Ordinance Committee Meeting on Automated License Plate Reader Regulations - September 8, 2026
Ordinance Committee Meeting on Automated License Plate Reader Regulations
On September 8, 2026, at 7:00 PM, the New Bedford City Council's Committee on Ordinances met in Council Chambers to consider a written motion filed by Councillors Burgo, Abreu, and Lopes. The motion asked the committee to determine whether the appropriate policy outcome is the complete removal and abolition of automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems and other similarly invasive surveillance technologies, or alternatively, the establishment of "Municipal Automated License Plate Reader Privacy and Transparency Standards." The meeting was live-streamed and recorded.
Discussion Items
-
Legal and Policy Framework: Attorney David Gerwatowski, legal counsel to the city council, provided analysis on the proposed ordinance. He explained that the ordinance would not cancel existing ALPR contracts but would require any renewal or new contract to go through a public process including a city council vote. Gerwatowski stated that the ordinance is likely within the council's authority as it protects the public and is not purely administrative. He also noted that the ordinance would not preempt potential state-level red light camera legislation unless state law explicitly supersedes local ordinances.
-
Scope of Ordinance: Councillors raised concerns about whether the definition of "mass location tracking technology" could inadvertently cover other technologies like body cameras or gunshot detection. Gerwatowski said that the definition would need to be interpreted based on the specific functions of the technology and that the council could always amend the ordinance to include or exclude technologies. The police chief, Jason Thody, confirmed that the current Flock cameras are used only for license plate reading and vehicle identification, not facial recognition. He stated that the city's subscription does not include facial recognition capabilities.
-
Data Governance and Access: Chief Thody recommended a data retention period of 7 to 14 days, noting that the default was 30 days and the ACLU recommends 14. He advocated for limiting access to the system to dispatch supervisors and sergeants (about 6–8 people) rather than all officers. He also proposed monthly audits by the Professional Standards Unit and a requirement that each search be supported by a police report narrative. Chief Thody committed to not turning the cameras back on until a policy and ordinance are in place, and stated that he would not renew the current contract (which expires November 2026 or January 2027) in its current form.
-
Amendments Proposed: Councillor Roy moved to add a broad definition of "surveillance technology" and extend the ordinance's requirements to all such technologies. The amendment failed 10–1. Councillor Lopes moved to set a fixed data retention period of 7 days; that amendment failed 9–2. Councillor Lopes moved to limit access to sergeants and above; that amendment failed 10–1. Councillor Lopes moved to require monthly audits by the Professional Standards Unit; the motion failed for lack of a second. Councillor Oliver moved to set a 14-day retention period; that amendment failed 10–1.
-
Procedural Motions: Multiple motions to table the ordinance were made and failed, with final votes of 6–2, 8–3, and 7–4. A motion to adjourn was also made and failed 7–4. A motion to move the previous question (end debate) passed 9–2.
Key Outcomes
- Referral to Full City Council: The committee voted 8–3 to refer the ordinance (as originally drafted, without amendments) to the full city council for adoption. The ordinance will appear on the September 24, 2026 council agenda for a second reading and potential further amendments. Councillors who voted in favor cited the need to establish council oversight before the current ALPR contract expires and to prevent the mayor from acting unilaterally. Councillors who opposed argued that more time was needed to review the ordinance and hear from the public and the police department.
- Commitment from Police Chief: Chief Thody pledged that the Flock cameras would remain suspended and the contract would not be renewed until the council and administration have established policies and an ordinance. He also agreed to provide written recommendations to the council within a week.
- Meeting Adjourned: The meeting adjourned at 9:04 PM.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening. It is 7 p.m. on September 8th, 2026. Note this meeting is being live streamed and recorded. City Council and Committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford homepage under quick links, then meetings. This is the Committee on Ordinances. I should have read that first. There are no letters. Alright, I'm joined in the chamber uh by Councilor at Large Ian Abreu, Council of Ward 2, Scott Pemberton, Councilor Ward 1, Leo Choquet, Council of Ward 5, Joe Lopes, Counselor at Large, Brian Gomes, Council of Ward 6, and Council President Ryan Pereira, Counselor at Large, James Roy, Councilor at Large, and Second Vice President Naomi Carney, and Council of Ward 3, Sean Oliver. And I am Shane Burgo, your Chairman Extraordinaire. Item number one is there in motion by Councillor Extraordinaire Burgo, Abrew, and Loebs requesting that the Committee on Ordinances consider whether the appropriate policy outcome is either the complete removal or the abolition of automated license plate reader systems and other similar invasive surveillance technologies within the city of New Bedford or in the alternative establishing municipal automated license plate reader privacy and transparency standards that was referred here on August 25th, 2026 and is now before you. Motion received in place on file made by Councillor Abrew. Second by Councillor Pemberton. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Um I would entertain a motion to receive and place on file uh this ordinance that you all have before you made by Councillor Abrew. Second by Councilor Pereira. Anyone on the question? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Any opposed? The ayes drafted. Uh and basically the long and short of it, based on what we've the clerk just read into the record, what I look to do here is strike a balance between canceling out existing ALPR contracts that we have, while also recognizing if the city wants to enter into a new contract, these are the guidelines and safeguards that they would have to enter into. Thank you. My question would be for Attorney Goratowski. Certainly. Thank you. Attorney Garatowski. And Councilor Lopes, the floor is still yours. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Chairman Extraordinaire. So Attorney Goratowski, two quick questions. As it relates to I'm asking you to give an opinion on something that hasn't happened at the state level. The state has had a hearing and it's tabled right now that they're looking at the possibility to do red light cameras across the Commonwealth. Red light cameras read license plates. So if we pass this, would we be able to move forward if the state does enact the red light cameras? Would we be able to enact red light cameras understanding that it is an automatic license plate reader? It depends what the state law says, which I don't know what it says. I don't know what the state law you're asking me to speculate what a state law would say. It could be a local adoption. It could say this is the state, but might allow municipalities to be more restrictive. So it would be from what I've read it's local adoption, so each municipality would have to adopt any. It wouldn't be, you know, a blanket policy for the commonwealth where, but it would give the municipalities the ability if they wanted to enact the public safety device that they would be able to get into it. Right. Right. And I think I think that the ordinance that was sent to me by the chairman that I looked at also allows. This is always I don't know. Is that in ringing in my head? I don't know.
openpublica.com