To this weekly meeting of the Health and Safety Committee with Denver City Council.

Coverage of the Health and Safety Committee starts now.

Good morning.

This is the March 18th Health and Safety Committee meeting.

My name is Daryl Watson.

I'm honored to serve as the chair of this committee as well as the city council member representing all of the fine district nine.

We have on the agenda this morning an action item for the Axon contract.

But before we roll into uh this presentation, why don't we start with uh introductions by city council members starting on our right?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

It's uh Kevin Flynn from Southwest Denver's lovely district two.

You know, Sarah Hardy, one of your two council members at large from the entire lovely city of Denver.

All lovely.

Jamie Torres from uh West Denver District Three.

Amanda Sawyer, District Five.

Oh Cashman South Denver District Six.

Good morning, everyone.

Sadena Gonzalez Gutierrez.

Uh also from the at-large lovely city of Denver.

Awesome.

Uh we'll turn it over to Tim Hoffman for the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Alan, I'll just start uh introducing myself and then allow the rest of the team to introduce themselves as well.

My name is Tim Hoffman.

I'm in the mayor's office.

I services director of policy.

And good morning, Cliff Barnes, uh deputy commander over our Cyber Bureau.

Uh Terra Segura, Dave Protection Officer Technology Services.

And we're here today to talk about a license plate reader contract with Axon that we are proposing.

Um flip through a couple slides and then I'll hand it over to Commander Barnes to talk through some of the specifics.

Um the details before you jump in uh I kind of jumped ahead of protocol.

I didn't review if anyone was online.

Are there producers there?

Are any council members online seeing none?

Sorry, Mr.

Hoffman, uh turn it back over to you.

Okay.

Um so the contract details uh here, it's a 150,000 dollar one-year contract.

Um, obviously, the 150,000 dollar uh amount is below the normal $500,000 threshold that would trigger a council action.

Uh the administration and the mayor are bringing this contract through the formal city council process, um, including a vote uh in this committee and at the full council based on the promises that the mayor made uh when we were going through the last vendor's no cost contract extension.

The request today is to vote to delay this contract, which is resolution 260246 to a date certain of March 18th in the Health and Safety Committee.

Um that is due to the fact that um we in our discussions with you all have um promised that before this uh this item appeared in committee, we would get you a copy of the actual contract for you to review and to be able to ask questions about.

Um we are um getting pretty close uh to having that prepared for you, but it was not ready in a timely manner to present to you all um in advance to give you the time to review.

Um, and so we are asking, we're gonna do the presentation today.

We want to have a QA and a discussion on it and then um get you all the actual contract uh with a little bit more time to review it before it comes back to committee for um for further discussion before moving on to the full council.

So just wanted to level set that that is the request today.

So, Mr.

Hoffman, with that we we at the end of your presentation and questions from City Council members, we'll put forward that request to delay the action item to next week.

One of the things I want to insist upon is that that contract is received by Friday.

And so, can you stipulate that that has been the discussion with Axon and with the city that we have the actual contract available by Friday?

Yeah, we're we're we're pushing as hard as we can to make sure that you guys have ample time to review and understand that before the weekend is is where that needs to be.

And um, obviously we'll we'll be in touch as things progress.

Okay, and and so I want to be clear on that.

Uh if receiving a contract next week, still will not provide time for us to be able to vote fully on that by Wednesday.

So I want to put it on the record before we begin that by the end of this week, it is essential that we have that contract.

Understood.

Thank you.

Coach, I I see you I would like it sooner.

ASAP.

Yeah.

Yes.

So the request was by Friday, sooner is requested.

If there is anything that we need to do to help with moving that along, um, this has been a long process.

We'll like to get to voting on this, and we cannot without a contract.

Yep, absolutely.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh good morning, council members.

I know that uh most of you have seen the uh the presentation at this point in depth, so I'll try to keep it succinct this morning.

Um there's been a slight change.

I think I hinted at this earlier in the week during the one-on-one briefings.

Uh there instead of having you know one two different types of cameras essentially in this uh contract, it's just gonna be one type of camera.

So we're receiving 50 axon outpost cameras for the 150,000 one-year contract.

It uh, even though it's a one-year contract, there's a multi-year warranty and maintenance agreement uh with those 50 devices.

Uh in addition, uh we also uh obtained access to the the software application or suite that allows our users to utilize the ALPR devices.

Um there has been, and I know we went through some of this, but there has been a lot of scrutiny during this process in regards to data protection and safeguards surrounding the system based on the feedback that we received from uh various conversations in various conversations and from the from the community.

So uh for example, with the software application when users utilize that, they are required to put in a case number and reason for each query as they're utilizing the system, and all of those, all of that, uh all those query transactions are stored in an immutable log for further auditing and review.

We're gonna get much more into the details of the protections that are going to be built into this agreement with Axon, but just a high level.

Um the access to the ALPR system with Axon is going to be limited to Denver safety personnel only.

Um that includes a couple of arson investigators with the fire department, but by and large it'll be police officers and then a couple of other safety personnel individuals.

Axon as a company does not have a national database or a national lookup feature.

Um, so it's not something that we're gonna be enrolled into in any form or fashion.

Uh the access is really just going to be shut down to Denver Police officers and a couple of other safety personnel.

Um Denver uh will it's gonna be made clear in that contract.

It's also um something that Axon spells out in their policies and procedures.

Um Denver will own and control its own data.

Um there won't be any sort of using our metadata to train AI models.

There's not going to be selling any of our um license plate reader data for uh to third parties um or anything like that.

Um Commander Barnes will be able to talk about the the level of data security that Axon uses, I think of the five vendors who applied in this RFP process.

Axon have the highest level data security um program.

We are reducing the retention policy in the city is currently for um license plate reader information.

We've retain that data for 30 days.

We are reducing that to 21 days moving forward with this new contract.

Um, and then again, uh Commander Barnes will get into this in much more detail, but the access to the system is logged now on, and the commander can talk about the process by which uh the safety staff will make sure that that's being regularly checked.

Uh so as uh as Mr.

Hoffman uh related, the um there were six total bidders.

There were one there was one bidder that pulled out, so you know, in the end there were five bidders that were considered in this process.

Uh the uh axon vendor brought the highest level of of data uh security to the table with a Fed Fed ramp high authorization.

This is essentially the the highest level of of uh federal cloud security standards, and really what that amounts to is there's there's over 392 individual uh security standards or controls that the vendor has to comply with and show that they're compliant in order to achieve that.

Uh one of the uh specific items that that my team uh uh was sure to ask each vendor is you know there were some concerns about other platforms that may have, you know, if data was recoverable off of other types of ALPR platforms, if some were someone were to be able to obtain physical access to the devices.

So we asked some really targeted questions of each vendor uh in that regard.

Uh Axon uses uh industry uh standard uh level of encryption on the device itself so that data is encrypted at rest.

And uh in addition to that, as uh as uh images are collected and uploaded to the evidence.com cloud repository, they're immediately removed from the local device.

So it makes uh the recovery of any evidence or data from the device very improbable.

Additionally, uh Axon's compliant with a lot of other standards, uh ISO, NIST, etc.

Uh we also specifically asked each vendor if they um you know perform annual um third-party penetration testing, which they do and they will they provide us those results annually.

Uh additionally, we asked if if the city and county of Denver could perform their own penetration testing on these devices to make sure that that you know we can also uh check to make sure that they're compliant with our security standards.

For example, that the technology services security team could do that, and they uh they acknowledged and said that they would be willing to allow us to do that uh penetration testing.

Um additionally, worth mentioning these devices integrate directly with the evidence.com uh secured digital evidence repository that the city and county of Denver has used for many years.

Uh Axon is the provider of that, uh, but that is where all of the the data and evidence is is securely managed and stored.

Thank you.

I know that uh that Tim mentioned uh that there's you know we're working on on various types of insurances and controls that that we retain complete control and ownership over our data.

Uh I know that he did mention we the our team during this process asked very specifically targeted questions about will you resell or provide our data in any way to any third parties, and and Axon's response was no, it's fairly very clearly outlined in their data governance documents and policies.

Um additionally, I know that Tim mentioned this as well, they do not use any of our data to train any AI models.

Also, that uh that language is being built into the contract.

Um, so there's going to be, like I said, numerous levels of assurances of that.

Uh I know that Tim also mentioned that this uh platform is inherently different than some of the other competitors in the market in that there is no nationwide data sharing network for this specific platform.

All in all data sharing is is like a one-to-one relationship between uh one agency to another agency and invite only, fully revocable.

So there is no uh there is no pathway for you know inadvertently being enrolled in any type of nationwide uh sharing network, uh, et cetera.

Um the I'll get into it a little bit more, but I did mention earlier that there is an immutable log.

Every user that accesses the system, the way in which they access the system, date and time, what they were using the system for is logged, and I'll talk about the the policies surrounding that here shortly.

And then as part of our our data ownership guarantees, acts on and their data governance documents explicitly outline if they receive any type of legal requests, so subpoenas, court orders, et cetera, for for data, then they refer that directly to the customer of city and county of Denver in this case, so that our our legal teams and city attorney's office can respond accordingly to those to those requests.

There are uh numerous policy safeguards that that are in place today and and will remain in place.

Uh this is not uh you know a uh a completely conclusive list of every policy control that's in place, but I feel like there's there's a few that are worth mentioning.

There is a mandatory training requirement for every user that's onboarded into the system.

So as the Axon platform is implemented, um all users will will have to go through mandatory training.

Part of that training is outlining acceptable uses of the platform.

These devices may only be deployed and used in in areas of the city that there where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

So only public areas, public right-of-way.

Um there are numerous explicitly prohibited uses in policy, and these are just a handful that I think it's worth mentioning.

Uh any type of First Amendment right uh violation or any type of monitoring is expressly prohibited when it comes to to First Amendment rights.

Um any type of discriminatory use, harassing, or intimidating use uh also expressly prohibited in policy.

Uh parking enforcement, traffic enforcement, driver's license enforcement, and any type of personal use of the system are also prohibited.

I know that there has been some questions about how officers respond to ALPR alerts in general and to make sure that there's verification being performed on those alerts.

Uh in policy, officers are not allowed to conduct vehicle stops just based on an ALPR alert alone.

They must verify the validity of that, and that's typically done uh via communication with dispatch, for example, to to clear a plate and make sure that's a valid ALPR alert.

Uh the Axon vendor is capable of respecting any data retention policy that that we wish.

Uh I know that Tim mentioned that that policy is going to be 21-day retention policy.

There is a an audit trail I've mentioned uh a couple times now on a monthly basis.

The Cyber Bureau at DPD on the first of every month pulls the ALPR uh usage logs and and performs a number of different types of audit um mechanisms on those logs, including keyword searches and random audits to make sure that all of the usage looks to be above board.

Then that data is also shared uh with the some data analysts in the director of safety's office for further review on a monthly basis.

In policy, any officer that's under investigation uh will have their access to the system immediately revoked, and that will stay suspended until uh for the duration of the investigation.

As far as as far as data sharing goes, um, I just wanted to, and this is in policy, I just wanted to outline a couple of of our policies surrounding data sharing.

We only share uh data uh from the system uh when there's an official law enforcement investigation.

So if another agency approaches us and and desires to collaborate in investigating a certain crime, it has to be an official investigation.

That crime that's at the center of that investigation has to be a crime under Colorado state law.

So if it's uh if it's if it's a crime somewhere else, but there are specific protections and safeguards here in Colorado in those circumstances we do we do not share data that's in policy.

Uh an additional call out is we will not share data to aid prosecution related to any type of reproductive care.

With that, I'll hand it off to Tara.

Okay.

All right.

Um I won't add too much.

Commander Barnes covered most of it.

Although we did uh conduct a vendor risk assessment on Axon.

Um it was a two-fold assessment.

We did our internal questionnaire that's risk-based, and then we also were provisioned access to the Axon Trust Center where we could access applicable security reports and policies and other documents associated to Axon.

So it was approved from stakeholders with technology services and privacy.

I should also note our privacy review does include a review of the AI.

We review AI to NIST standards, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Um, and it also was reviewed and approved for the architecture, information security, um, ADA compliance and records management.

Um, you know, when we're doing a vendor risk assessment, we're looking at compliance, but we're also looking at risk reduction and ensuring that we're getting the right vendor, the right type of technology for the business need um or the need of the the city.

So it's really important uh to call out within this vendor risk assessment when um conducting the privacy review and the review of um the technology.

Um axon offers a lot of operational and um technology um modern technology capabilities that reduces our risk by the information it's collecting being minimized, and then also from their uh organizational policies.

Um, you know, often um my team will joke around that a privacy policy is just a way for uh organization to tell us that we have no privacy because they're telling us all of the different ways that the data is being used and shared.

I would say that when we reviewed Axon and we looked at the various privacy practices and the organization as a whole, uh it allows us to have the ownership that Commander Bond and Tim spoke about and allows us to have control over our data.

So definitely uh worthwhile to call out when looking at this vendor.

Um, obviously there's always risk when we work with any technology vendor, but when we when we look at it as a whole and we're trying to create a risk rating and and choose the right vendors, a lot of these different technology capabilities and the policies of the organization really reduce the risk overall for the city.

Um I will stop there and turn over to Tim.

That's it.

Happy to take questions.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

We have a queue that started, starting with council member parity, councilmember Cashman, and then Councilmember Flynn.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, and thank you for I've had several briefings now about this, both from the city team and from Axon.

So coming out of those, um, I want to sort of clearly identify what I think um we have learned from the from the Flock debacle that I hear being addressed here, and I'm glad is being addressed.

One is that Denver will have its own uh data tenant um on servers that Axon rents from Microsoft on Azure.

Um, and that's of course, you know, the fact that that's sort of aggregate or segregated um from other cities' data is a good thing.

I did want to say that um at one point someone and it was just um someone from the lobbying team, not anyone from Axon or DPD, but misspoke about this in a briefing and said that the data would be in Denver.

So if any of you were told that just be clear it's on the cloud, but it's segregated, um, which is an improvement from Flock.

Um it won't be used to train algorithms, won't be sold, and they will not respond to subpoenas on our behalf because um, unlike Flock, they're not apparently asking to maintain a full a permanent license to our data.

Um, and then I think we've been assured that when we see this contract, it will have a provision around not adding features without consent.

That's going to be really important because what I've learned in briefings with Axon is that they are working on um more of the sharing features like Flock had, although with more user control, um, and they're working on that really what how they're different from Flock is that Flock was essentially an LPR company.

Axon, of course, um is all over various kinds of surveillance systems.

They collect a lot of different data.

We have a ton of different contracts with them, and their sort of place in this market is to aggregate data.

And so it's a it's kind of it's a different concern than what I think many of us were were focused on belatedly with Flock.

And I I do still have questions about that.

In other cities, like what Seattle and Oakland do, and we've talked about this in the surveillance task force, it would be a council function to look at any new features, and that would have to lead to a new contract.

So that's one thing I'm really concerned about because that there's just been a lot of very careful language from Axon about well, today we don't have this, today we don't have that.

Um also I suspect their LPR algorithm is less developed than Flocks, but will, as algorithms do, grow in capability over time.

So first question, we need a I really want to know going back to Flock, um, what guarantees we will have that those cameras will stop collecting images.

Um it's not enough that they not that Flock says they're not picking the images up because other cities have experienced that they've just simply kept cameras on even after contracts were ended.

Um, and we need a timeline for removal, potentially hoods on those cameras the minute that contract ends.

Um I don't think that contract is legal in the first place under the city charter, but regardless when it ends, those things need to be off.

And the CEO, when he was in my office, told me that they cannot be black boxed, and so essentially they can't be manually turned off.

You can't stop them from transmitting.

So I think probably a hood is the pent or removal is the only way to do that.

So that's my first question is what's the timeline for the Flock campus.

Happy to answer that.

Council.

Council member, and my team has been tracking that down with Flock actually diligently this week.

And it and and this may be new, I don't know how new this feature is, but they do have a decommission mode.

And so Flock has assured us that um at the date of contract termination, every camera will be moved into decommission mode, and then we are seeking a certificate of data destruction effective the date of termination as well.

And then my team will be working with uh Flock in order to schedule the actual removal of the devices as soon as possible upon contract termination.

Thank you for hearing that concern, um, because that is progress since we last talked about about a week ago.

Um, from the tech services point of view, how how can we verify the decommission mode is a real thing?

Or can we?

I have screenshots.

They said they sent me screenshots, so I I can I can share that, but on their devices themselves, they do have uh a mode that says DCOM and and they send us screenshots to assure us of that.

So thank you.

Um I will want to know a little more about that, but that's great information.

Um next thing, the the slides that we've seen um say that we have that our policy is only to share in response to a law enforcement investigation.

Um when Axon described the data sharing that they're developing, which is not in place yet, so it's a little hard for us to assess how it's gonna work, which does give me some pause again after our experience with Flock.

Um, they are saying that they're developing it developing it to be one-on-one where it would actually be that you give access to another jurisdiction as a user, same as with Flock, not case by case.

So I think there may be a disconnect there about what DPD says its policy would be about sharing versus how they are developing the technology, and I think we probably need to head that off before we enter into this contractual relationship, because that's just you know, if they're building the tech to be jurisdictional sharing, like what Flock did rather than case by case, then we're sort of cruising for that to conflict with our policies.

Um that's uh that's I guess I'm curious if you have any if you've talked about that with Axon or have thoughts about that, given that they're developing that jurisdiction-based sharing feature.

Yeah, I can't say that that the intent, and I haven't reviewed the final contract yet, but um and and Tim feel free, but yeah, absolutely, there's an opt-in opt-out by default um built into the into the contract, so any new type of sharing technology that they're bringing to the table were by default opting out.

We would have to explicitly opt into that.

Okay.

Um, and I and the my a big question mark for me is who makes a decision to opt into new technology and how within the city.

Um I think that's still a conversation that you know is is actively unfolding between council, surveillance task force, mayor's office, etc.

So right, okay.

And I would be really hesitant for us to enter into this contract without that being sorted, because I think that's I mean, again, we messed up by not knowing that Flock had put us on a national network, and we can do that again.

Um so another question about that um is auditing.

So, as of now, our internal policy says that we will require officers to enter a case number um to do a search.

Um, and and apparent and what I've been told is that with Axon, unlike with Flock, the formatting will have to sort of be similar to a case number to be accepted, but it's not like it links to our records management system, so there's no way to be sure that it's a real case number rather than just digitigig letter letter or whatever, four digits, I guess.

Um and then when we asked when we talked about this before, um, I think the team told me that our auditing of the Flock logs was focused on keyword searches and spot checks and sensitive terms.

Um I want to know if DPD will be checking in a more meaningful way to see that no one's putting in fake case numbers.

Um in other words, doing more than spot checks.

Um it does not seem that these systems have been used so much that it would be impracticable to review all searches periodically.

I think that would probably need to be in DPD's internal policy.

So I'm curious what the intent is there because um that seems like something we need to enforce by actually looking at uh at searches.

Absolutely, and and uh council member uh you and I chatted a little bit yesterday, and I'm very open to any suggestions on on how to increase you know the level of transparency and and and you know uh oversight assurances.

So if there's something reasonable that we can do to increase the the amount of auditing, um I'm totally open to to discussing that.

I think we're we're trying to strike a balance though.

Um obviously, you know, we want to to do our due diligence, um, but we also want to make sure that we're not um engaging in in too much administrative burden um on a month on a monthly basis as well.

I'm happy to happy to have additional conversations with anybody who's interested.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean the knowing the number of searches that have been performed at Flock would be helpful to understand what's realistic there.

Um so I that leads me to the question of whether DPD sees a need to rewrite its internal ALPR policy to address some of these things because I think the way Axon works what the policy said was always different from how Flock actually worked, and we need what the policy says to match how Axon actually works.

Um and if so, I just want to flag that the independent monitor asked in the last task force meeting if she could be given time to review that policy.

So I'm wondering if there's an intent to revise it at all.

Uh clarifying question here.

So what aspects in regards to specifically how Axon, the Axon platform works, do you think are unaddressed in the current policy?

Well, I think the um I I should say I think the policy, for example, um isn't specific enough about what we're auditing based on the terms that are input into the system.

Um it it lays out what the rules are, but it doesn't lay out kind of how we check that they're being followed.

Um and then in addition, some of these sharing aspects, right?

Probably need to be in the policy when we will share with another jurisdiction in a way that um matches what the technology does.

I'm always happy to put uh you know, we're always happy to be flexible on the policy.

I think the reason why, for example, like keyword terms are not explicitly laid out in policy, is we're trying to stay as flexible and as nimble as possible.

So that may be an SOP uh standards of procedure, for example.

Um but if there's a new keyword that that is presented this week that we need to start auditing for, you know, to me that makes more sense to put it in procedure and and then indicate in policy that we are following these monthly types of audit cadences.

Does that make sense?

Um because policy isn't updated on a weekly basis.

We try to stay nimble with it, but um I can easily have my teams update procedure um written procedure, you know, as quickly or as as often as needed.

So yeah, and I hear all I hear the openness to do this, and I just continue to feel concerned that um we've been through a lot on this task force and made progress, but we're not all the way through all of the things that need to be done, and so I worry about voting a contract through without having DPD policies and procedures in place without having potentially an ordinance in place and those other things, and that's not for lack of everybody working very hard on these things because you certainly have been.

Um a lot of others have been.

Um another question is that I my understanding is that originally we were talking about 45 cameras on posts and then five um cameras that had greater capacity, and at some point that changed to 50 cameras on posts, is that right?

Yes.

And is that still what the camp the contract reflects?

Okay.

Um those cameras I understand can do some live streaming.

Can you describe that?

Sure.

So they are battery-powered uh cameras that uh the batteries are then recharged by solar.

So the live streaming capabilities on these cameras are very limited, right?

So they can't live stream 24-7.

It has to be a very overt action on the part of a user live streaming from that camera.

The footage is also not retained, right?

So um a an appropriate use would be, for example, the real-time crime center uh responding to uh an unfolding incident in progress and needs additional intelligence about you know that specific area.

But um, like I said, their battery devices, they're not designed to operate in type of a live streaming mode 24-7.

So as soon as that operator stopped the live stream, then it would return to its its default mode of of just capturing license plate images.

Okay.

That's different than Flock, right?

Yes.

Okay.

So this is something I I've asked a few questions about it, just trying to understand it, but it's fairly new as a concept to me of how that would even work.

And it it does concern me that the idea that um someone in the real-time crime center can open up a live stream and watch everything that's unfolding, that's new and different.

And it's not something we've thought about a lot in the task force from a policy point of view either.

So this would really be an order.

And so it's sort of open.

I mean, I'm now concerned about all those cameras too, unfortunately, because I was not aware that that was something that law enforcement had the capacity to do, and then that is a pretty intense form of surveillance.

So you know, um, Councilmember Parity, um, I I wasn't the two question limit, but uh I'm gonna see let the record reflect that I asked if I had a question limit, and I'm very happy to accept that.

So if you can do maybe one more question and then we'll uh put you back into queue.

Okay, that sounds good.

So um last question, then um, can you uh tell us all of the different axon products that the city currently uses?

Yeah, I think I sent you a comprehensive list yesterday.

I don't want to inadvertently miss anything, but uh generally speaking I'm not trying to trip you up, I'm just kind of body worn cameras, uh, evidence.com, which is our digital uh uh evidence uh storage repository, um FUCS, which is the real-time crime center uh platform, um, and then the ALPR, and I can't think of what else I may be missing right now.

Um interview room cameras, which is probably interview room, and then SkyDio drones.

SkyDio is not part of the acts on uh Yeah, I think just acquired them.

And I don't I think they just told us that they told my office that in a briefing yesterday, so I think they are now part of Exxon.

And again, I'm not used to me.

This is not a gotcha.

I'm just giving the full list.

So Taser's evidence.com, FUCSIS, um, which I don't think we've ever been briefed on or have a great understanding of um body the body warrants and then the SkyDO drones.

Um and that's where um I just think that all of us uh need to kind of spend our time because this is really different than Flock, um and the way that all these different you know images and types of data interact um is just gonna be a learning curve for all of us.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Parry, Councilmember Cashman, and Councilmember Gonzalez Katier.

Uh thank you, uh Committee Chair.

Uh thanks for the presentation, uh troops.

Um so one piece of information I I doubt you have that I've requested uh from Commander Herrera who said it would be forthcoming, is as far as the flock cameras go, um which crimes uh how many of which crimes did the flock surveillance uh uh participate in solving.

Um so I'm I'm looking looking forward to that.

Um you answered the uh councilwoman's questions on the live streaming um on uh on slide eight where it talks uh uh councilwoman parody mentioned this a little bit, sharing only in response to an official investigation.

Tell me more about that.

What's an uh official investigation with who and how would that work?

And then what we're sharing with another agency, who then can they share with what where are the guardrails there?

Uh great question uh questions, council member.

Uh as far as the data goes, uh we have done some manual review, some of our uh data analyst teams have done some manual review of of the the flock data from the duration of the program up through about uh the 11th of last month, and I can say uh we do have some of that data.

There's been over that that that uh platform um has helped contribute to over 500 arrests, over 400 recovered motor vehicles, and over 60 firearms that have been recovered.

So obviously uh quite a successful program in my view.

Um as far as um and as far as the sharing goes in in relate uh as related to an official criminal investigation.

So um what I've what I've told many people is that you know criminals often don't really respect borders, so so it's important that we collaborate with our neighboring jurisdictions in in solving uh crimes, especially pattern crimes and whatnot.

So um oftentimes we approach other uh agencies to uh for assistance in in investigating crimes, and sometimes we are approached.

And there's all sorts of different types of crimes, you know, for example, um narcotics trafficking or human trafficking or robberies, you know, in the metro metropolitan area, auto theft, I think has been uh has been you know a major one for our state over the last few years, right?

So uh when we are approached by an external agency for help investigating uh an incident, typically that's referred to either a supervisor or investigator in an investigative team, and they obtain additional information about what type of crime is being investigated.

But that's really what the necessity is what is the crime that's being investigated.

But that's really what the necessity is what is the crime that's being investigated, and and um uh as the presentation uh you know uh elaborated a little bit, it has to be something that's illegal in the state of Colorado in order for us to collaborate and and share information with that agency.

Yeah, uh so go back to your uh initial comment.

Um I'm aware of the overall number of of cases that have been involved, but it's really relevant.

What were the actual crimes that were solved?

Um meaningful um the uh as we the more we open up the door to sharing, the more it becomes flocked.

In other words, there might not be an actual nationwide system, but like say every door you open increases the opportunity for leaks.

And uh so I I'm not comfortable.

Uh I'll need more comfort around guardrails uh to that sharing.

Um a couple other things that I would hope that if this contract or any contract in this ballpark moves forward that we would have regular reports um uh to committee uh on you know how it was unfolding.

The last thing I wanted to say is that um the fact that a flock screens says DCOM gives me no confidence at all that uh um data's not being recorded saved, stored.

Um I would at the very least recognizing a hundred and ten cameras or whatever uh should be hooded or taken down.

Um the more I talk to people who who really understand this world, um our data is is being collected from multiple sources constantly, and like I said, what does DCOM mean?

And uh so I just want to throw that up.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh Councilmember Cashman, Councilmember Gonzalez Guterres, and Councilmember Flynn.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um thank you all uh for you know providing us the briefings ahead of time um for the conversations that we've continued to have in the surveillance task force.

Um I've also been having conversations out in community, have been asked to attend different RNOs to talk about specifically flock, but also about just surveillance tech and where things are with the task force, and a lot of the questions I've received tons of questions from some of these RNOs, and they've submitted like up to like 15 questions, some of them.

And so there is some follow-up that I'll need to have and provide that.

So I won't ask all the 15 questions here or all of the various questions I've been receiving, but I do want to get at some of these things to make sure that the public is aware and that we're all on the same page.

Um so can you tell us about the privately owned?

I know that you can't necessarily you're not I just want to make sure that everyone is aware that privately owned flock cameras will remain because they are not contracted by the city, right?

And so one of the questions I know I asked was will DPD have access to those cameras and data for investigations.

I think ultimately the answer to your question is is yes.

Uh would it what it comes down to um investigating any type of crime that has occurred, right?

And and if there is a private entity that captured some sort of evidence of that crime, then it's our duty to to obtain that evidence and and to make it part of our investigation and provide it to prosecution.

So um the the question marks that my team is still actively trying to chase down is is what that that access looks like.

Um but I would relate it to any type other type of business that that has a private surveillance camera network, right?

Um typically when we respond to that location and investigate a crime, if they have footage of that crime, we ask them to to provide it to us if they'd be willing to.

Okay, thank you for that.

Um with that said, I one of the things I didn't get to ask because I forgot about it, was the um drones that we were utilizing from Flock that we had access to in a contract that we actually were paying for.

It was they were being provided to us free of cost.

Are those is that contract still exist?

Are we going to continue that contract?

That contract still exists, but that program has not gotten off the ground due to hardware shortage, so we have not flown any flock drones.

Okay.

Um, and then how did how do we come do the 21-day data retention?

Where did that number come from?

Because I know there's been lots of conversation around data retention.

How can we utilize data to determine data retention?

Um and what we know and why, because 30-day was kind of the standard with Flock.

Now we have a 21-day, which is less, and I see it as a way of like, okay, we're moving the needle a little bit.

But uh, is there a rhyme or reason as to why it's 21 days?

I'm happy to take this one.

Uh thanks for the uh the question, Councilman.

And as you said, I think most jurisdictions have a 30-day retention policy.

There's some that are at 14 days.

There's a couple of examples where it's less than that at three or four days, but by and large, the standard is 30 days.

I think in discussions that we had in the task force um that we've heard from community members as well.

Um it was something that we wanted to be proactive about and essentially testing out.

Um is there a big loss in evidence between um days 22 to 30?

Um and going below something like 14.

Uh, and I know uh the Denver Police Department did look at um some of the homicide cases where uh the licensed system had a role in 2025 and looked at when in the kind of timeline of a case that evidence became relevant.

Um it was pretty spread out between you know immediately within minutes, um, up to and including I think 28 um 20 or 30 days with the lion's share of uh the evidence being um found.

I think it was between like three and twenty days.

Um and so I think it was kind of clustered in that period.

So we wanted to still make sure that we were being responsive and reducing it by some number, um, but not uh going too far at this point.

Um I know that we've asked a couple of times for just like the data on that.

I think some of my colleagues have also asked for wanting to just better understand uh everything that you just said.

I I don't know that I heard the level of that detail before this meeting.

Um, and I would still love to see it with my eyes to see like how that data has been quantified.

Um the other piece that I have is on um as it relates to data.

So with evidence.com where storage is happening, right?

Of the of the data.

Has there ever been any leaks from evidence.com that we're aware of?

Not to my knowledge.

Okay.

Um and has so our data has never been compromised in any way in the past.

Not to evidence.com.

Okay.

Um, and then the last couple of questions that I have is around access to the audits.

Um, who will have access to those audit?

The uh platform administrators and command staff and uh and myself, obviously, um, have access.

We also provide that data to uh data analysts and the director of safety's office.

Um there are sensitivities around that data because typically it can contain um PII and or CGIS data.

You see what PII and C just uh personally identifiable information andor criminal justice information.

Wouldn't it all contain PII because uh personal identified information because license plates have been identified by the state by state law, those are identified as personal identifying information?

That's my point.

We treat it with with due regard because of the sensitivity of the data.

Correct.

Okay.

Um would city council or the public be able to have any access at any form of level of the results of audits.

We have provided uh in response to requests of redacted data sets that show uh various usage, so I don't I don't have any objections to that, but just understanding that we have we have an obligation to redact sensitive data from it.

Okay, all right.

That's all I have for now.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Council Mr.

Terrace Council Flynn.

Uh thank Mr.

Chair.

Um thank you for intentionally going about designing this contract to address most of the major uh concerns about the the way the system has been configured before.

Um a closed system accessible only by us, or by invitation only, which is initiated by us.

Uh no uh AI training, no national network.

Um I like that.

Uh clarify uh a question that the councilwoman just asked.

Uh the private flock cameras that still exist in the city, and I've seen I see a lot of them in my district at the shopping centers.

There's one in the shopping center where my council office is.

Uh there's a couple of them actually.

Um we will have no self-initiated access.

In other words, we wouldn't be able to log into the flock system and see those private cameras.

Correct?

We would not rely on those the shopping center management that has the access to provide a photo to us.

Ultimately, it is the private entity that controls that type of access.

Um our ability to what that sharing mechanism looks like.

My team is still trying to figure that out once the cont our current contract lapses.

I don't know, I'll have specific answers in that regard, but I'm happy to share what that looks like as soon as we have the information.

Uh we have uh tasers and body cams provided by uh Axon in the most recent contract, uh, one of the significant upgrades was when an officer uh removes the taser from its holder, that automatically activates the body cam, so that there does the officer doesn't have to do two things.

It's automatic if a body cam is not already activated for one reason or another.

Is there any interactivity between the flock at the fluck between the axon cameras and any other axon device?

Or is it solely standalone internal, it doesn't go anywhere else among other devices, halo cameras or anything like that?

Right now it is standalone.

There is a so there's obviously an evidence.com integration, that's where the data flows to.

That's where the photos go.

And there's a fusis integration too that allows the the camera locations to be viewed on on the FUSIS map, and then in those cases in which uh the real-time crime center is responding to an active incident, they could activate live stream via FUSIS for those devices.

Thank you for bringing up live streaming.

When because we asked this, I think in the task force meeting last week, uh, when a cam when the real-time crime center says we need to see what's happening there right now, we don't have a halo camera, but there's an axon camera, and they go to live stream from that camera.

That camera is no longer taking photographs of vehicles passing by.

It is being used in a live stream mode, not taking photos.

Is that correct?

I don't know that those two modes are mutually exclusive.

I think my team is still trying to figure that out.

Um, but I'm happy to provide that information as soon as we have it.

Okay, we need to know that.

Councilman, we do have someone from Axon online.

I apologize.

I didn't mention that earlier.

I believe his name is Joey.

Could that person answer that question?

Joey Domeno has been um uh promoted, so to produce it, if you don't mind promoting him, and while you're doing that, uh we want to welcome council president Pro Tem Romero Campbell.

Um, Council President Pro Tim, if you'd like to join the queue, please uh just communicate through instant message producer Latis know when Joey has been promoted.

Or except this motion.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Do you mind introducing yourself, your title, and then um Councilman R.

Flynn has a question for you.

Absolutely.

Uh my name is Joey Domino.

Um I am uh vice president of sales at Axon.

Uh and uh if you wouldn't mind repeating your question.

Sure.

Uh when a when a camera is uh activated for live streaming for one reason or another, does it continue to take photographs as well as live streaming through that same device?

Yes, it does.

So the device itself actually has two sensors on it.

One is dedicated to the ALPR portion, the other one is dedicated to live streaming.

Okay, thank you.

Uh does it uh does it provide uh alerts through the live stream of any vehicle, or does that function rely uh reside only with the photographs?

The uh in terms of um the alerting back into our view system with respect to the ALPR, the license plate piece.

Yeah.

Um the the alerts come from the photographs, not the video.

Okay, thank you.

Uh uh a couple questions that have come to me from, and we can have quick answers here.

Uh these devices aren't don't do not use facial recognition, is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, I I was asked that by some constituents who are taking pictures of the backs of cars.

I don't know what faces would be in involved in in that, but but I had to ask.

Uh an alert, and maybe this is for Commander Barnes.

An alert versus a search of the database.

Those are two different uses of the system.

So when the camera triggers, here is a uh uh a child abduction, and the and the vehicle that's involved in that passes by a camera, an alert is sent out, it's verified by some other method before a vehicle stop is authorized.

Uh does that automatically generate a case number with the alert, or does it simply a CAD number?

The the officer or investigator responding to that incident would have to generate a CAD number that would eventually become the report number for that.

So that's an automatic so the hot list, uh so the platform is capable of maintaining a hot list of vehicles that you know, for example, a stolen motor vehicle or um in in the exit the the example that you used, right?

Um but when an alert is received and an officer were to take action on that and query the system uh additionally, there would be uh they would have to create a CAD number and put in a uh a report number for them.

The officer generate that, or does the system automatically generate?

It doesn't automatically generate, yeah.

So let me use a let me use a more immediate example than a child abduction because obviously there'd be there'd be a report already done, uh a hit and run, and you get a call and it says it was a uh white Ford Bronco.

Well, that was a bad example, isn't it?

A white Ford Bronco, and it had a partial plate number or some such, and it's and like two blocks away a camera hits on that, and that's an alert.

So that would be that would just generate a CAD number.

As soon as there's no case number yet.

As soon as that's reported to uh Denver 911, a CAD number is generated, and then all of the the investigative work and and data collection evidence collection can centralize around that number that's called auditable.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh it's a computer-aided dispatch, and it's a it's an electronic system that the Denver 911 uses to to track incidents and to deploy resources to those incidents.

And whenever there's an incident that's received uh in the system, it generates that unique number that then uh essentially precipitates all of the all the other uh data collection and responses for for that.

Perfect.

So that that creates an uh auditable trail of all searches that are connected to that one incident.

Yes.

If if an officer gets a lead a a month later, well 20 days later, they'd be able to search the system.

All right, we'll do your final question.

And thank you for asking what CAD means.

I I ask that from Case Andrew's playing acronym bingo.

Uh monthly audits under this contract.

Yes, sir.

Will they be available to us?

You mentioned that you know you would have access to it, your data analyst.

Would city council be able to request seeing just the audit logs?

Not the I don't want to see the license plate numbers, I don't have any need to look at those, but the crimes, the CADs, the et cetera.

They do have to be redacted because of the sensitive nature of certain data PII, um, you know, personal identifying.

Continuing investigation.

I don't I don't want to compromise any of that.

So uh and then typically uh that's why we that's one of the reasons why we provide that data set to uh the director of safety's office, the data analyst there.

So although I have no issues with it, I would need to to discuss with the team.

I don't know what kind of uh a lift that is for them to do that on a on a monthly basis.

I suspect there will be interest here in seeing it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Alvidaris, and Councilmember Torres.

Thank you, committee chair.

Thank you for coming forward with this.

Um, despite that legal need for counsel vote, I really appreciate um the attempt to have a better transparency and relationship when it comes to this.

Um as far as the retention period going back to Councilman Gonzalez Gutierrez's question around the 21 days and the data behind that, I still am not understanding how we got to 21 days and what is the difference between a vehicle that has actually been flagged and just anyone that's driving around the city.

Yeah, um so happy to um work with uh the DPD team to provide a little bit more context on um how we arrived at the 21 day number.

Uh we looked at a pretty small sample size of uh cases in 2025 and then looked at kind of when in the process the license plate reader system became um involved or providing relevant information and we're trying to balance, not losing a bunch of cases where this provided relative uh uh relevant evidence um while also being responsive to the concerns that we've heard from council members from community around the longer you hold it, the longer it's possible that someone gains access to the system and uses it.

So those are the two kind of balancing factors that we're trying to um strike here in 21 days felt like um at least that first attempt to to strike um to strike it.

But um, I think it's an ongoing conversation.

Happy to delve into a little bit more detail there.

And how about when we are searching for a particular vehicle, how long are we holding on to that data?

Is it as long as the investigation's open?

Is it past that point?

So if the if if we've already obtained evidence for a specific case, typically what would happen is we would take those images and we would tag them specifically.

So this system's a little bit different.

It already resides in evidence.com, so essentially we would have to preserve it for that case because then it becomes evidence for that case.

That evidence would be retained as long as necessary for the disposition of that that case.

But outside of uh a specific specific evidence collected for a case, that 21-day retention period would automatically purge uh any data in the system.

And is that something we will see specified in the contract with Axon?

The 21 day or the purging.

All of that.

Yeah.

So the the purging is um will be absolutely part of the contract.

And I um there will be discussion of the retention policy, and um I don't know if it'll say 21 days in the contract, but it'll make clear uh that it is us as the city who are the ones who set whatever that number is, and so it's within our discretion to set it at 21 days or higher or lower.

I guess my concern there is that we could change that any time without a vote of counsel, and we wouldn't be necessarily need to be informed, and so I'm just curious what that process will look like.

I'm also curious about the invite only um who is going to be approving that invitation and will that be spelled out in the contract?

There's no intention right now to move forward with any of those uh direct data sharing relationships.

I know that um uh you know I mentioned earlier there's some of these conversations are still evolving, and so I think you know that uh conversation would have to be had with with counsel, with the mayor's office and DPD collectively to move that ball forward if if that were something that um we wanted to do that.

And just yeah, just to reiterate on that, at this point, it will be only Denver police and um a couple of other investigators and other safety personnel who all have access to the system within the city of Denver.

Correct.

Okay.

And then what is the hit rate and accuracy of these systems?

I don't have a specific number.

I don't know if the axon representative on the call can can speak to that specifically.

It's a domino.

Do you mind uh stepping back for?

Absolutely.

Um so uh in terms of the accuracy of the system, um, all that depends on uh real world weather conditions, but what we've seen in kind of all weather conditions is uh we're upwards of about 98% accuracy um in terms of the capture rate and then the accuracy of that capture, meaning uh there are two metrics that you look at when a car goes by, how many times do you capture that car?

And then when you do capture it, the accuracy of that read.

Um, and we're both in that kind of 98 percentile area.

Follow up on that, with the flock system, you could also search for a vehicle with a scratch on the bumper and other details using AI.

Will the system be doing that as well, or is it strictly licensed plate information?

That system, our system does have the ability to search for things uh characteristics of the vehicle.

And will we be having that as part of our system with the city of number number?

Yes.

Okay.

Um axon, uh this is my last question.

Axon provides this public transparency portal.

What does that mean?

What does it look like?

And how will we provide transparency to the public without jeopardizing sensitive information?

That was for you.

Uh what was the same?

So Domino.

Sure, absolutely.

So the transparency portal that we have allows agencies to uh publish um how they're using uh any of Axon's uh technology um to the public.

It is um a tool that we provide through the fusis platform, and so allows it allows you to say what are the technologies that you have, any sharing agreements that you have with other police agencies or entities, um, and then uh also an ability for uh uh community members to add their cameras or register any cameras to the uh existing kind of fusis network, meaning you all the private cameras that you previously talked about on the flock network, um you could also do similar things within the fusis network as a private individual.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, committee chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Beaters.

Councilmember Torres.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I want to go back to Councilwoman Parady's question about the ops manual, because there are several references to Flock in the ops manual.

So I'm I'm assuming you have to change that to remove those references and replace with the new this system that you're potentially.

Absolutely.

Yes, and the the policy itself, uh I re I review routinely.

I I think I jokingly said bi weekly with the city attorney's office is probably not far from the truth.

But it's it's pretty robust um generalizing ALPR systems, you know, uh uh just generally speaking.

So but yes, we do intend to go through and do some slight amendments because it flock is uh uh you know explicitly laid out.

It doesn't reference live streaming and any regulations around that.

Would it then rely on the guidance under Halo?

And we do have some robust policy controls in regards to all of the the technologies that are used utilized by the real-time crime center as well.

So yes, it would because it is a camera device.

Will it will it say that though in the uh updated policy language if that's a tool that um Axod provides that there would be either the reference to the Halo sections or something else in because that I'm just learning about that one, that side of the technology here.

Um so just wanting something to speak to that.

Yeah, I think that's absolutely a good call out.

I will um I'll I'll review that with the city attorney's office once more to just make sure that that if it's not in there already, that we get something that explicitly addresses that concern for sure.

Okay.

Um the real-time crime center.

Um how long has that been like a dedicated team and how many people make it up?

So it's been quite a few years now.

I think it I think the Halo cameras go back to the the DNC that we previously hosted.

So uh doing that math in my head, it's been it's been quite a long 20 years.

Yeah, it's been it's been quite a long time.

Um the authorized strength for the real-time crime center is is 12.

Um we're far below that currently, but yeah.

Okay.

Um I don't think I have additional questions.

The only interest that I have is as we utilize tech more frequently.

Um I do want to better understand what uh impact that has on redistribution of officers and budget consequences.

Um I feel like we should be creating more efficient systems where we need fewer people interacting, or we're trying to address um some of the the gap that we experience with either response times or something like that.

Because I I and this is just a sense that I feel um it may not be real in terms of numbers or data, but we keep adding things to the DBD side of budget and technology.

Um I'm concerned that we're not being very judicious about where does that then relieve us of obligation to keep putting money in or personnel in uh when we continue to add um both tools um and money um to this side of the budget?

But I can bring that up at another time.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember Torres.

Um I we have a second queue that's starting before we jump in.

I have uh two quick questions.

Um first on your policy and procedures manual.

Um is there a reason why we're not agnostic to carriers?

Why is there a name of a carrier um listed?

And are we going to be agnostic going forward?

I I think that's a good question.

Um I was actually thinking about that as we were just discussing removing flock and then putting in an axon.

I think the reason that it's in there now is to differentiate the the unique characteristics of the various platforms that we use.

Um so I will definitely bring that up with the city attorney's office and see if we can um you know just make it platform agnostic.

One of 13 council members, my strong recommendation is that we're not flipping names in in our procedure manuals, that we are having procedures specific to systems um abilities um and not names, because then you're gonna continue updating on uh whatever basis that is just my recommendation, so would love to hear the city attorney's perspective.

I have um I have uh continued concerns with um surveillance cameras near reproductive um centers, and I would like you to describe once again um what controls did we have as we decommission um the cameras from the last carrier to now this carrier.

What controls do we have to ensure that new cameras aren't placed in places that would um provide details of folks going in and out and um really ensuring that they have uh safety, security, and privacy um with going to a reproductive health centers.

Yeah, thank you, Councilman.

I know uh we've had this conversation a couple of times.

We've also been talking uh with some of the organizations in that space.

Um I know DPD is currently working on kind of the list of criteria that they're gonna use for determining where these camera placements go.

Um we are happy to sit down with any council member and have discussions about um either your district or the city at large um where camera placements go and kind of the feedback therein.

Um a couple of things that we um we we've talked about as it relates to putting them near um certain sensitive locations, right?

As we've already talked about, these are facing the public right of way, right?

They're facing public streets, it's not facing a parking lot, it's not facing a specific building, it's getting the images going through an intersection or up and down the public street.

So um that that's part of it.

The reduction in the retention, uh, the the number of days policy um is at least in part a reflection of some of the concerns that have been raised about the potential for improper usage around reproductive health care investigations.

Um and there's going to be there's already policies that exist with DPD.

Um there's gonna be explicit language in the contract about um the fact that we have shield laws in this state and that none of this can be used for um the purposes of those types of investigations, um and so it's the balance of um the concerns that have been raised while also recognizing that at a lot of these sensitive locations, those type of facilities, hospitals, other places, those are also places that are targeted for attack um and kind of other um criminal conduct, and so weighing those factors is part of what we've been discussing, but um certainly happy to chat about uh the camera placement with you and all any other member who would like to.

Thank you so much, uh Mr.

Hoffman.

The second round, councilmember parity, councilmember Gonzalez Guterres, Councilmember Cashman, and Councilmember Fled.

Well, and I apologize.

I just saw councilmember um Amanda Sawyer.

Uh you didn't go first round, so if you don't mind um jumping in, and then we'll go to second member.

That'd be great.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

Really appreciate it.

Um I want to just say thank you for hearing uh the council's concerns about um you know a lot of the different things that we've already talked about here and being responsive to them.

Um I really appreciate it.

We have been in situations previously where we've had concerns like this and haven't been responded to with such thorough and extensive conversation and research and discussion.

So thank you.

Really appreciate that.

Um wanted to ask about the 55 cameras that are coming in in this contract.

So right now we have 11 flock cameras.

Um this more than cuts that in half.

What does that mean for the kind of system in general and the impacts that that may have?

Uh I think we're going to have to we fully anticipate um entering a data collection phase as we roll out this new this new platform to kind of see where that lands.

Tim, I don't know if you want to say anything else in that regard, but essentially we do know that they're you know reducing the the number of of LPR devices will have some sort of impact.

We're not exactly sure where that impact will land, uh, but we're definitely going to be collecting data as much as possible in that regard.

Does that does that make sense?

I think so.

I mean, I guess I'm I'm asking you is this we have seen significant success with the 11 cameras.

Um are we going to be able to have that same level of success with less cameras?

I think there will be an impact, and I just I just don't uh I can't quantify what that impact will be at this point.

And um, I think that that's that goes back to their earlier discussion of why TPD is coming up with this um the this kind of list of parameters for determining where the uh cameras are most needed across the city, and then obviously working with um council members to um have that further discussion around uh the placement, but um it's it it'll be a little bit of an iterative process along with the 21-day retention period, right?

Is to see how much of a loss in evidence does that create.

Um is it significant?

Is it not um similar with the reduction in cameras?

Um it's something that we'll be tracking certainly.

Okay.

So are you kind of looking at this then as a pilot to see um what that loss of um what that impact will be, what that all of the different things that we just talked about.

Like, is that are you sort of from a management perspective?

Are you looking at this as a as an opportunity to pilot a different technology that works better um with given all of our concerns and given the community's concerns about data retention, et cetera.

Um that like the vision here.

Absolutely.

I think there that's definitely an aspect because this is a different platform than we've used previously.

And uh, for example, the retention period is as Tim said is is being reduced.

So I think there's there's definitely different types of metrics that we're going to be uh monitoring and capturing to to kind of judge the efficacy.

And I think you know, as this new platform rolls out, uh, that's gonna take some time, but as this new platform rolls out, you know, we can uh start comparing uh what the what the numbers look like to the previous platform.

Okay, really appreciate that.

I think um I will just follow Councilmember Cashman's request that them you guys keep us updated on what this looks like after you know, assuming the contract goes through after a certain number of months, maybe quarterly, to kind of go over what that looks like.

Um really appreciate that.

I will say thank you for delaying this to a date certain because I don't feel comfortable voting on this contract until I see the contract itself.

And the reason for that is because the task force has been talking for a while about creating an ordinance that would manage data sharing and privacy across all technology platforms.

That doesn't exist at this moment.

But what that means for real world implications is that the guardrails have to exist in the contract.

And that's why I feel like I can't vote to move this out of committee until I see the contract because the only place these guardrails exist are in the contract.

So really appreciate you getting that to that to us as soon as possible.

And thanks again for hearing us and for doing all your work on this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer.

Um then council member party, Gonzalez Guterres, and start there.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, do we have an Axon representative available to be promoted, or is he still he's still on?

Yes, I'm still here.

Great, thank you.

Um so something I didn't get a chance to ask in the um two briefings that I've had with you all, um, and I appreciate all that time spent.

How would Axon handle um an executive order or um a situation where the federal government sent you a subpoena, you sent it to the relevant jurisdiction as the owner of the data, but the federal government then took Axon to court um trying to get essentially all of your data?

Um in a scenario like that, um, that is something that we have uh a legal team where we would fight against that.

Um that's kind of as far as I am able to probably speak to that, but I can get more specifics in terms of like what we would actually do in a matter like that.

Um but legally in your contract, we send the date send the FOIA request over to you because we do not have access and it is not our data.

Um something that we talked about a little bit in briefing in our second briefing yesterday was that Axon has an ethics board around AI.

Um and in looking into that little more, I actually saw that that entire board resigned in 2022.

So I it you're talking about a new board, it was replaced.

Um but that resignation was pretty concerning to me.

Um can you talk about whether Axon did anything to address the concerns that led the entire board to resign due to the announcement that Axon planned to um develop taser equipped drones and then also use surveillance cameras with real-time streaming, which is exactly what we're talking about today, to be fair.

What did Axon do in response to that board's resignation in 2022?

Um that's one that I'm probably gonna have to follow up on to get more specifics about that particular piece, uh, but I'll follow up on that.

Okay.

Um I would appreciate that because I wasn't aware of it and it and it is concerning.

Um for uh DPD, is there any other software of all the different tools that you have available in the real-time crime center um that has facial recognition capability, even if you're not necessarily using it?

No, not to my knowledge.

Okay.

Um I'm I'm concerned that even if the axon uh even if Axon's algorithm is not building in facial recognition, um, that that live streaming capability leads to the possibility of facial recognition by layering it with another tool.

Um, and it's just one of these things where there's so much we don't know about what happens in the RTC that I have to raise that concern.

Council member, I I know I just want to uh flag for you, I you know, we're we're very aware that facial recognition is is um legislatively uh regulated in the state of Colorado, and and so that's you know, it would have to be something most all of our vendors that that even uh have anything related to facial recognition um understand that we would have to explicitly opt in, and typically we would have to provide evidence that you know we we uh uh collaborated with city council as required by law in order to bring that technology uh into use.

Okay.

That state law and our compliance with it is another side topic that's arisen in the course of this task force that I just haven't had time to sort of fully ask questions about, and so I would like to do that as well because it just is only as good as our kind of enforcement mechanisms, you know, and and Flock was developing facial mechanism technology.

So again, we have an example where all of these things on the on paper um just didn't do the trick.

So I'll I'll have more questions about that, but thank you for that.

Um has the administration, this is probably for Tim, done sort of diligence on Axon's business to um immigration enforcement.

Yes.

I I mean I I know that they have contracts with DHS with ICE to provide tasers and body worn camera.

I believe this was probably a topic of discussion when the body worn camera and taser contract came through this body a couple of months ago.

Um, so it's certainly a factor.

This is um obviously a separate program from those, and um to my knowledge, the federal there there has not been an example of a federal agency um getting access to the axon ALPR system.

Okay.

And I guess I'm curious whether after the mayor's executive order recently, whether there's any thought from the administration about kind of from like a an ethical contracting point of view, considering those sorts of ties before we agree to give a lot of money to a company.

Happy to have that conversation.

Okay, well, this will be a good time because we're about to vote on this.

Um and we would be, you know, paying money to this company.

We have a large we have large contracts with this company already.

Um, but this would be adding a new one that we don't have already.

So I just wondered about that from the executive branch point of view.

Okay.

Um last question here.

Um I just want to say correcting one thing, Tim, or or adding nuance, I guess.

Um, what Commander Herr had told the task force is that the um average range of time for what DPD defines as useful evidence from a flock camera was up to 14 days, not 20.

So I just not to hair split, but I just um again wonder why 21 days.

Um and I also am curious about what jurisdictions uh have those three and four day time frames that you referenced.

Do you know that off the top of your head or I don't happy to I but I have a spreadsheet that I can um share with all council members of a range of you know 25 or 30 cities and their retention policies?

Okay.

And then since I know the queue is long, um I just the idea that we're not gonna put cameras near reproductive health facilities, that's obviously important.

Um, but that also to me is sort of um begging the question.

We we know that ALPR cameras have been used in other jurisdictions, for example, um, to monitor protest activity, and the live streaming capability makes that far more concerning to me.

Um that's another exercise of constitutional rights, in fact, constitutional rights that are still protected, unlike our reproductive rights, which no longer are by the federal government.

Um and so it just sort of um to me, I feel like that's carving out a particularly well-organized kind of constituency in reproductive rights groups who I appreciate and agree with, um, but then we're leaving unprotected a lot of other people who might be engaging in other kinds of protective activities such as First Amendment rights.

So I just want to put that out there for everyone's conversation uh consideration.

And I I want to add that um it took a very long time to get this level of responsiveness.

I am glad that we're getting it, but I'm not feeling like um like any of this would have happened if we had not um had a huge amount of accountability from the public about what went incredibly wrong with Flock and should never have gone wrong, should have been put a stop to a year sooner than it was, and so on.

So I just have to say that, and that's not a comment for DPD, those are political decisions.

Um, but I can't sort of I'm not gonna give a lot of credit for for this process because this is a process that's been demanded from the public at every step of the way, and it's been a lot of toothpulling to get there.

So thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Gonzalez Guterres, Councilmember Cashman, and Councilmember Flint.

Yes, um, my question is for is it Joe with Axon?

Yes.

Is he and he's still available?

Is it domino?

Yes, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um so I have a quick question about the trigger, what triggers the cameras to activate and actually capture images.

When I met with the Flock CEO, um, it was explained to me that those cameras were triggered by any sort of movement, including someone walking through a crosswalk.

So it wasn't just a car automobile movement, it wasn't just capturing license plate data.

It was also capturing because of that that trigger in motion detection.

Can you tell me how these cameras are triggered to capture?

So the way that our camera works is we have both active and passive infrared.

Um the idea is basically a vehicle uh creates a large amount of uh heat.

And so we have a heat signature that basically then turns on the image sensor that takes the photo of the vehicle, and then we do the uh analysis to pull out the license.

Um we're also working on a motion-based one, um, but that is vehicle specific.

We are not using these cameras to track motion of individuals.

Okay.

Um thank you for for answering that.

Um, and I think that just puts a finer point on like making sure that whatever however that technology is being developed, that there is clear communication around that and again, like not going into the like facial recognition piece, right?

Of you know, identifying people in the use of these cameras.

Uh there was one other question I had written down and I'm looking for.

Um, uh this is also for you, Joe.

Um was around how information is shared with other jurisdictions, and I know that DPD is saying that it there's not going to be, to my understanding, an open door kind of policy or even agreements with other jurisdictions that everything would stay in-house as opposed to how things were being shared before.

But I just want to, I guess, put a finer point and confirm if this is actually true, is that actually on the I'm trying to I have my thought here and now I forgot it.

Is this so if if there are there oper are there times when data would be shared with other jurisdictions via axon through different jurisdictions?

Because this is something we've talked about, um, Commander Barnes is that we know that if a crime occurs on you know the border of Denver and Lakewood, and that person then goes into Lakewood, that there is some kind of collaboration that would be happening.

And so just curious, like what is everyone's part in that sharing of that information across jurisdictions.

Absolutely.

So on the Amazon side, all that we are doing is creating a software that facilitates that sharing, and then the facilitation over time we're developing more and more granular levels of that sharing piece.

I think Councilmember Parity asked a question earlier related to can you do it based off of just case?

And the answer is yes, we are developing that.

So that will be available by the end of this year, or you could actually have a sharing protocol set up with Lakewood or any any agency that you set up the sharing principle with.

Um and it can be case-based, it can be reason-based, um, you'll have a number of different characteristics.

You also could have it set up where uh it's the full global access of of those ALPR reads, but it's completely on your uh and the and the PD's discretion in terms of how you create that sharing principle between agencies.

There also is no syndication of information, meaning we are not rewriting um that your ALPR reads into another database, like the other agency's database.

They are getting access to look at the data.

Um so if you have your 14-day retention policy or 21-day retention policy, those reads are deleted, and no other agency can view those because they're deleted and they're only looking at your information.

Okay.

Um that's all, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you, Councilmember uh Gonzalez Guterres Cashman.

And then thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um also for Mr.

Domino.

He's still on, sorry.

He's still on.

Um yeah, so um apparently uh what you're doing is more than license plate reader, because you said you you can also um look for uh body damage, etc.

on a vehicle.

So I'm trying to find out exactly what you're taking a picture.

Is it just the back of the car?

Uh can you capture the dent on the hood of a car, the roof?

What what is being done?

Absolutely.

So it all does it all is based on the orientation of the camera to the road.

And so we're capturing an image of the vehicle as it passes the camera.

And so any characteristic of that vehicle we would be able to capture, and then over time you'd be able to search off of again uh with policy specific.

So right now it is an image of that, the back of that vehicle.

So is it one image as the car passes by or are you shooting multiple images?

It is it is uh shooting multiple images, um, and then taking the one that uh has the best overall view.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilman Ashman.

Council Murphy Flynn.

Um chair, just real quick, uh I guess this would be for uh commander uh of all the hundreds of thousands of photos that might be in the database on a rolling 21-day basis.

Um I just want to ask you know for your so you can affirm that the images that are looked at are based on hits, alerts, or information developed after after a criminal complaint that those individual vehicles are searched only.

So if I'm in there five times, I drive my camera five times in 21 days, no one's looking in my car unless I report my car is stolen, or somebody steals my plate and robs a 711 or something like that.

And then on the other hand, if an image is useful in a crime in uh investigating it after the 21 days, how is that preserved in evidence.com and not purged because we're gonna need it going forward for a case filing.

So how do we is that set up automatically?

Is it automatically saved?

Does the detective drag and drop it into the case file so that it's available after the 21 days?

Absolutely.

So to address your first question, the majority of data will be automatically purged.

There has to be a there has to be a nexus to a crime that was committed that that we're investigating in order for us to even go look at that image.

If there is uh an image that is evidence in a crime, then I know that the platform has a specific way to retain that according, you know, and then tag it with the case number.

I can't I can't think of off the top of my head exactly what the mechanism is.

It's a new platform.

Um I'm sure some members of my team know exactly how to do that already, but there is a way to preserve that in evidence.com as evidence for that uh criminal event.

All right.

Thank you Mr.

Chair.

I can actually I can answer that if you need me to, just in terms of that workflow.

You can actually just click a button and it says uh send evidence.com case.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Flynn.

Um we have five more minutes to see if there's any final questions.

I know Council President Pro Tem um did not have an additional question.

Councilmember Torres, did you want to?

Yeah, I I took myself out of queue for timing, but if we've got a couple minutes, um the uh camera placements for Flock had to be um put up with tier three um uh permits once we're no longer contracting with them.

Does that um permit expire for them or what happens with that?

I know you mentioned new cameras would be utilizing those same encroachment kind of platforms.

Can you just tell me a little bit how that swap takes place?

Yeah, um and commander, please jump in as well.

But um the DOTI um permits for those right of way were for license plate readers generically.

I think to the earlier point, having a generic um term is better than specific.

So um those locations where they're currently our flock cameras are already permitted and they would remain to be permitted.

Weren't they permitted to flock though?

No.

Uh my team has been uh in close communication with Dotti, and and our understanding right now is no, they were not permitted specifically to FLOC, and and the swapping of hardware on those polls should be no problem.

Okay, so what's the timing for those to come down?

Uh as soon as the the contract reaches term, our data is purged, those are moved to DCOM status.

Then um my team is working to schedule the with Flock to schedule the removal of those.

I don't know at what rate yet they'll be able to remove them, but obviously we're gonna move as as quickly as possible because the existing hardware has to come down for us to put up the new hardware.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember Torres.

Um, seeing no further questions, um, based on the administration's request, um, I will uh put forward a motion to uh postpone this item to a date certain of March 18th, 2026.

I need a second.

Second.

All right.

Do we need a vote or up and down anyone that um on the committee that see thumbs up?

Perfect.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

We have see I can find how many items we have.

We have one item on consent um that has not been pulled off, so the meetings adjourned.

Thanks, everyone.