy and law.

Just as important as discussing what this technology can be used for is absolutely being clear what it cannot be used for and what we don't tolerate.

Our agency has been unequivocal in its commitment to operating this program within both the letter and the spirit of the relevant laws.

These restrictions are embedded in policy, operational procedures, contractual requirements, and user accountability measures throughout the program.

There are explicit prohibitions involving immigration enforcement, reproductive health care investigations, and protected First Amendment activity.

Every search must be tied to a documented criminal predicate, case number, and identifiable user account, and strict access controls govern all system activity.

Next slide, please.

Also very important to emphasize what capabilities are not present within this system, because I know there's a great deal of confusion about how this technology operates.

The system does not contain facial recognition, biometric identification.

It does not do predictive policing or autonomous enforcement activity like the ones that you see in some license plate readers that issue citations, not tollway cameras, not some of the ones that we have in our parks.

This is not that.

It does not issue enforcement, it does not take any decisions.

It can't access personal communications, it can't, there's no mobile device content, and it can't identify the occupants inside a vehicle.

There's no audio interception, no enforcement action can occur solely because of a system notification.

Every investigative step still requires human review, investigative justification, and lawful decision making by sworn personnel.

Next slide, please.

Okay.

So defined and permissible use cases.

The focus of this program is clearly defined public safety and investigative use cases.

Authorized uses include locating stolen or crime-linked vehicles, supporting violent crime investigations, assisting criminal investigations involving fugitives or organized crime, and helping locate missing or endangered persons.

These systems are intended to support lawful investigations while remaining subject to strict oversight and clearly established operational limits.

Next slide, please.

So the next several examples involve actual investigations where technologies like these help generate investigative leads.

And I beg for your patience a little bit while I talk about some of these cases.

Technologies like these help generate investigative leads.

They support coordinated responses or assist in locating offenders, victims, or endangered individuals.

But not every case involved our specific network or agency, but they are representative of how these systems are being used across the country under lawful investigative framework.

All the cases I'll share with you have been in the region in Cook County or in Chicago.

We've intentionally omitted personal identifiers, sensitive details associated with ongoing matters, and every individual reference is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

These examples are intended to keep the discussion grounded in the communities that we serve, the victims impacted by crime, and the importance of responsibly governed public safety tools.

So early this year, investigators from the sheriff's office assisted in a multi-agency effort to locate a missing suicidal individual out of Elgin, Illinois.

Investigators used multiple LPR sources to pinpoint the missing individuals' general direction of travel.

The missing person was found safe by viewing a stationary LPR hit of the individual's vehicle from the previous day.

In May of last year, investigators were made aware of an emergency involving the kidnapping of six children out of Plainfield, Illinois.

An LPR image was used as a reference of the vehicle's description and a path of travel was established.

Investigators were able to track the vehicle to Arkansas.

The children were found all safe and unharmed, and the offender was placed into custody without incident.

In December of 24, the Cook County 911 Center advised investigators of a carjacking and kidnapping out of worth over the span of six hours.

The offender then got off the vehicle and carjacked a senior citizen.

Investigators were able to identify the vehicle using LPR systems and advised units on the ground.

The offender was placed into custody.

In July of 24, an LPR camera identified a vehicle wanted in connection with a mass shooting in front of a business.

With the vehicle not known, investigators were able to piece together utilizing multiple LPR cameras.

Where the vehicle had traveled, the offenders were able to advise units on the ground, and the subjects were taken into custody.

I'm sorry, investigators were able to.

In August of 24, LPR detection on the 290 and a flock detection in Elk Grove assisted in the successful apprehension of two suspects wanted in connection to a Chicago homicide.

In March of 24, investigators were alerted that two children were kidnapped from their home in Palatine, Illinois.

A vehicle description was relayed to the team, and they began trying to locate the vehicle using LPR searches.

Positive camera reads provided investigators with a path of travel, and that information was broadcasted to officers in the area.

Eventually, officers were able to successfully locate both children unharmed and place the offender into custody.

In April of this year, a report came out of Skokie of a vehicle wanted in association with a domestic battery and possible kidnapping.

Officers began the process of establishing a ping to the victim's phone.

Meanwhile, multiple LPR cameras were able to establish a path of travel.

Eventually, the Illinois State police were able to get behind the vehicle and eventually perform a traffic stop.

Three suspects were placed into custody and the kidnapped victim found.

Also in April of this year, authorities were notified of a missing elderly person out of Will County, Illinois.

Their general direction of travel was ascertained, and an LPR camera in Racine, Wisconsin.

Eventually, additional cameras began picking up the direction of travel, and the ground units stopped the vehicle in Harvey, Illinois.

The missing elderly individual was driving and was safe with police.

LPRs were able to identify the vehicle in question, and eventually the offender was placed into custody.

All four went to the hospital.

Three of the victims sustained serious gunshot wounds.

Three weeks ago, a man exited Union Station not too far from here on his way to work.

Another man approached him, two suddenly found themselves in an argument.

Minutes later, second man pulled out a gun, shot the individual in the leg.

On a beautiful spring morning, people heading to work every day.

Offender jumped in his vehicles, authority arrived and began speaking with witnesses, provided a description of the offender in the vehicle that the alleged offender was seen traveling.

Shortly thereafter, license plate readers identified the vehicle along the Dan Ryan.

It's an important lead, and we hope that information will bring a safe and successful conclusion to that incident.

I can continue to go on and on, but I want to be respectful of your time.

So this body has heard a wide range of perspectives about this technology and candidly those viewpoints helped us develop a better program.

The proposed contract has enabled us to put together a sound strategy, one that advances public safety while operating within some of the strictest guardrails and accountability measures in law enforcement.

Sheriff Dart has always understood that public trust is earned through professionalism, accountability, and the responsible exercise of lawful authority.

That same principle applies to our technology.

Our agency supports the responsible use of modern tools, clear rules governing their use, meaningful internal safeguards, and investigations conducted lawfully, carefully, and with respect for the communities that we serve.

Technology should never replace sound judgment.

It should never support, it should support responsible policing and responsible investigations.

But as this discussion unfolds, there is uh one constituency that is often absent from these hearings.

They don't have a lobby, they don't have advocacy campaigns or pay dues, they don't have mailing lists or coordinated speakers.

They are not always in a position to take off work, arrange child care, relive trauma, or come before the board to tell their story.

They are the victims of crimes, and they are the victims that I know everyone in this board cares deeply about and is sought as many solutions as possible to supporting the victims throughout Cook County.

They're the countless victims of carjackings and hit and run, shooting, domestic violence offender who fled, or the community holding its breath during an amber alert.

And it's family, it's a families gathered along a neighborhood parade route on the 4th of July whose lives are shattered in an instant by a lone gunman perched on a rooftop committing an unspeakable act of violence.

There are ordinary residents who expect that when something terrible happens, their government will use every lawful, responsible, and reasonable tool available to protect them, investigate thoroughly, and pursue justice.

They're not abstractions, and I don't believe anyone in this board thinks that they are.

They're just real people, real families and real moments of fear, grief, and uncertainty that law enforcement encounters every single day.

We are the ones that arrive first.

We stand with the victims in the immediate aftermath of the chaos and violence they experienced.

We're the ones trying to comfort terrified families while simultaneously working to identify, locate, and stop the individual responsible.

Now, in those moments, every lawful and responsible governed tool matters, and now is not the time to take away one of the most effective technologies helped to bring offenders to justice, recover victims safely, and provide some measure of relief to the people experiencing the worst moment in their lives.

There's been considerable discussion about why the county has experienced improvements in public safety, and there is no single answer.

It's the result of many factors, including the important work of this board, the administration, certainly, community stakeholders, service providers, and the residents themselves.

But we should never overlook the role of good police work supported by carefully governed technologies like this one in deterring violence, solving crimes, and protecting the communities we serve.

I want to thank the board for its partnership and collaboration and willingness to engage seriously about the need to strike the right balance in our approach to these issues.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any questions from any commissioners?

Commissioner Vasquez first, Commissioner Stamps.

Thank you, Chair.

Let's go.

So I am uh not at issue with the goal of what the sheriff wants to accomplish.

I am at issue with this vendor who has been highlighted across the country in terms of violating contract agreements.

Um I mentioned to you, Jason, over email that the Illinois Attorney General, as recently as last year, found issues with this contractor.

And so I want to discuss some of the safeguards that you mentioned in our briefing.

And I have specific questions regarding the contract that you sent over.

So if there's someone on your team that can answer those, I'm going to be talking about specific sentences in the contract you sent.

Certainly.

And those incidents that you're referencing are exactly why we built strict controls into our policy.

You know, we have a zero tolerance policy around use misuse of this technology, certainly for the prohibited uses as per state law.

Uh, and any vendor operating in this space has faced scrutiny.

Certainly, this vendor has, but that's precisely why procurement and legal review exist and why our policies go further.

Um I just want to reiterate from the beginning that if if we if misuse is determined, not only will these agencies be removed from our system, but we will not waste a moment to notify the Secretary of State for additional investigation, which could eventually lead in some sort of prosecution.

Um, so I I have colleagues uh on the call.

Uh Doug.

And thank you for that.

I I will say Evanston had an issue terminating contracts with Flock.

Um, and so that's another reason of my concern.

If there is, you know, some issue down the road, we have had a hard time removing the access to the data in other municipalities.

But if Doug, you're ready, I have specific questions for you.

I'm ready, Commissioner.

Any time.

Thank you.

So in Article 3, subsection H of the contract, it says that consultants shall not have the right to compile and distribute statistical analysis and reports utilizing data derived from information or data obtained from county without the prior written approval of county.

Does this approval come from procurement or from the sheriff's office?

From the sheriff's office.

Um, real quick, my name is Doug McLean again, and I am the deputy CIO for the sheriff's office.

So the written approval would come from the sheriff's office because it concerns data that belongs specifically to the sheriff's office and must be reviewed for sensitivity and compliance with any of the regulations surrounding that data.

Thank you.

And so related to that, on page 61 of the contracts, section 2.6 of services and deliverables, it states that the contractor will prepare a standards and procedures manual that will outline items such as problem management and security processes.

Will this be available to the board or to the public?

It will be included as part of the contract, and we'll make sure that it is available to you when the contract is executed.

Thank you.

Um, and then this is also I mean, these are all we're gonna be related, but there are two sections in the contract outlining the procedure for loss of confidential information or a data breach.

And we know that there's been a lot of data breaches with vendors like this.

So in both instances, would insight notify the sheriff and procurement about a data breach, and could the notice also be provided to the board?

The notice will go to whomever you deem it's necessary.

Our normal process is that the vendor will first notify us.

We'll make sure that the appropriate agencies are appropriate agencies are notified, um, and we include them in updates with regard to issue resolution.

One of the key things in a problem like this, once you've determined that there's been let's call it an improper data access, because it can go beyond breach.

You have to dig into it to find out exactly what happened and start to figure out what data may be affected.

We expect the vendor to let us know within uh I can't remember what the requirement is.

I apologize, but I believe it's 24 hours.

Uh, as to whether or not they've had um an incident, a data incident, and we stay in constant communication with them from that point forward in terms of resolving the incident, hardening the system, and determining what data was affected, whether data was exfiltrated, and what uh the vendor's ongoing efforts involve.

Thank you.

And then also um section 8.2 says that Insight performs a security audit no less frequently than every 12 months.

Can we make that security audit also available to the board, please?

We'll work with InSight to make that happen.

Thank you.

Um, page 90 of the contract in the Flock Safety and User License Agreement, it states that Flock may make upgrades to the system that it deems necessary or useful.

Should these upgrades expand capabilities beyond their current use and what we're presenting today, how will the board be notified?

We can make notice to the board when we receive notification from the vendor that they're making an update, and I can work with you or the secretary of the board to figure out what that chain of communication might look like.

Thank you.

And my last question is in section 5.3 of the Flock user and agreement, the agreement states that Flock may access, use, preserve, andor disclose the footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and or third parties.

This stands in direct contrast to language earlier in the contract that states that insight may not share any county data with third parties.

Which one of these takes precedent?

Because I want to make sure that the data is protected, and I'm seeing conflicting language here.

So where the language conflicts, the PSA controls.

There is contract, uh, sorry, the PSA is the professional services agreement and serves as the main backbone for every IT agreement.

I don't know if it's used for every county agreement.

In that document, it establishes the order of precedence.

And in the event that there is a conflict, the PSA controls.

The PSA establishes that only in the circumstance of subpoena, court order, FOIA against uh a particular vendor or a using organization, may data be disclosed.

And it is up to the notified vendor or outside organization to include us in notification that such a subpoena or court order has arrived, and how they'll respond to it.

So then just to clarify, um, this would apply if there is a subpoena, but not in another instance.

So if let's say a research institution approached Flock and wanted data so that the research institution could compile statistics or other useful information from the Flock system in with regard to the particular sheriff's information, Flock is prohibited from doing so because that's absent a court order or a subpoena.

Whereas if they received a court order or sub or subpoena, the PSA allows for that situation.

We cannot intervene if it's a judicial order.

Yeah, no, thank you for explaining that that helps.

Um, and then I do apologize, one more specific for you that I um forgot.

Um, so according to the Flock evidence policy, Flock can offer an extended retention beyond 30 days, but shall require the agency to gain approval from an elected official, which I'm assuming is the sheriff.

Should the sheriff decide to extend the retention period between 30 or beyond the 30 days, can the board be notified of that retention period extension?

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

And then I just want to reiterate, I know my colleagues have questions, so I'll I'll stop there.

But again, you know, I the goal that the sheriff's office has to make our community safer, to be able to uh react proactively to some of the instances that you mentioned is incredibly important.

But when we have vendors who have been on the record violating state law, and we have capabilities that they integrate into a system, and we get notified, but we don't get to vote on whether or not these changes get integrated.

I think that's that's an issue of oversight.

I think we have an oversight issue with this vendor.

I think this vendor is also not a good actor.

And those are my concerns with this.

Thank you.

Um, my first question is um to Mr.

Hernandez, and that is where is Sheriff Dart.

Good morning, Vice Chair, or good afternoon.

Um, I don't know where his where he is at this moment, but I would venture to say he's in Maywood or the Department of Corrections.

I understand.

I just always um curious when issues or uh contracts come up of this magnitude, I I would welcome I would be pleased to see him.

Um so this is my line of questioning.

Um, what lessons has uh Cook County Sheriff learned from the lawsuits and investigations involving the FLAC systems in Illinois, California, Virginia, and other jurisdictions.

Without speaking to those uh specific instances, because I don't know all the details, sure.

Um, what I can tell you is that through collaboration with this board, um, you know, we have endeavored to make it clear to the people of Cook County that when we're structuring our contract language that we are doing it in such a way so that we are able to protect the taxpayers and the citizens and the residents of Kak County um while without compromising our ability to um effectively deploy those technologies.

So the guardrails that I mentioned earlier are part of what I would say would be the lessons that all of law enforcement has learned.

Um, the the data that is controlled, the the locations of the camera, those are all um responsibilities of the sheriff's department.

Um and the guardrails that we put in around taking ourselves out of the national search feature um is critically important because a part of the original value of these license plate readers was that if you were a law enforcement agency in Oregon and you were looking for a fugitive in Cook County, there was some value in having a network of license plate readers throughout the county.

And we acknowledged, you know what, if if we're gonna run a responsible program, I think we think it's important to remove ourselves from that network so that we can enter into one-to-one agreements with law enforcement agencies so that we can um make it very clear that we don't mess around with violating prohibited uses.

Um, and we have written declarations from each of the agencies that want to sign into our system.

And we make it clear both when they log in and in the language that they've signed and sent back to us that you know we're not gonna tolerate any foolishness on this system.

Further, we've learned that it's important from the outset to make it clear that no federal agency will be able to access our system.

Um they're not permissions it's not permissible.

Um that would certainly go against the spirit of all the great work we've sought to accomplish with this board about putting meaningful safeguards in place.

Um, and then also um demonstrating through our own workforce our commitment to um making sure that these tools are uh audited effectively.

Um we have dedicated compliance officers who go above and beyond what is required by state law.

I would say almost on a daily basis, pouring through the data to determine this doesn't make sense, this requires further analysis, this is questionable.

The the agencies that are into our system know that we are closely, closely monitoring usage of this technology.

So taken together, we've tried to set up a system where our our our system is somewhat vendor agnostic.

You know, we we put the tightly controlled policies and procedures in place.

The restrictions and the limited uses are made abundantly clear to those who want to utilize our technology, and we let them know that you know we're not going to tolerate any misuse.

So a lot of lessons to answer your question, Vice Chair have been made.

Thank you, kindly.

Uh, a couple more uh relative to transparency and oversight.

Uh will the county publicly disclose all data sharing agreements involving FLOC, insight public sector, subcontractors, and outside law enforcement agency should they have access to this technology.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I I can't speak for the entire county, but Doug Lamar, do you want specific to the vice chair's question?

Apologies, it took me a moment to come back online.

Um just gonna ask for some clarification.

When you say data sharing agreements, do you mean the declarations that each one of the applying agencies has to sign before we approve access to the system?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

I have I apologize.

I have to defer.

This is above my pay grade.

Um I have to defer to our CIO, Amar Patel, as to whether or not those documents can be shared.

Um they do contain some law enforcement information.

Hi, Commissioner Markell, CIO for the sheriff's office.

Um I turned on my camera.

We can hopefully you guys can see and hear me.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

So, Commissioner, so as of today, we have 210 um agencies that uh have access to uh our cameras that have signed a declaration.

168 have not signed the declaration and therefore do not have access to those cameras within the state.

Um barring any objections from legal, I don't have an issue sharing that with you with the agencies that have signed the declaration.

Um you'll have to be scrubbed to make sure that there's nothing law enforcement sensitive, which I doubt there is, but I just want to be transparent and and honest.

I I will have to um check with uh uh legal counsel, which is not a big deal, and as soon as they sign off on it, we're glad to send that list over to you.

Thank you, kindly.

I just have a couple more in the interest of uh out of deference to my fellow commissioners who may also have questions.

Who independently will audit the system access, the logs, how often searches are reviewed for misuse biases or unauthorized surveillance activity.

So, Commissioner, uh oh, go ahead.

Sorry.

No, Chief, go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Okay, yeah.

Uh so Commissioner uh Don Hurtler is our executive director of compliance for the Sheriff's Tech Ops Bureau.

She and her team audit once a month at the minimum of all the records, um, and then uh takes action accordingly from there.

So we look to see internally who is actually using the system.

We look at user logs to make sure that people who have access to the system are actually using it.

And if they do not use the system, then we're disabling access, you know, just following best IT principles to not have systems accessible for those who don't use it.

Um questionable searches go back to the department head um from her team directly um and anything that we find um externally um that does not meet our requirements, access to those systems for those 210 agencies that have independently signed the declaration.

Access is immediately removed.

It goes to our our legal department, obviously, our chief of police.

Uh, we contact the that local suburban agency and say, hey, we've got some problems with the search.

And then in our um, as Jason was saying, the Secretary of State would get notified so that they understand what's happening.

We we take this seriously, Commissioner, and you know, we under we we all understand that this is a tool to be used, but it's got to be used responsibly.

Understood.

Was this contract um competitively procured and were privacy and racial equity and constitutional concerns included in the procurement evaluation criteria?

I can speak to that.

Um let me just say particularly particularly um since this there's a history of this particular um vendor being a bad act or at least relative to to some of these things happening at the state.

So I'm just curious.

So the vendor.

We need to take a step back.

This is a biggy back contract, a reference contract.

Comparable government procurement.

Through insight to obtain services from Flock Group.

Okay.

We accessed the competitively bid contract via the normal procurement process that the county is established.

For the insight contract, Flock was added to their contract in response to an RFP that insight solicited.

I believe it's for Cop County, Georgia.

As a result, Flock was required to provide all that information with regard to their pricing.

And then that was considered as part of insight, including Flock on their contract with regard to your deeper considerations regarding uh equity, racial disparity, and constitutionality.

I'll need to look deeper in terms of the RFP that was submitted.

Those were not specific things I reviewed or remember reviewing.

So if I'm a uh allowed to, I'd like to get back to you on that.

Please, that's critically important to me.

And finally, what remedies do exist for residents who may be wrongly stopped or surveilled or harmed because of a system error, misread or unauthorized data access.

With regard to data access, um I can speak specifically to that.

Um depending on the level of harm, there are multiple remedies available currently at law in civil cases.

Um there may also be criminal penalties that the state would handle um through the uh attorney general regarding uh any data breach or or exposure with regard to um misidentification.

Uh Mike, uh uh Mike Halpin.

Yeah, can I refer to you?

Yeah, Doug, I can I can jump in on that.

So for operational um use of the system, um we we did bring in our detective uh the deputy chief and um deputy commander um from the sheriff's police department.

What when uh an alert hits um on the flock system, um it notifies a person that is looking for that that that vehicle, then it goes down the operational path of okay, we know that this vehicle is going at this direction at this location, and then it's up to the sheriff's police department to determine okay, what our next steps.

So I want to make sure that we uh Jason, if you if you don't wouldn't mind uh have somebody from operations um uh explain to the commissioner kind of how how it works and what are the next steps after the license plate reader hits on a on a plate and and who bears the responsibility if that happens, is that us as Cook County?

Is that um the the vendor, the entity inside or flock who who bears the the burden of that should there be um uh somebody wrongly stopped, wrong car, misidentification.

I understand many of much of what I've heard relative to safeguards, but I'm just curious because all systems, no system is 100%, you know, um fail proof.

So should that happen, who bears the responsibility?

So it would be the using law enforcement agency commissioner.

So we we we have an obligation to make sure that if it's technology or reading an incident report that we are um doing so as accurately as possible, um, because that ultimately is a decision that the system isn't making.

That all the system does is say that a car that fits the license plate is traveling in a direction and and that's it.

It's up to the officer themselves, the detective to determine what actions to take and if it is uh if it is allowed.

And I think uh it would be beneficial, uh Jason, if we uh brought up uh somebody from the detectives to explain the process of uh of an actual uh uh alert that comes from the the license plate.

If if something um alerted and it would fall on the individual police officer that was to make that stop.

So it's no no different than a traffic stop on the street now, say an officer is believes that there's probable cause that a crime occurred based on the information, they're gonna make that reasonable stop uh as the constitution allows them to do, and then they're gonna make whatever uh follow-up steps in an investigation.

If it's in good faith, that's where everyday police officers make those stops.

If there's an error in technology, it could be no different than a police officer who mistypes a plate in a vehicle today and it comes up with say a warrant, a similar vehicle, and they're gonna they're gonna have they stop it, they're acting in good faith.

Once they determine that they don't have a reason to stop that vehicle, it ceases.

If there was some sort of malfeasance or abuse or something, then that would be where it would be criminal investigation where it could fall on to the state's attorney or another entity for like a public integrity if there was some some bad actor, but based on the technology, you would fall on the individual police officer acting in good faith on the information provided.

Yeah, that can I have further concerns just even with that statement.

However, um I will defer to my other fellow commissioners who I am certain have other questions.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you to the cadre of representatives from the sheriff's office.

Thank you, Chairman.

I just want to before I want to thank all our sheriff officers for their commitment and duty to uh keep our community safe.

So thank you.

You're very much appreciated.

But um in terms of the uh the contract, um is there any measurement?

I know there's some concerns about the contract, but is there any measurements or or procedures just in case there is a violation or a breach of this contract with the sheriff's department?

Uh Commissioner, I can speak to that.

Um unfortunately I don't have the the contract right in front of me at the moment, but what I can say is that um whenever we enter into this process, we engage with our county counterparts um uh both with BOT and the Office of Uh Chief Procurement Officer.

Um and in this case we also worked with the uh state's attorney's office to uh build into all of our contracts, all of our uh SAS contracts or software as a service contracts, um levels of different legal review that include um indemnification clauses, warranties, limitations of liability, and um ca uh uh uh uh damage caps.

So this is again an interactive process that we engage with our county counterparts to ensure that um we can negotiate in good faith with our vendors um and that we uh uh provide proper protections um in all of our contracts.

Yeah, so you're making sure that you cross your T's into your eyes when you when you pursue this.

That's correct, Commissioner.

Yeah, legal counsel.

Thank you very much.

I will support this this item.

I think it's good.

And it's a preventative measure to uh keep our community safe.

So thank you.

Thank you, Chair, and um also I uh just wanted to mention that a number of the the crimes that were mentioned, um, and a number of the speakers were from my district, and I do understand the importance of this technology in fighting crime.

However, I do have some concerns about this agreement, and uh uh specifically uh well a couple of things.

First of all, um just in terms of explanations uh one of the things that was mentioned um along with um you know subpoenas uh uh and you know times when you have to release the information were uh freedom of information requests.

And I'm just wondering how freedom of information requests work with this type of information and with this contract.

Uh so commissioner, I can I can answer that.

So under the uh currently under the Illinois Vehicle Code, um there is a a prohibition um to r uh release uh widespread um uh uh ALPR generated data.

Um it's it's in the vehicle code and it also um works in conjunction with with Illinois FOIA.

Um so I would have to defer uh I can I can seek additional clarification from our legal counsel um if if I'm able to and and get back to you with a more uh uh clear answer.

I I would appreciate that.

to uh release uh widespread um uh uh uh generated data um it's it's in the vehicle code and it also um works in conjunction with with illinois foyer um so i would have to defer uh I can I can seek additional clarification from our legal counsel um if if I'm able to and and get back to you with a more uh uh clear answer I I would appreciate that and also uh in terms of the the thing the types of uh um uh cases where that are specifically prohibited you mentioned for instance uh enforcement enforcement of uh um abortion laws in other states um you you listed a number of them but I guess one of the concerns I have uh is that let's say for instance if you look at reproductive rights I think six years ago nobody would have expected or or maybe even foreseen needing to put it in an exception um like that in this kind of a contract um but now here we are and I I worry about just having specific things that are um prohibited as opposed to um more uh elaborate um uh specific or more elaborate um structure about what is and isn't allowed uh so for instance um uh uh you know having you know being able to use this technology to in uh to investigate serious violent crimes as opposed to let's say for instance uh we may have an inquiry about somebody who blew a stop sign in another suburb or but along with that there are they also happen to be tracking somebody who uh is under suspicion of one of the prohibited items so you can pull over somebody let's say for instance uh who is uh under investigation from another state or whatever for uh you know getting an abortion um but basically the the premise for pulling them over is something else so I'm wondering if you could perhaps talk a little bit about how these restrictions m are uh deal with that possibility do it do are we um are we are we uh basically allowing this for specific types of of uh investigations only and they have to fall under those categories or were we having a very broad uh uh interpretation of this and just outlining the exceptions um thank you uh excellent question commissioner thank you for it um so um when I had mentioned earlier some of the procedures that we put in place um that when someone wants to access our camera system um they're not allowed to enter a general search inquiry we established a very detailed drop down um for a corresponding criminal predicate that every user must select in addition to uh a case number to help you know as an added measure so we share your concern about um thinking creatively about how to um you know not just avoid the strictly prohibited uses um but narrowing it down even further so that we can ensure that you know it's tied to a a specific lawful criminal predicate in accordance with the state law so we do rec we do require a very specific request from a drop down um and I and I think that's one of the steps that we've taken to ensure that if anybody's gonna access our system it's it's for a lawful reason.

But w uh what are we doing in the case or what would we do in the case and I realize this is just hypotheticals of somebody using that drop down menu and selecting a category but their primary purpose is to track somebody for a prohibited um a prohibited type of investigation.

Sure.

The first thing we would do is cut off access immediately secondly we would contact out law enforcement agency for additional questions and as we mentioned earlier if we determined or suspected that there was some prohibited use at play we would make instant notification to the Secretary of state with the hopes that that would be investigated even further possibly possible um you know further action under the law in the court system.

So immediate access would be suspended contact would be established and um yeah there would be consequences.

But again just to hammer on this point one last time is suppose that there that particular license plate is flagged for two things one is permitted one is not permitted what are the consequences in that case Commissioner can I just seek a little bit of clarification I'm just trying to understand your question.

Okay I so for instance an agency that's trying to track somebody who is let's say suspected of being in Illinois to receive abortion services but also let's say for instance has a has a you know violated a traffic law someplace else or had some kind of open warrant um so the the the person searching for that person has two legit two reasons to do it.

instance uh an agency that's trying to track somebody uh be who is a let's say suspected of being in illinois to receive abortion services but also let's say for instance has a has a you know violated a traffic law uh someplace else or uh had some kind of open warrant um so the the the person searching for that person has two legit two reasons to do it one is um a legitimate use of the system one is not a legitimate use of the system how do we deal with that case uh okay I I think I understand commissioner so it based on how we um how how the sheriff's office has established the declaration process I think that might be helpful for um for me to use that uh as as the key here so um if if we've if someone has conducted a search on the system and and and we've identified that as a essentially a a non-legitimate purpose for using the system what the declaration allows us to do is um uh based on how we do the one-to-one connection with these agencies is we can uh first terminate access to that specific agency without um uh hindering our ability to continue to work with other agencies or have other agencies work with us using the the software as it's configured um and so at that point what we would do is engage in we would engage that law enforcement uh agency directly um and uh obtain more information about the actual search and and essentially conduct our own investigation and and and get more details about it in that time period we've uh terminated that access so that no other searches can can be conducted by that specific agency until we've uh uh essentially obtained some sort of a uh resolution um if that resolution is that they've uh essentially violated the declaration and have used the system for an illegitimate purpose we would maintain that the the the severing of that connection uh refer them and then refer them to the Illinois Secretary of State uh which is now in written policy and I would further add in that example that you laid out commissioner this would be a state law enforcement agency knowingly violating state law um which in and of itself has significant criminal consequences I would imagine I'm not a lawyer so forgive me but uh you know that that would be a tremendous action taken by a law enforcement agency to violate a law they know um to be the you know to to be the the the letter of the law here in Illinois um also for um an act that's not illegal uh so um we would have a zero tolerance policy around that type of suspected use but we we do share your concerns those are all the questions I've got thank you thank you chair um so just a few follow-up uh questions um so I'm interested in the process of the the contract and how we came about so I know in 2022 we had um an emergency procurement with flock uh so just want to uh know if you can share the extent of that one year emergency procurement basically what was the scope of the contract how is that different than this one um why it was an emergency procurement and um were there any changes to that technology since then I can speak yeah I can speak to that so the emergency procurement was uh in response to an identified need in uh certain areas throughout the county where there were significant levels of vehicle related crime and we were working to address an issue the vehicle related crime includes carjacking general car theft um shootings and we applied our analysis uh to the numbers that we had that so that's calls for service types of crime um and determined where these cameras could be placed most effectively and it was a rash of those particular types of crimes um the scope was 25 cameras and what we were looking for is both a force multiplier and a way to add additional information to our investigatory activities um that contract one moment is number 2217 06143 and it was for those 25 cameras I mentioned those are stationary cameras and uh the amount was 74500 was for one year additionally your question about the technology so flock continues to uh improve and develop the technology that's related to their systems and one thing that's important to note there are two parts to the system there are the cameras and then there's the core system wing suite itself and that is a cloud hosted platform

It was for one year.

Additionally, your question about the technology.

So Flock continues to improve and develop the technology that's related to their systems.

And one thing that's important to note, there are two parts to the system.

There are the cameras, and then there's the core system, wing suite itself, and that is a cloud hosted platform software basically.

And the contract also included licensing to access that that platform.

Commissioner Beckon also add to technology.

No, I'm sorry, go ahead, Doug.

I apologize.

The technology related to the cloud platform is undergoing constant development.

And that's true of most cloud provided software services.

When you think of Microsoft Azure or AWS, things that you use in element, those constantly go through development improvement and versioning.

The cameras themselves have not been changed during the course of the contract, except for certain software updates to the cameras to address any software bugs.

I mean, it was a major, major problem in the county, and Sheriff Dart's been deeply committed to working with all of our partners to get a handle on that particular issue, and we've seen good success.

So one figure I'd like to raise is that you know, over the past two years, our Cook County Sheriff's Office Vehicular Violence Suppression Team has recovered over 1,500 vehicles with 73%, roughly 1,121 resulting solely from LPR camera detections.

And of course, we know that's critically important because when a vehicle is stolen, it is often used in the commission of another crime, um, sometimes very serious crime.

So the sooner we intercept and re and locate that vehicle, the less likely it is to be used in the commission of another crime.

So we've seen great success in that period um around the you know, around the exigence and circumstance that existed with um when we saw this procurement.

Okay, so the 25 cameras, have they still been used throughout this time?

Although we only had a one-year contract.

Can you clarify that?

I don't know, Doug, if you have an answer.

Yes, Commissioner.

They're still in use.

Okay.

Um and you mentioned something important, and and the reason why I had asked about the technology um evolving, whether it's the cameras or the software, the cloud-based um uh core system.

Um it changes, when it evolves, um, how exactly, number one, are you all notified?

And does that trigger any change within the contract?

Does that change, you know, if there's a new capability, Jason?

You mentioned in your presentation that the capability that it has as of now, it's no facial recognition, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

It was a long lengthy list.

I actually took a picture of it, wanted to make sure to remember that.

But um, if that is to change, if the technology is evolving, how has it worked now from 2022 to now?

And what does what changes or what does it trigger within the contract when the capabilities are changed and evolving?

Because technology changes every what every second, every you know, every it's something like this, maybe every three months.

So I'm I'm just wondering, you know, uh, to your point about safeguards, what exactly exists and um what mechanisms does it change as the technology changes?

Legal question, so uh so do you want me to take that?

Uh Doug, yeah, how about you take it and I can uh chime in.

Absolutely.

So first, um, your question comes in two parts.

Uh the software updates, and the second is what possibly may be um changed in the contract or affected in the contract.

It's important to note that we have a proscriptive policy and procedure around ALPR use, and that includes system use and it prohibits certain um functionality, uh, us using certain functionality in the system.

For example, um, if they develop and deploy a facial recognition capability within the camera, we do not use that.

It is prohibited.

Um there is no real change to the contract with regard to any changes that come in, unless one of those changes should diminish the functionality.

Um if it impacts our ability or elements that we've agreed to in order to get our job done, then that's considered potential breach.

And we will approach uh the vendor from a breach position, where if they do not restore or do not repair the system, then we're gonna have to go to procurement, Rafi and and his team and determine how do we proceed here?

Um in terms of how are we notified when there are major version changes?

So sometimes when you look at software, you may see version 2.1 you've been using, now it's 2.2.

We will receive a change log, and that shows all the elements that are addressed in the version change, all the things that were updated, bugs that have been repaired, and new functionality that may be introduced.

So, Doug, what happens if the change violates uh safeguard?

So say uh, you know.

Well, first we we have to sure go ahead.

No, go go ahead.

I was just gonna say we have to investigate first quickly what the violation is, how what's the extent?

Um second is we also have to look at is it possible to eliminate that functionality, turn it off, or ask the vendor to remove it.

Um most vendors are pretty accommodating in giving us the ability to either deactivate certain functionality or have it removed completely from what we access.

Um if that's not available, then we have to confer with our legal and procurement to determine what we need to do in that particular situation, because that could also be considered an impact to the system as agreed to, and that it eliminates in your question a level of control that we have over the system and would violate our policy and our procedure in terms of ALPR use.

Okay, I I do have many more questions regarding this, but I'm gonna just for time's sake, I'm gonna skip this.

I will follow up, um, Jason, if I may, um, with some of that, because I do think that it's quite complex, and I think that there's different things and angles that we need to look at it, especially because um, again, technology continues to uh evolve.

Um, I'm gonna uh ask a question regarding the fact that this contract is not a sole source.

Um, so because it's not a sole source, um, it didn't technically go through an RFP process for us.

We did a piggyback.

So I'm just wondering why um we decided to do that.

I'm particularly interested in in the fact that when you have a piggyback, it's not considered our contract.

It's not considered a sheriff's contract, it's considered you're adding yourself to a contract that exists, which means that you did not have any say in the way that the procurement or the RFP was really put out, what those parameters are.

So therefore you're having to go above and beyond to look at what that contract says, and then you know, make make the different safeguards or potentially pivots that you've had to do now.

So I'm just wondering why we did not go the route of you know, a regular RFP process for you all for the sheriff's office.

So go ahead.

No, go ahead, Doug.

So our major consideration in pursuing the RFP was we needed to get a contract established with Flock.

Flock was chosen on the basis of their product offering, but also the um let's call it the engagement model.

Because can we pause?

When you say it was chosen, do you mean it was chosen by the sheriff's office or by Georgia?

Like which chosen are we are we talking about?

Okay.

Chosen by the sheriff's office initially.

Okay, proceed.

Okay.

Based on the ownership model, um, the cost model under the contract, Flock uh maintains the equipment.

So if the equipment is damaged or doesn't begin functioning or stops functioning properly, Flock will replace it under the contract.

Addition, their price model per unit is much lower than many other um many other vendors in this space.

Um we had already incorporated Flock into our policies, you know, they it influenced the way we developed our policies and procedures and then our operational need, which I'll allow one of the other um colleagues to speak to, but in terms of continuation of services, it was more expeditious to uh continue with Flock as opposed to selecting another vendor who would have been more expensive because we would have had to replace any existing cameras, and then also uh added cameras and and other systems for those cameras to our infrastructure.

So we said that it has been established that we were using Flock based on the emergency contract in 2022.

It was a one year, so does that mean that this whole time we've been with them without a contract, and therefore we thought that it makes sense for us to just continue with with functions with them.

Um, because I I understand your argument about it's just it was maybe cheaper.

Um, but I'm concerned about the fact that we didn't give we didn't go through an RFP process.

I'm not really quite sure how we would establish that with again if we don't have controls of of the different parameters on a piggyback.

Um I want to make sure I understand your question.

Yeah, and I'm sorry, there might have been like three or four in there.

Um it might have been assumptions, but but basically where I'm trying to get at is how do we know that it was the cheaper one?

Well, no number one, have we been operating with um without a contract?

That's number one.

Number two, um, how do we know it would be cheaper if we didn't we didn't even send out an RFP or our RFQ to get a little bit more information regarding whether again this was the right route for us to go?

Um so I think those are the major top level things that I'm concerned about.

Understood.

Okay, first, have we been operating without a contract?

Yes, we have been.

Um, and that is on the basis of it took a very long time to get this contract developed.

Um without going too much into it, the technology, the vendor, controversial, and I'll just be up front about that.

So there were a lot of considerations that went into developing this contract.

Second is the value received versus cost.

How do we determine that?

So part of our procurement process, uh, that's vendors.

We take uh an extensive look at the particular market that um we're considering before we even begin any part of the process, whether that manifests as an RFP, a piggyback, a sole source.

Um, and we also examine pricing, um, and we get that information through general investigation, but also through consultation with agencies that may be using a particular vendor that we have interest in.

And we did a pretty far-ranging cost analysis to look at what system acquisition would look like for uh uh flock for uh genitech for Motorola Um and a couple of other vendors in this space.

And Flock was by far the least expensive in the market per unit, and Flock remains the lowest cost vendor in that uh in that marketplace.

Additionally, um we looked at available networks, and Flock had a fairly extensive network.

Beyond that, I'm gonna defer to um our CPO Rafi Serafian, who's on the call, if there's anything additional he needs to contribute.

Good morning or good afternoon, Commissioner, and thank you for your question.

Something I I would I would like to clarify here.

The contract before you is with InSight public sector.

We're not contract the contract is not uh directly with uh FLOC.

The um this is a piggyback contract that was uh led by uh uh Cobb County, Georgia, who is a lead government agency of Omnia partners.

Omnia partners is a national cooperative purchasing association, and they have many, many nationwide governmental agencies who are their members.

And they make available contracts to public agencies nationwide, and those contracts are advertised by their lead public agency or lead public agency who's one of their members.

In this case, in this case, Cobb Cobb County, Georgia.

The RFP that they advertised was for technology products and related services.

And what and the RFP received 17 proposals.

Uh Insight uh got the award.

The contract is structured to make lots of technology products available for purchase off of it.

And these license plate readers that are offered by Flock are one of those items that are available for purchase off of the contract.

And the pricing and when the RFP was advertised to get to the question of um the pricing and whether it's reason and it's reasonableness.

The RFP had language that said the contract that Cobb County is advertising is a national contract for again for technology products, and they're going to make once an award is made, then that contract will be made available for use by public agencies nationwide.

Additionally, the contract uh estimated the annual uh the the spend through the contract term on the contract to be in the hundreds of millions.

Uh and so um that is that is volume that we could not advertise uh if we went to market, we couldn't advertise that type of volume.

And so what we're getting, what's being made available to any public agency that wants to make a purchase for any technology product that's available on this insight contract is scale pricing uh with a you know to include when when the estimate use is in the hundreds of millions, the pricings will be will be um um in uh better better pricing because they're advertising better volume.

And and that's volume again, we could not advertise if we did our own RFP and went to market.

So again, the the insight uh contract before you was a product of a competitive RFP process, and it's being made of and it's being made available to government agencies nationwide.

And we're before you today requesting to use the insight contract to make the to uh the to make the purchase through uh with uh flock for the uh license plate readers.

Okay, thanks, Rafi.

I appreciate that.

Um the thing that I'll say about that, I understand why for expediency and for uh some of the reasons that you've highlighted why a contract like this is very enticing, but I think that we need to uplift the fact that sometimes when you are going in bit big volume with a contract that's nationwide.

Um I don't I can't say that all the time, but I can say that maybe you know they don't really have because there's so many different agencies, they may not have the best interest of Kakony residents or may not have the best interests of some of our specific, you know, areas that we really care about our values, et cetera.

So I think um again, I understand why that may be uh a route that is taken often.

Um I understand that it may be you know cheaper, et cetera.

But what we have had here in Cook County, and I've been talking about data and information and this type of technology for almost eight years.

So um we have always had issues with vendors, um, and we have always had issues with contracts in which we're not looking at different angles, and then we don't have full control over.

Um so I think if we're not taking that into consideration as we go into these national contracts or national RFPs, um, it loses a lot of again what what this body really cares about and what we've always been kind of highlighting as a as an issue.

And now more than ever, when AI is taking over, you know, jobs and you know, we're getting, I don't know, uh different um grants taken away from the county because there's a word like biodiversity in it.

There's a lot of technology that for good reason we do not fully have faith in, and we do not fully um can understand again the the fact that it can have negative impacts.

So I think that that's the reason why there are so many questions, and as we move forward with you know procuring other goods down the line, these are the type of things that we really need to look into, and we need to make sure whether there is something you know in our procurement code or there's something down the line that we need to talk to within our agencies that we're taking these things into consideration because this may not be the first time that we have the this issue, um, but we want to make sure that we're moving towards the right direction so that we don't continue to have the same questions and the same issues down the line.

So that's why I think you know, I really question when we do piggybacks and I really do question when we do national uh you know RFPs like that, because I just don't necessarily think some you know, Georgia and other places are not gonna have the same, you know, questions or concerns that maybe we will.

Um so I I just want to say that, and I again I I want to just be really respectful of my colleagues.

I know there's many more questions.

So the last you know, few things that I'll say to this is um I agree with a lot of the concerns that have been highlighted, and I do want us to continue to get notices regarding you know things like the upgrades, the audits, um also would add to that the end um user license agreement.

I think that that's important um because as I mentioned, we've had already a history of where we're seeing that there are, you know, I wouldn't fully say bad actors, but let's put it what as it is.

A lot of these they're businesses and they're looking for the bottom line.

They're looking to see if they can sell information, if they could, you know, expand their contract.

It's about the bottom line for a lot of these companies.

And it may not be malintended, but down the line, we do have a lot of these serious issues that that we um that that we have been highlighting.

And I think um, you know, a lot of the companies have been very infamous for violating the safeguards for finding loopholes for safeguards, like they're experts at it.

So I think that that's why we have a lot of concerns.

Um, you know, me and some of my colleagues, and and I think that the the those things I although it has been really help uh helpful to you know the the briefings and the different um folks that are here to answer some of the questions, I still feel like there's still a lot of unanswered uh down the line.

And I think that that's why I can't fully support this contract um because of all of the questions, not only through how we came about with this contract, but just the technology in itself and some of the uh the fact that you know Flock and Insight, um, well, insight I don't have too much background on, but Flock has is is the one that's ultimately being used for this contract.

So those are again some of the things, and I will follow up with additional questions that I may have as we move forward um with again some of these contracts.

Thank you.

Commissioner, if I could if I can add real quickly, Commissioner, when we do uh piggyback, such as in this case here, we negotiate our own PSA.

Doug referred to the PSA earlier.

So even though there's an underlying contract that was awarded and in this case by Cobb County, we negotiate our own PSA.

And we also work uh negotiate on the EULA too, because to your point, Commissioner, we have our we have our uh our own terms and conditions, and we want to make sure that they're included in in the contract that would be presented uh to the board.

One of those terms and conditions that we make sure is in our contracts is the guardrail of early termination.

So if we learn anything at any time, and this is on any contract we uh we execute.

And in this case, this uh since we're talking this one, there uh if we learn at any time of something that happens uh regarding flock or or anything else, we have the right in the PSA to terminate the contract.

And that is a guardrail that we that we insist on in our in our contracts, and it's in this PSA.

Uh so uh and also in the contract, we make sure that we've added uh not just our language that speaks to uh our boilerplate that speaks the confidentiality of data and ownership of data and data sharing.

We've also included our IT special conditions, which um which also has robust, much more robust language on data sharing and data protection.

Uh so to your point, uh we do we do negotiate our own PSA because we do have our our concerns and and our our own boilerplate that we want to make sure are included in the PSA that we're going to present to you.

Understood, Rafa, but I think I mean you and I have had conversations for years about whether the boilerplate is fully we have it as an enforced you know mechanism, but it's extremely hard to actually you know gather enough information when there is a violation.

So I think that even then I still have concerns and I've have voiced those concerns over the past few years, and I I stand I stand by that.

So I I know that we do have our own PSAs and we have boilerplates and all of these other safeguards, but some of these agencies um again have become masterminds in in finding the loopholes.

And I think that it's it's almost impossible to find every loophole that they can probably get at.

But um I think again, if we have more, you know, overall control over some of these, again, I'll repeat and I'll reiterate I understand why, you know, based on Rafi how you explained it, but there's still a lot of things on my end that I don't feel uh fully secure, you know, um with the way that we're we're doing that.

So those those are my things, and I think that we may never come to a full agreement on it, and and that's okay, but that's um that's my stance.

So thanks.

Thank you.

Commissioner, I want to thank you for your comments.

Um you bring up a lot of good points, and I what I would want you to know is that um the spirit of what you're attempting to speak to and accomplish um is we we share that passion for protecting the people of Cook County.

Um and what we can end what we endeavor to do is pledge in any way we'll working through the chair to to make sure that you are kept up to speed as circumstances evolve um out of respect for this body, and and we will work in a manner consistent with you know the the county's BOT and certainly you know, the chair to get you the information that you're looking for to the extent it gives you some peace of mind that we've put a lot of time and energy into our contract language because we care about these things too.

Um, but you know, we appreciate your comments.

Thank you very much.

We have uh thank you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um most of my questions were answered.

I want to go back to um this PSA.

Um I heard in the conversation several times that we'll have to see what happens if and when they're bad actor.

And I would say um that based on other contracts and other places that they have been bad actors.

And and I just heard Rafi say that in our PSA that there is language, and I'd like to see that language that allows us to terminate if uh with calls, right?

And so um one, I would just like to see that um if you could forward that to my office because I I don't want to be in a place where we are beholden to the contract and the and the boilerplate language that's in the contract because they violated any of those things and and uh just won't reassurance um that there is the ability to terminate if and when hopefully never, but if if and when something happens.

Is that a Rafi or is that commissioner?

We could we can forward you that uh that boilerplate from the PSA.

All right, if if you would.

You know, I I've I've had conversations with your office about other things that that not necessarily had it was our contract, but but we were not able to adjust any uh of those things.

And so just making sure that I can over overlap what we can and cannot do with the contract that that they usually send out that we're piggybacking off of because to you know, most of my colleagues' points, we want to make sure that there are some repercussions with misuse.

And and granted there may be some um unattended personal, um not personal, um because human error errors, but but if there are some violations to things that we really hold um deeply in our values as Cook County, those will be taken to effect and we and we can cancel.

Yes, and um I'll make sure we forward you uh the the uh early termination uh uh language in the in the PSA.

Is there is in that language, I know you can send it to me just what is is it a 30-day termination notice is it uh um uh uh effective immediately termination notice what we're gonna do.

Yeah, I commissioner, I I I don't want to misspeak uh, but um uh uh I'll have to go back and look at the language to see um what it uh what it says as to any timing on that notice.

Okay, and um just to to follow up, I believe uh uh Jason, you said that if there is a a breach of of kind of what happens, let me take that back.

So what what is the cadence of notification to to this body about these breaches and and what and how what we have to do if a breach is discovered um and our legal counsel takes you know engages in appropriate dialogue with the rest of the county, uh that notification would be immediate as soon as that misuse is detected or uh our breach discovered, um you know, we will begin those conversations immediately and notification would be made instantaneously.

No, we are vested the values that you eloquently um discussed um and certainly my colleagues in the county have gone over the contract language.

It's not enforcement and observation isn't passive for us, it's active.

We have the most to lose from this technology being abused, and we take it seriously.

So if some breach is discovered or some other misuse or prohibited use, once it is determined the the size and scope and what occurred, we will notify this board right away.

And that is on other users as well as um block, correct?

Uh so commissioner, just to clarify, in the case of an actual data breach where the software has essentially failed, um there is a uh there is legal requirements under PIPA that all um uh uh essentially data collectors need to follow.

Um there is a process that we have internally that goes through that.

Um if if we suspect that and then let me so I'm not worried about the users, right?

I I because the agreement that is made is kind of in-house with the users that that we do.

Um I'm more worried about if there is some sort of reach in our data with Flock, right?

Uh or um Flock shares our data.

Just if you could run and you might have done this, I'm I'm just don't remember hearing.

Um one, how do we how do how are we given the information that things have happened on their end?

What is the the process that that happens?

What is the timeline and then how is reported to you and then ultimately to us?

Understood.

As as our um uh chief information officer Mark Patel has explained earlier, um uh the software set up that there's a a dashboard that our uh officers can use the system um as it's intended, but also uh there is a a very small number of administrators within our office that have the ability to uh conduct reviews of all searches that are done on our network, both in internally in the sense that our officers and then um those officers and other agencies that have that uh ability to to search based on the one-to-one connection that we've established through the software.

And so we we we review those um uh stringently.

Um I I don't want to misspeak, but Chief Patel, I believe you you you mentioned if you're still on the line the uh the amount of time that we're we're we're actively reviewing uh based on Don's uh audits.

Yeah, that's correct.

It's it's once a month, Commissioner, uh, that the audits take place.

And and that's the main reason why we switched from a statewide uh opt-in to a one-to-one.

If we do have an agency that isn't following the law, and you know, it it is what it is if they're not doing what they're supposed to.

We have the ability to turn them off immediately and then take action.

In the old way and how most other agencies most likely operate, is that they all opt in to the state program so anybody can search uh throughout the network.

We're taking it to the next level, requiring everybody to sign the declaration so we have further accountability to make sure that they're not violating uh state law as it relates to ALPRs.

Okay, all right.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioner Okay, thank you, Chair.

Um, just a couple questions.

I wanted to go back with regard to um the number of cameras that will be added, what is the total number of cameras to be added to the system?

100 125 stationary cameras.

Okay and then with regard to those specific 101, what data is used to determine where they're going to be placed?

What communities, not where they're going to be placed physically with an address, but what communities?

As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, um, and thank you, Commissioner, for the question.

Data drives data drives our decision making.

Um they are geographically spread throughout the county, they're not located in just one area of the county, and it's based on operational and investigative need.

If we see uh an uptick in the number of hit and runs, um, that is certainly something that would take into consideration, certainly hijacked vehicles, stolen vehicles, any of the criteria that I listed previously, that would be the main determinant if in determining a location.

Okay, understanding that piece, will we receive in advance an identifier to let us know where these what communities are being added?

As I mentioned to Commissioner Naya, we are more than happy to work with you through the chair and getting all of that information to you.

That information what scan.

No, that's fine.

That's what that's that's my next.

We're we're saying the same thing.

We're agreeing.

Um so with regard to the con at some point, based on the contract already being in motion, the PSA already being in motion, understanding what this technology is proposed to do.

We get all of that.

What we're trying to figure out is in identifying that you needed 100 cameras, what communities have you already identified for those cameras to go into?

Do you already know that list?

We currently have 71 cameras that have been deployed, but those if if this contract were to pass would are not automatically accounted for.

Okay.

So we're just basically purchasing some extras in advance just to make sure that we have them on hand in the event that they're needed.

It's quite a bit of work to go into the doing the analysis, and it would be premature for us to identify locations until until that contract is signed.

Thank you for that.

And then with regard to um, we spoke earlier and it was mentioned that it will be going into the cloud.

So the data goes into a cloud.

How long is it archived?

How long do you keep it?

When does it expire?

So uh all uh data is stored for 30 days.

So if um if uh a vehicle goes past the field of view of a flock camera, that is stored for 30 days, unless the uh uh for lack of a better term, the the data is flagged for an underlying criminal investigation, um, then it could be maintained longer, which is based on our procedures for maintaining that information.

And it's housed in our evidence.com because it might it might need to be part of a larger legal case, so it needs to be preserved.

And then with regard to working with local law enforcement, um, are you working with them in tangible to identify like where these cameras should be placed, or is it based only on the data that you have?

I mean, this is a bar Patel, the chief information officer.

So um primarily these cameras are gonna be most likely in areas where the sheriff's police patrol and our primary um primary department is is the sheriff's police.

So that data would be based on calls for service that we get from the 911 center.

Um we also have a robust records management center uh system where that detectives that they're working their cases.

We can also we we also plan to use that data to generate which locations would serve best for these cameras.

Um we do have the ability to discuss this with other law enforcement agencies that we frequently provide uh services for.

So we call that an AOA and assist another agency.

And so for agencies that we help with uh their department because they have let's say a lack of uh staffing for their investigations, um, we're able to also coordinate with them as well.

The last place that we look at is in at the consolidated 911 center, um uh the ETSP dispatches for about I think 18 or 19 different agencies.

We have the ability to also talk to them to determine using their data if there's any that would help not just an unincorporated but in incorporated suburbs as well.

That helps significantly.

I know that the cameras have been very useful in my district specifically.

We've had a lot of success with the use of the cameras.

I've had the opportunity to train with um Chicago Heights and also with Alsip, who both use the system very uh a lot.

So I do understand a lot of the um I do understand all of the concerns regarding accountability, and I think that's what it boils down to.

I don't know if there's a way for us to see the actual PSA itself.

I think that would have helped to have that in advance so that um we could all have seen um the levels of accountability that we've taken just to make sure that whatever contract issues are that we have on the proper protocols in place, and then with our use of um the system, I don't want to keep saying flock because I know that's the brand, but the license plate reader.

So with that, uh what we've used it for thus far, have we had any specific breach issues that have not been brought to the board's attention?

Uh in terms of actual data breaches, no.

We've not had any issues.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair, members of the committee.

Um I guess I'll start with um let's just assume there were no cameras at all.

And uh a police officer is uh stationed at a particular location and he sees a license plate, he can run that license plate, can't he, Jason?

That is correct.

And the expectation of privacy, and that's been defined by case law for probably 50 years, is that there's really things that are publicly visible, there's really no expectation of privacy.

That's not a question, that's a statement.

So the concept is this technology enables us to have eyes where we can't have physical officers.

Is that fair?

That's correct.

There is no difference between what would happen if that officer sees that license plate or if this machine reads it.

Is that also correct?

One more time, Commissioner, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I'm going fast now.

So there's really no difference between an officer seeing that license plate and this machine reading that license plate.

It's really the use of the information that's relevant and the way it's collected.

It is the same function, you're correct, Commissioner.

So if you were to take away uh if not just to expand, let's just say generally, if you were to take away all of these cameras, um do you think that the functionality of our ability for amber alerts and carjackings and police investigations would be significantly hindered?

Is that fair?

Significantly impacted.

And you know, Jason, and you've we've talked multiple times about this contract because I know there were going to be some serious questions, and I had some questions as well about the flock system specifically, and I thank you for answering those very directly and and then finding out the the guardrails that we've put in place to the sheriff's office to prevent the very abuses that I think so many of my colleagues are concerned about, and rightly so.

But I also think that you know it I look around at the flock contracts, and we can vilify corporations up and down.

There's a lot of them I don't like, some of them we contract with sometimes.

The the important thing, and would you agree with me is that we make sure that we we've we confirm and verify everything they're gonna do.

We can't have a perfect system, but we have enough in place to make sure that the abuses, if they exist, have an immediate remedy.

Is that fair?

That is correct.

That's why so much time and energy goes into carefully crafting our contract language, and um we understand that the concerns have that have been brought up.

Um, but what we're asking the board today is to authorize a tool under very strict controls that can help us protect victims and and solve serious crimes.

So, you know, our approach and our philosophy is that we can regulate and use this responsibly or you know, decline it and accept the operational consequences, which are matters of life and death.

So that's why we we take this seriously.

Um it was a privilege, it's been a privilege to come before this board to discuss it.

Um a lot of very very smart um very um service-oriented individuals went into carefully crafting this contract language and to setting up the policies and procedures that govern its usage.

So yes, there would be significant consequences without it throughout the county.

And you know, I I I served on a the 911 board back when we had those individual municipalities, and then of course, um in my village board service, we provided 911 service, as you know, Jason, to 14, 15 municipalities, um, all of whom I believe uh have shared with me, and certainly the chiefs have shared with me, the incredibly important nature of this particular technology for law enforcement, uh not just generally, but also just for safety purposes.

And I'm reminded that, and I know anecdotes are of limited uh efficacy, but you know, I when my son was a first grader, we lost him for about 15 minutes.

Turns out he's okay, he's still living at home, but that's okay.

That's not bad.

Um but you know, because he was supposed to he got on the bus and he was supposed to go to Africa.

But you know, I I would think if something like that happened and it wasn't just a benign fact, uh I'd sure want to have something like this that could identify if something really, really bad happened and find my child.

And I think everybody on this board would feel the same way.

Doesn't mean that the concerns that have been raised are not good ones, they are.

But uh to a certain extent we just have to confirm and verify through the contract provisions, including this PSA, which I obviously would like to see as well, to make sure all the language is there.

But I can tell you that I think this board would agree with me that uh the city of Berkeley, California, it's not exactly a bastion of conservative thought.

It's uh rather on the liberal side of things.

And I think on May 8th, they approved uh the flock contract in that municipality.

Uh so I don't think we are alone in making sure that we in ensure that both the privacy rights and the use of this information, so it does not involve uh the limits on reproductive freedom or immigration enforcement.

Uh but I know that there are other communities that are doing it with this vendor.

Uh and it's not because we trust them, it's because we have things in place to make sure that it goes the way it's supposed to go.

And again, I want to thank Jason for spending so much time explaining this one to me.

Uh I certainly know firsthand that this saves lives, and I think it's an absolute essential for this county to continue it and to expand it as best we can with the limitations outlined.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kevin.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and I want to thank everyone uh from the sheriff's uh department for uh taking the time with us today.

I know it's been a long committee meeting, um, and I think it goes without saying me and all my colleagues care crucially about public safety.

Um and I think all the top uh concerns that have been levied, for one are placed on the vendor and concerns uh uh about their record uh as well as our board trusting uh individuals who access uh uh the data from these cameras as well as concerns about uh the evolution of artificial intelligence uh and how that might shift uh as this contract evolves.

Um now in our initial briefings, my office asked for language of the agreement or the declaration that we're asking other agencies um to sign on to.

And I as of yet uh my office, and I know some of my colleagues requested it as well, haven't been shared it.

Do you have that language available that you could share with us today?

Uh yes, Commissioner, we can work on getting you that.

The actual declaration itself, the template version, yes, we can get you that.

And Commissioner, I can personally apologize if something got lost in the shuffle.

It's been a tumultuous couple of days.

There's been a lot of emails back and forth, and I try my best to certainly respond to all of them.

So we will follow up with you and your office expeditiously on any outstanding requests, but yes, to my colleague's point.

Thank you, Jason.

No, I appreciate it.

I would I would be interested in seeing the declaration.

Um, also, you know, there's some things that I've learned throughout you know the question and answering during this committee meeting.

So the contract uh as well as the PSA that we are or could be entering in is with insight.

And so my question is under that contract, would those same restraints uh apply to Flock.

Doug, do you want to take that?

So I can take this.

Yeah.

The contract terms under the PSA are enforceable against insight.

Insight, then enforces that against Flock.

That's the way that the reseller agreements work.

Cook County has multiple reseller agreements in place already with insight with um uh SHI and with CDWG and the contracts work the same way.

When we work with the vendor um through one of those contracts, it's very similar to what we would do here.

The enforceability goes to the reseller, and then the reseller enforces against the um the vendor.

Pardon me.

Commissioner uh Rafi Sarafi uh CPO, just to add one or supplement to what Doug said.

The ULA here, the end user license agreement that uh uh that would be executed with Flock also has termination language in it as well.

Thank you, Rafi.

Um, it was mentioned earlier in in this conversation that when someone is requesting access, they have to provide you know the reason uh for that search.

Um is my understanding correct that individuals who have you know shine shined on to the declaration every time they are requesting access from our systems and our cameras, they have to provide a reason for that search.

Is that correct?

Just a point of clarification, Commissioner.

It's the agencies that we work with.

It's the agencies that we work with directly that sign the declarations themselves.

It's their um employees, their their actual officers who are authorized by that agency to use the system based on how that agency has procured it on their side.

Um they're the ones that have to uh comply with the procedures.

And they do see a prompt when they enter the system, isn't it?

That's correct.

Yeah, they're there every time you actually uh log in to the to the flock, um it's it's like every other piece of software, there is a uh dashboard and there's a specific um uh pop-up that that comes up that you have to acknowledge that uh basically says you have to abide by the laws of your specific jurisdiction.

It outlines the um specific requirements that certain jurisdictions have regarding prohibited use of the system.

Um it includes uh Illinois specific prohibited uses under the Illinois Vehicle Code, and then finally there's an acknowledgement essentially saying that if you violate um uh kind of the the terms of the acknowledgement that that might be that may subject you individually to disciplinary action or any further criminal or administrative proceedings.

Now I believe it was during an answer to one of Commissioner Trevor's questions that the answer that we received was that when an agency is requesting or or searching, say for a license plate, that they have to provide the reason for that search.

Is that not accurate?

Because during that question, no, that's correct.

Yeah, hi, Commissioner.

This is Mark Patel.

Um CIO for the sheriff's office.

There is uh a case number and a reason that must be selected for every search.

Okay, and then we would receive information ensuring that those agencies are adhering to the rules and uh under our declaration.

Yes, sir.

Okay, yes, because the the audit's gonna show that, and that's why we request the case number, even for our own internal staff, the the case number, which is pulled by the 911 center, so that's gonna give an official case number and an official UCR code, which is uniform crime reporting.

And what that does is it says, okay, this case number, let's just say CR1234 is associated with um, let's say a vehicular hijacking.

Um the the reason would be a vehicle or hijacking within the the system, the CR number would then give us the association back to not only the 911 center, but it'll also give us an association to detective case management because that CR number is the same, and we built it this way, and we we we we wanted it this way, so that if we ever wanted to see and understand the entire history of the case, we have that unique identifier being the case number, and all of our systems respect that case number as the as the primary key.

And so we can then link all of it together to ensure that down the road we we can go back to every single ALPR search and make sure that we are being accountable and following uh all of the policies and state law.

I hope that makes sense, Commissioner.

No, that does, and that also answered another one of my questions concerning potentially auditing these individuals say they have a reason for searching for a vehicle, but then also it you know uh there's an additional prong that they are not sharing with us, and we would be able to see whether or not so I I thank you.

I thank you for giving that uh information.

Now would Flock be able to gain access to our systems, and you know, how would we know whether or not the they were able to access uh our cameras?

Sure, sure.

So Doug, do you want to speak about the the Flock vendor relationship as regards to encryption?

Absolutely.

So there's a couple of things to consider here.

Um to perform normal maintenance functions.

An example is the 30-day deletion policy from the date of capture.

Flock needs to have from a contractual standpoint access to our data.

Um, in terms of the encryption, uh CGIS applies the criminal justice information systems policy is established by the FBI because this data has uh relationship to potential criminal activity, criminal justice information under that policy, it is required that any entity that holds criminal history or criminal justice information must encrypt it at rest, must encrypt it in transit.

What that means is from a very high level, the data is scrambled and cannot be unscrambled without a specific key.

The next question is whether Flock uses that data.

And they do not use our data in order to produce uh reports or deliver it to anyone unless we give them explicit written permission to do so.

Which is outlined in the in the contract, Commissioner.

And um, and and also Commissioner, the the declaration is in your inbox.

Thank you, kindly.

And just one point of clarification.

Um Illinois state law uh prohibits the sale or any type of monetization of ALPR data.

Um I uh again, I don't have the contract in front of me, but uh it there should be language in there that prohibits that as well.

Okay.

So it if FLOC was attempting to access our data, would we on our end be able to recognize that was occurring against our request for them to do so?

Doug, I think you might be better suited to answer that.

Right.

So I'm trying to condense this in usable language.

The the contract allows us to audit all activity against our data, and that would be reviewed during the compliance review to make certain that any access on our data is appropriate, regardless of who is accessing it.

In the case of Flock attempting to access our data, it would be flagged up.

We would investigate what was the purpose of the access, and then um take appropriate action from there.

It may be straight out administrative access, again to go back to the 30-day example.

Um, or if it were questionable access, then we'll look, we'll investigate, report out, determine whether or not that it violates the cont terms of the contract, and going back to uh the section that Rafi outlined termination for convenience, determine whether or not we want to exercise our right there.

I appreciate that.

And when an agency who is accessing our data, uh do we have the ability to see whether or not they share that data with an outside agency?

The answer to that question, Commissioner, is if they if they take that data from the system and put it in their systems and then they share it.

No, we wouldn't know.

Um, but that that's the same thing as you know, somebody else looking at a system and you know, taking a screenshot of it and then sending it.

Uh, there's no way, and I want to be honest with you that that just that just can't we the system doesn't know that.

Um, that's why we put the declarations in place.

There is a sense of, you know, you gotta follow the state law and you are in law enforcement in in the state, and so the declarations come into play.

But to answer your direct question, the answer is no.

There's no way for the system to know that someone shared a screenshot or they wrote it down on a piece of paper and then emailed it or whatever they did.

There's no way for us to know that, sir.

Okay.

I appreciate that.

I only have two more questions.

Um, you know, it's been mentioned throughout our conversation that the federal government under our our guidelines is not allowed to access.

It was mentioned that we do have to comply with subpoenas.

I assume that does not apply to federal subpoenas.

So there's a prohibition, it depends upon the nature of the request, because the sheriff's office along with other Illinois, well, other Illinois law enforcement agencies is prohibited from providing information that would assist in the detainment of an individual.

It depends on the nature of the subpoena um and what's specified there.

Um because a subpoena has enforceability against the party, you know, that subpoena that's noticed.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Um, and then lastly, indemnification was mentioned, so misuse by outside agencies.

Yes, yeah, that's true, Commissioner.

Okay.

Our risk position is minimized and in many cases eliminated through the language in the PSA, the IT DSCs, that's the IT data and special conditions um document, as well as the uh ULA.

We've negotiated in very specific language.

Okay, no, I appreciate it.

And I know that a number of you know, requests are made by my colleagues concerning change it, you know, if passed, how you know this technology evolves moving forward, or if there were you know, be it the system was hacked or misuses by outside agencies, that there'd be certain briefings, you know.

For example, in our technology committee, we move forward on a ordinance to ensure that there was regular updates being provided to us on a quarterly basis.

Just want to remind my colleagues that for some of the requests for continued information that were made throughout this conversation, you know, we have the ability of doing that to get that information on an ongoing basis.

So uh I I thank you again for uh answering all my questions.

Chairman, thank you.

A lot to talk about here today.

Uh and I appreciate my colleagues that have a viewpoint of this and wanted their questions asked, and I understand uh the their uh their reasons for those.

Um and I appreciate them bringing them forward and the opportunity to talk some of these things through.

Um Jason, as it pertains to uh our protocols and policies for use of this, uh would you say that we are similar to the states and the cities?

Uh do our policies are they stronger, equal, lesser?

I can't speak to the city of Chicago's, but they exceed what what is required by state law.

They exceed what's required by state law.

And I'll I'll point out that Governor Pritzker in 2019 put put in and uh and approved, as did the state house and senate, a very robust uh um LPR program and authorization for the use of these types of uh technologies.

And then they upped it again in 2023, and then just last year in 2025, they added something like 500 more of these throughout the state.

Um so uh and yet our policy, you'll say it again, and we've talked about this, is is a stronger, more uh demanding set of set of protocols than even the states using currently, correct?

That is true.

And through our work with this body, um we hope to set the the gold standard in how these programs are governed.

And I'd also like to point out a couple other things.

Our friends over in the city, which also lie within the county, uh, they have an extremely extensive um uh system uh that they manage in-house.

Um and these platforms are used when we look at this when we look at at the actual software, you know, this is not a uh, by the way, is we there's not a lot of talk of cameras, it's not cameras.

What we're putting is we're putting in a software system.

We're gonna utilize a software system that that is gonna tie into existing cameras.

There may be some purchases coming up for some new equipment, but for the most part, this is largely gonna expand the use of a software within current selected cameras systems that are already in place.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Um some of our colleagues asked about the positions of these.

I would remind everybody that forgive me on the time frame as we're sitting here, but about a year ago, maybe slightly more than that, uh, we as a county board, uh, I believe I every one of us approved um zoning, uh zoning for some of these.

Maybe not maybe not everyone.

My colleague here is shaking her head, appreciate that.

Uh but we approve that overwhelmingly nonetheless.

Um so those positions are already somewhat identified because the uh the zoning was approved by us here at the county.

Um I also might mention uh that uh Chicago Park Superintendent uh Rosa just uh gosh in the last seven to ten days has expanded the use of license plate reader technology for the park districts.

Um I would just mention that as well.

Uh so I'm a little befuddled about about the pushback on this because I'm a big advocate personally, having seen this operate.

Um I operate in the security business and I pre all throughout the country and just about every major city that that's here.

And I can tell you this technology is used everywhere.

And this may shock you, and perhaps if you're anti-it's gonna startle you, but as much as it's used by government, triple that in private sector.

Uh any HOA you go into, any private, you know, many private businesses and yards and transportation and hotels and motels, they all use this type of technology so that they know who's coming and going.

Parking garages.

Parking, you can name it.

As my colleagues will attest also in places of worship in at a time when there's heightened concerns about um violence occurring.

Um as my colleagues can attest, there's extensive dialogue with mosques and synagogues and churches, and they also have some value in making sure that they have a tool to provide a law enforcement in the event of a catastrophic emergency.

Yeah, I concur, because that's accurate.

Uh as it pertains to the issue of potential misuse.

Anything in life can be misused.

We all acknowledge that, we're all adults and we get it, right?

We operate in the real world.

Um but a few things to keep in mind.

Uh part of our program and our protocols is uh any user, it's not only the agency that's using it.

So I live in Paylas Park, so it's not only Village of Payos Park that will be that will enter in that agreement.

But then each officer, it's the individual officer who usually uses these queries, whether A, they're putting in something for Ebola or they're gonna respond to it.

Uh but if they're gonna enter the data, uh it comes down to uh individualized credentials for each officer.

So the ability to track, it's not only that Paylas Park may have violated this, but we know that that you know Officer Morrison violated it because he went in on a system uh and and pulled data.

Um some of my colleagues raise a great point, right?

As it pertained to the abortion rights and things of that nature, and people may come from uh out of state.

You know, what could their what could their mitigated uh defense be?

Well, we have some attorneys here that are uh defense attorneys, and I think if you had a client that perhaps was was um um arrested under under one of these uses that one of the first things that an attorney may do when he sees that he was found out uh on a uh license cam, that he might subpoena that license cam.

So if he subpoenas that license cam, he or she is going to look to see uh what was the quarry put in?

Was the quarry within the guidelines of what we have set for our protocols to whether or not that's a legitimate use.

And um again, not an attorney, but I'll speculate from base knowledge.

If Commissioner Britt's were were to find that one of his colleagues uh uh or one of his defendants um uh police departments were to have misused any of those things, he's probably gonna get the whole case tossed out.

Um so I think that the protections are certainly in place.

I think that the overall tool and the benefit for the citizens of Cook County are extremely tremendous, and I think they're gonna help us.

Uh I appreciate, I appreciate the opportunity of uh discussion on a very important issue and very important points have been brought up.

But I think that I have extreme confidence having by the way spoken with with you guys on this subject.

Uh I have confidence in the sheriff's department as a whole, and I have said I certainly have confidence in the men and women that are within the sheriff's department that have listened to our colleagues over the years, listened to the concerns that have been put forward and have made sure that they've taken copious time to ensure that these protocols are in place at the suggestion of our colleagues here.

And for that I will give an I vote for this.

Appreciate your comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and my colleagues had uh Jason.

Let me thank you and your all who appeared today.

Uh this was an extremely, extremely informative session that give give given back and the ideas from the commissioners.

I will be supporting this, I believe in this tool, but I do want to make a statement that individuals who might be opposing it or have raised question have as serious concerns for those individuals who are lost, who have dementia, who were mentioned during the uh the discussion, the the their concern for the safety for individuals in in their in individual districts are as equ are equal to mine.

So I'm strongly support this and uh it will be an eye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Commissioner Stance.

Thank you, Chair.

Very brief.

I just want to go back to a question that was raised earlier relative to the placement of the cameras and what was said, and I I just find it difficult.

Um let me say it like this.

When Mr.

Hernandez spoke about the emergency to get the cameras some years ago, he cited because of carjackings and some other situations, and thus, as a result of that research, they knew where to put those cameras because that's where the crimes were occurring.

And then we when we started talking about this particular situation, it was the testimony was quite compelling.

Um we talked about lost elders, we talked about crimes that were solved, uh children that were at you know, kidnapped and and located.

And so I my point is this.

What is the body of knowledge and what is the research that was considered when this proposal was being created, and what is the thinking behind where those cameras will be placed, the 100 plus that this proposal is requesting, and based on that, what research have you done based on where would you be putting those cameras again based on the research that has been done?

And I'm going to be candid in my concern.

Um I think that everything that has been laid out, the safety, the guardrails, the identification, and everything else is positive and legitimate.

However, that does not sage my concerns or my lived experience, or the lived experience of my sons, or the lived experience of my neighbors, that invariably relative to law enforcement, those things that we put in place for our good disproportionately impacts black people.

And that is my concern.

And so you are saying this will only read the card, the the license plate, and and now I appreciate the line of questioning laid out by Commissioner Britton, and there just was kind of unveiling some other thinking points for me.

And now I appreciated the line of questioning laid out by Commissioner Britton, and it just was kind of unveiling some other thinking points for me.

However, it did not assage my concerns based on my lived experience and how many times very well-intentioned officers we will call them, um, stop people, or your license plate is red.

And so that is my concern.

I find it very quite disingenuous, actually, that you would propose to spend this amount of money and not have an idea as to where you want to place the cameras.

So saying that we don't yet have that information.

I don't think it just didn't ring accurate because if I'm spending a hundred dollars on anything, I know exactly what I'm spending it for.

So if I want to spend this amount of money on the technology, then I have an idea where I'm going to be placing the equipment.

And so that is my question, and that is my concern, and nothing that has been shared today has asaged my very deep concerns about how technology will be used, how technology is being used, um, and the tone in which we are living in this country, um, and how that would impact the people in my community.

And that is my comment.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

I'll be very quick, Chair.

Um, mine is also comments.

Uh, we have made a lot of commitments today to be transparent.

The sheriff's office has committed to provide us with information, notice, additional details for this contract.

And I really want the sheriff's office to work with us to build public trust around this by giving us that information unprompted.

And I say that because, in response to um Commissioner Morrison's uh comment about being able to get information from different departments from different separately elected offices.

When I joined this board, this body asked the sheriff's office to provide a quarterly report on helicopter use, and I believe we have yet to see that report.

And so I really want us to work together on transparency.

I want there to be information that is publicly available so that we can build the trust that we need so that we don't come to these meetings with all these concerns, so that we can address this ahead of any additional contracts in the future.

Regarding thank you for your con Thank you, uh Vice Chair Stampson.

Thank you, Commissioner Vasquez, for your comments.

Um, we pledge to work with you and meet at a cadence that suits your needs in order to get the information that we discussed to you in a timely way so that you can make an informed decision regarding the helicopter.

We my recollection is that it was an annual report, and we are just wrapping up.

Go ahead.

It was quarterly, and uh, we can send you the video, it's public record.

Okay, well, in either in either situation, we we are we remember we remember and are producing that report.

We're just waiting for a calendar year of usage.

It's our first go-around, so trying to make sure the data is complete and that we're telling an accurate picture of how that technology is used.

So you you can expect a report very, very shortly on that, and that's not something that we forgot about.

Chair may may I ask a quick question?

Okay.

Um thank you, Chair, for allowing me to speak.

Um, thank you to the police folks that are here today in the sheriff's office.

Um, and I kind of want to uplift the comments that my colleagues have talked about without having to uh um re-alitigate that you know, a lot of what we hear is about the benefits of technology and how they can be useful.

You know, we I've gotten dozens of emails in which I need to respond to my constituents about the benefits of the technology, the things that I may have a problem with, and then you know why I vote the way I vote.

I do respond to everybody.

Um, and in researching all of this technology and listening to the concerns here, you know, a lot of what we like talk about is the benefits.

How can this be helpful?

But I think what would really help is if you find gaps.

It once you see that there are areas where you can tighten up the contract, you can tighten up your policies, and you come back to the board and say, Hey, you guys said X, Y, and Z.

We have found that that is truly a concern.

You know, we're going to add a codicil to the contract to do whatever it is that you're doing.

So I think there's good points that are made here, and to not just focus on the benefits, but also say, here are the gaps, identify the gaps, communicate those gaps, and then fix the gaps would be really helpful.

So that's what I have to say.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

This side of the rooms not easily seen.

So thank you, everyone, for answering the questions and to my colleagues for their concerns and voicing their concerns.

I just wanted to say that I also want to thank the Chief Davis who was here to um echo the sentiments of chiefs of police from not only this area but from across the country and how um this technology is used in many, many different areas.

I live in Linwood, Illinois, which is in the South Suburbs, and we implemented Linwood has had this um technology.

I think it might have been one of the first municipalities to have this technology probably three or four years ago, and it was heavily talked about and supported within the municipality just because of our proximity to Indiana and our proximity to areas where um it's a thoroughfare.

I mean, so with when municipalities have self-imposed or interjurisdictional no chase um uh restrictions on things that happen within a municipality, this technology has helped apprehend and catch uh several different high profile cases that impacted my village where I live and represent very specifically.

So I think we heard positive attributes uh from a small municipality of less than 10,000 people, but the connectivity to how this technology would work across multi-jurisdictions is what is important and what's helpful.

And um, I think that once we get past um the contract as far as a vendor that has um issues that they've addressed, and some of those are also documented and well documented, that we can work past that and also get some consensus on how we move forward with implementing this technology that's useful.

So thank you everyone for the presentations.

And if someone who did get carjacked and had their purse stolen on one of those streets where they couldn't chase, you know, that happened to me personally.

And when you see them drive off and you're like, how come no one can go chase them?

They can't chase them because of no chase laws.

But if we had license plate readers or what have you at that time, maybe that they would have been apprehended.

Um thank you all for for this, and I look forward to the upgrades and updated reports on how we're making this work for all of us.

Thank you very much.

You know, we're we're being constantly monitored.

Uh the moment you walk outside in this building, your face is being monitored.

Uh you know, you go on Google and you look up certain items, the products, and that information is being sold constantly.

So it, you know, this is a world technology, and uh our information is out there, whether we like it or not.

We're putting restrictions on this.

We're putting restrictions on this data, and and you know, we're not gonna give access to anyone unless you know there's court proceedings to allow it.

So uh, you know, what we talk about.

We gotta just uh you know, this is a safety factor to keep our community safe.

So thank you again.

Thank you, Sheriff.

Thank you, Jason, for this information.

Thank you.

I just clarifying numbers on my end.

So um earlier we spoke uh regarding the signed declarations.

I just want to make sure I have it right.

2108 agencies already signed, 168 did not sign.

Is that correct?

Those numbers accurate.

Yeah, sorry.

Um hi commissioner Markall.

Um 210 have signed 168.

Uh have not signed and have been turned off.

Okay, and then regarding the cameras, I heard I was stepping out, didn't catch the whole thing.

Was it 101 cameras being added or 141?

Well, the total stationary cameras is 125.

Oh, 125.

That's including the current ones we have.

Yes.

71?

We have 71 up in total with this contract.

We will have 125.

Gotcha.

Okay.

100 are for uh our are stationary and then 25 um can be uh relatively easily removed and and placed in other areas.

Okay, but that was they're called flex.

Uh under the specific contract, they're called flex uh Falcon Flex.

The new total is 125.

We have 71 right now.

So we're not adding 125.

We are that's gonna be the total.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

My apologies.

It was it went unanswered, uh, but it was mentioned that there was a period of time that we were operating outside of a contract uh utilizing these flock cameras.

And I'm wondering if there was no contract in place, were there any restraints on Flock during that period with the cameras we currently have?

Doug.

Maybe in a best position to answer that.

We were operating under our current standard of compliance and investigation.

Um it wasn't as stringent the uh vehicle code restricting um the use was not yet in effect, but overall we were auditing and examining all of the use.

Um on our flock system.

Um almost all of the restrictions that we have in place now.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And I do want to thank you also for getting me that declaration.

I have had the time to review it now, and many of the things that you've said that were in it are in fact in the agreement.

So I appreciate you giving that to me.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Any other commissioners?

This is the last question, I promise.

I just need to clarify my question from earlier based on the number.

Thank you, Commissioner Naya.

So of the 71, when you send your report, can we have uh the list of where those current 71 are located?

Absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

Just wanted to clarify.

All right, Commissioner Stamps.

Yes, sir.

I was just saying that my question did not be answered relative to the placement of the cameras and the research that went into thank you, Vice Chair, and I I do appreciate your comments.

Um, as I mentioned earlier, and I I think I should probably restate.

Um when I mentioned that general locations haven't been determined.

We the data informs where we deploy these cameras, and we certainly know the circumstances that would lead to an a location being identified.

What I meant to say was the exact intersection and the exact poll has not yet been determined.

That that is part of a a more detailed process.

So generally speaking, we know what the data shows us about relative crime patterns, investigative need, and all the like.

Um, but what I meant to say was, and I thank you for the opportunity to clarify, is we haven't identified those exact locations that would then require significant conversation and installation and permitting and all that stuff.

I did not ask for poll or beam or intersection.

I specifically said communities.

We have very geographic spread on our camera systems.

Um they are not centrally located in any one particular area of the county.

Um they are all over the place, and when I share with you the locations that are currently installed, that will reflect that reality, Commissioner.

Thank you, sir.

So does that mean they'll be mostly or all of them located in the suburbs?

In suburban cook, yes.

All right, and yeah.

That's when they are placed.

Will you let us know?

When the locations are determined and they're placed.

Correct.

Certainly.

All right, thank you.

Any other commission commissioners with any other questions?

Seeing no, I want to thank the uh sheriff's office for the testimony today.

Uh on the item, Commissioner Daly moves to approve item 261043.

It's a proposed contract requesting authorization for the chief procurement officer to enter into and execute a contract contract with Insight Public Sector, Chandler, Arizona, to allow the continuation of services and increase the number of stationary automated license plate readers.

Seconded by Commissioner Britton.

Uh roll call.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Aguilar, your vote.

I commissioner Naya.

Commissioner Naya is nay, Commissioner Aguilar was I.

Commissioner Britton.

Aye.

Commissioner Britton is aye.

Commissioner Daly.

Commissioner Daly is aye.

Commissioner Degnan.

Aye.

Commissioner Degnan is I.

Commissioner Gaynor is absent.

Commissioner Laurie.

Aye.

Commissioner Laurie is aye.

Commissioner McCasco.

Commissioner McCaskill is aye.

Commissioner Miller.

Miller, aye.

Commissioner Miller is aye.

Commissioner Marita.

Morita I.

Commissioner Marita is aye.

Commissioner Kevin Morrison.

Commissioner Kevin Morrison is aye.

Commissioner Sean Morrison.

Sean Morrison, aye.

Commissioner Sean Morrison is aye.

Commissioner Scott?

Aye.

Commissioner Scott is aye.

Vice Chair Stamps?

No.

Commissioner Stamps is no.

Commissioner Trevor.

Aye.

Commissioner Trevor is aye.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Commissioner Vasquez is no.

Mr.

Chair.

Aye.

Mr.

Chair is aye.

Mr.

Chair, we have 13 ayes.

Three no.

One absent vote for Commissioner Gaynor.

Despite the division, the motion carries.

On the next item, Commissioner Bill Lowry will move to approve item 261199.

This is a resolution in support of the Illinois Senate Bill 2801 and House Bill 4471.

Commissioner Lowry.

Thank you, Chairman.

It is amended in the errata, and there is language change in the final whereis clause.

So move, I'd like to move as amended the item.

So we would like to move the item as amended, 26119, a resolution in support of the Illinois Senate Bill 2801.

Moved by Commissioner Lowry, seconded by Commissioner Daly.

Commissioner Lowry.

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to briefly uh address this item 26-119, a resolution in support of Senate Bill 28, Illinois Senate Bill 2801 and House Bill 4471.

For decades, our lives have drawn, our laws have drawn a line against machine guns, recognizing their devastating capacity for harm.

Yet today that line is being dangerously blurred.

With the addition of a small device referred to as a switch, which is no larger than a thumbnail, a semi-automatic handgun can be transformed into a weapon capable of firing up to 1200 rounds per minute.

A concealable firearm converted in seconds can unleash chaos in moments placing entire communities at risk and overwhelming even the most prepared first responders.

These are not hypothetical threats, they're real present dangers that we've seen play out throughout neighborhoods in Cook County and this country.

There's evidence that certain manufacturers have long been aware that some of their products can easily be modified, yet those firearms continue to be produced and sold without significant safeguards.

That is why Illinois Senate Bill 2801 and House Bill 4471 are not only necessary, they are responsible.

This resolution is about prevention.

This resolution is about responsibility, and most importantly, this resolution is about saving lives.

Here in Cook County, we refuse to accept gun violence as inevitable.

We choose action.

We choose common sense and we choose to stand on the side of public safety.

We urge the Illinois General Assembly to move swiftly in passing these bills because every day is a risk.

We simply cannot afford.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Lowry.

Any questions on this item?

Seeing no questions on this item.

Roll call.

Thank you, Chairman.

Commissioner Aguilar, your vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Naya.

Aye.

Commissioner Britton.

Commissioner Daly.

Commissioner Degnan.

Previous votes were all aye.

Commissioner Gaynor.

Absent.

Commissioner Lowry.

Larry's aye.

Commissioner McCasco.

Commissioner Miller.

Commissioner Morita.

Morita Aye.

Commissioner Kevin Morrison.

Aye.

Commissioner Sean Morrison.

Sean Morrison Aye.

Previous votes were all aye.

Commissioner Scott.

Aye.

Commissioner Stamps.

Aye.

Commissioner Trevor.

Aye.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Aye.

Mr.

Chairman.

Aye.

Chairman 16 ayes.

One absent vote.

Commissioner Gaynor.

Item passes.

Commissioner Sean Morrison will move to approve item 26053.

This is a proposed intergovernmental agreement to allow the state, the county, and the city to continue to share relevant data as part of the government alliance for safe communities.

GASC.

Efforts to streamline metric matrix investments and analyze the local impact of community violence intervention strategies in Cook County, seconded by Commissioner Scott Britton.

Is Avic Doss available?

Someone from JC want to speak on this item.

Thank you, Ali.

Hi, good afternoon, Ali.

Thank you, Deputy Director.

Can you please speak on this item?

Just tell us a little bit about it.

Oh yes, absolutely.

This is an intergovernmental uh agreement that's a data use uh agreement, a data sharing agreement between Cook County Justice Advisory Council, the Illinois Department of Uh Health Services, Human Services, the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, and the Chicago Department of Public Health.

All together, we uh comprise the government alliance for safe communities coordinating our investments in community violence intervention grants.

This data sharing agreement allows us to one help continue coordinating where our dollars go to make sure that you know our various government dollars are spread where the need is across the region, and two also for allow us to evaluate the impact of our work with our research partner at Northwestern Corners.

Um all the data we share is an aggregate.

There's no personal identifying information, it's it's about the reach of uh CBI grantees.

Stop there for any questions.

All right, thank you, Ali.

Commissioner Anai.

Thank you, Chair.

So um the two words data sharing are trigger words for me.

Sure.

So I just want us to um uh just pause and just if you can just highlight what is being shared.

Because what I'm understanding is not gonna be personal information or any of that.

So can you just make sure that you clarify for the record what is being shared?

Sure.

It's uh it is aggregate uh reach of our various community violence intervention grantees.

So for example, the number of individuals served, the number of individuals between certain age brackets serve 18 to 24, 24 to 30, etc.

Uh, like the number of individuals coming from different zip codes, all to ensure that we're reaching individuals where the need is in terms of like shooting rates, gun homicide rates, etc.

Um, so no, there's no information about a specific individual.

All the information that's transmitted is is numbers related to different sort of breakouts.

So it's um capturing impact or is it capturing where the funds are going?

Is it at the beginning end basically or is it at the tail end or all throughout?

It's uh it's capturing where the reach of the the CVI grantees are.

Then that gets fed into our research organization to help uh to help determine if that's laying across the need correctly.

And remind me who the research institution is.

That's for uh corners, the center for neighborhoods.

They're the ones that are handling the overall research and evaluation.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from any other commissioners?

Seeing no of the questions from many other commissioners, roll call.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Aguilar?

Aye.

Thank you.

Commissioner Naya.

Hi, Commissioner Britton.

Hi, Commissioner Daly.

Commissioner Degnan.

Previous votes were all uh Commissioner Gaynor?

Absent.

Commissioner Laurie?

Aye.

Commissioner McCasco.

Commissioner Miller.

Aye.

Commissioner Marita.

Previous votes were all aye.

Commissioner Kevin Morrison.

Aye.

Commissioner Sean Morrison.

Commissioner Scott.

Uh Vice Chair Stamps.

Aye.

Commissioner Trevor.

Aye.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Aye.

Mr.

Chair.

Aye.

Sixteen ayes, one absent vote, Commissioner Gaynor.

Item passes with no other further business before this commission.

Commissioner Tar Stamps moves to adjourn the meeting and seconded by Commissioner Michael Scott.

All those in favor of adjournment, please say aye.

Thank you, sir.

County audit is next.