Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Technology: MYTHS VS. FACTS

MYTHS VS. FACTS

Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Technology

(Why SB 893 is Bad Policy)

 

MYTH: Law enforcement agencies (LEAs) and private companies have no legitimate use of ALPR data.

Ø  FACT:  ALPR is used routinely by LEAs and the private sector to rescue abducted children, catch murderers, robbers, and drug dealers, find missing elderly adults, recover stolen vehicles, repossess cars whose drivers have broken contracts with lending institutions, and investigate insurance fraud. ALPR technology provides for increased police efficiency, higher productivity, and creates a greater deterrent to those committing crimes.

 

MYTH: Collecting license plate data is an intrusion of your privacy and ALPR databases contain personally identifiable information about vehicle owners.

Ø  FACT: There is no law that provides an expectation of privacy in a license plate. To the contrary, license plates are legally required to be mounted and publicly visible on vehicles at all times. ALPR technology takes a picture of a license plate and ONLY includes, the license plat number, date, time, and location information. It does not contain any personally identifiable information at all. ALPR databases are nothing but a collection of these pictures and standard computer industry best security practices are used to protect them.  

 

MYTH: Law enforcement agencies (LEAs) and private companies have no legitimate use of ALPR data.

Ø  FACT:  ALPR is used routinely by LEAs and the private sector to rescue abducted children, catch murderers, robbers, and drug dealers, find missing elderly adults, recover stolen vehicles, repossess cars whose drivers have broken contracts with lending institutions, and investigate insurance fraud. ALPR technology provides for increased police efficiency, higher productivity, and creates a greater deterrent to those committing crimes.

 

MYTH: Proposed laws, such as SB 893, that limit access to ALPR data, provide reasonable guidelines on the use of this technology, and will protect your personal privacy.

Ø  FACT: Limiting access to ALPR data DOES NOT protect personal privacy.  A license plate only contains numbers and letters – not personally identifiable information. The license plate reader does not, and cannot, identify the owner or driver of the vehicle. SB 893 would impede law enforcement’s ability to use this technology to solve crimes and to protect California communities.

 

MYTH: LPR technology is not that important to LEAs and they could solve crimes and get along just fine without the use of ALPR data.

Ø  FACT: ALPR technology is one of the most powerful crime-fighting tools available to law enforcement. It’s truly a force multiplier for both street officers and investigators. Most crimes have a vehicle nexus and LPR is the best tool to quickly solve these offenses and cut the crime rate in California.

 

MYTH: LEAs misuse the ALPR data creating concerns like the National Security Agency monitoring email and phone calls of private citizens.

Ø  FACT: Misuse of ALPR data is almost unknown. However, there are hundreds of great examples of the technology solving very serious crimes in California that might not have been resolved otherwise. ALPR critics, like chicken little, run around telling their version of “the sky is falling.” ALPR works and law enforcement should not shy away from this powerful tool.

MYTH: ALPR is an out-of-control, unregulated governmental intrusion into the private lives of ordinary citizens.

Ø  FACT: ALPR systems don’t really work that way. They do not track “ordinary citizens.” An individual vehicle will only come to the attention of law enforcement in one or both of two situations: 1) If the vehicle is on a “hot list” (e.g. stolen or felony stop) at the time the license plate is initially read, or 2) when a query is made as a result of a criminal investigation and a vehicle or vehicles are identified as meriting follow-up. Despite wild accusations by groups such as the ACLU, ALPR records are not personally identifying information; ALPR cameras capture images of a vehicle and its plate, not the person who is operating it.

MYTH: ALPR is used like a GPS system that tracks every move a vehicle makes.

Ø  FACT: ALPR records are intermittent captures of encounters with vehicles and don’t come close to the full-time tracking of GPS devices. The vehicle’s registered owner is unknown to law enforcement without a separate query of a secure database that leaves an audit trail.

MYTH: ALPR data can easily be abused by LEAs to produce politically embarrassing information that can be used to hurt or discredit ordinary law-abiding citizens and pry into their lives; ALPR historical databases are ripe for abuse like racial profiling and stalking.

Ø  FACT: ALPR critics have rarely ever produced a case of an ALPR database being used for nefarious purposes; if it does happen, those who misuse databases can be held accountable, fired and prosecuted for any crime that might have been committed. The reality: other databases routinely used by LEAs have much more intrusive and private information than the typical ALPR system. For instance, a simple driver’s license check tells what a person weighs, their natural hair color, when they were born, where they live and what their driving infractions have been.

  

Ø SB 893 would limit California law enforcement agencies ability to use ALPR data thus removing a tool from their tool box and making it harder to keep our communities safe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

California's Unfunded Retirement Liability Equals $10,386 Per Taxpayeror / $5,650 for Every Man, Woman and Child in the State

California Public Employee Retirement System - CalPERS*

The 2014 budget includes $4.6 billion for state contributions to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), a 24 percent increase from the 2013-14 level of $3.7 billion. Annual contributions will continue to rise, with another nine percent increase in 2015-16, 12 percent increase expected in 2016-17 and a six percent increase anticipated in 2017-18. Contributions are projected to reach $5.9 billion in 2017-18, a 60 percent growth in state General Fund contributions since 2013-14.

The fast-paced increases are mainly due to steps CalPERS has taken over the last few months aimed at returning the pension fund to fully-funded status in 30 years, phasing in additional contributions beginning in 2014-15. In October 2013, CalPERS began a review of mortality rate projections, which has led to the Board adopting changes to economic (discount rate, price inflation, and wage inflation) and demographic assumptions (retirement rates, employment trends, disability rates, salary rate projections and mortality rate projections).

　

For example, the impact of the new assumptions on rates for state employees would be as follows:

	Employee Group	2013-14 Contribution Rate	2014-15 Contribution Rate	2017-18 Contribution Rate
	State Miscellaneous	21.30%	24.28%	32%
	Schools	11.50%	11.70%	20.50%
	State Industrial	16.40%	18.10%	21.50%
	State Safety	17.90%	19.40%	20.50%
	State PO/FF	31.30%	36.80%	45%
	CHP	35.90%	43.50%	56%

Pension Reform of 2013.
The budget includes $102.7 million General Fund redirected from savings achieved as a result of pension reform (AB 340, Statutes of 2012) towards the state’s unfunded pension liability. This, however, is a very small step toward eliminating the unfunded liability, which is currently about $46 billion just for state employees. Total state unfunded retirement liabilities (e.g. including health benefits and STRS) are estimated to be about $193 billion.  

*Senate Minority Fiscal Office

1/3 Of All California Households Have Income Below $22,000 (Qualify For Government Paid Healthcare)

The State Is Now Reporting That 1/3 Of All California Households Qualify For Medi-Cal. That means that 1/3 of all California households have household income BELOW $22,000. $22,000!!! California, collectively, may be a "big economy" but when it is made up of millions and millions so poor and in poverty that they qualify for government healthcare such as Medi-Cal, well that is an economy that no one I know on the right or the left wants to live in. Taxes and regulations matter A LOT because they directly influence the formation and retention of HIGH-PAYING jobs. Right now, this state is an exporter of middle class jobs that pay more than $25 per hour. They are not being cited here do to regulatory, tax and related costs that our neighboring states don’t have.

Rainy Day Fund Ballot Initiative - Analysis

 

 

 

Governor’s Original Proposal Lacked Teeth. In January the Governor proposed a new rainy day fund (RDF) to replace ACA 4 (2010), which had already been scheduled for a vote on the November 2014 ballot. The Governor’s proposal relied solely upon the state’s capital gains revenues to make deposits into two reserves, one general account and one account for Proposition 98 expenditures. However, the focus on capital gains alone would have resulted in many good tax revenue years in which the state set aside no funds for a rainy day. The Governor’s proposal also left the door open for legislative Democrats to use the RDF as a slush fund rather than a true "locked box" reserve for economic downturns because it could have been raided by a majority vote.

 Real Improvements Made. Legislative negotiations improved upon the Governor’s proposal, and the resulting bipartisan compromise bill, ACA 2X 1 (Chapter 1, 2013-14 Second Extraordinary Session, Perez), reflects the following key improvements:

• Up-Front Annual Deposits. Provides for annual tax revenue transfers of 1.5 percent of all General Fund revenues to the general reserve or to debt reduction. In addition, the "windfall" capital gains in excess of 8 percent of revenue would also increase the reserve or reduce debt, after shifting the Proposition 98 portion to the education reserve. This greatly increases the funding available for reserves or debt reduction compared to the Governor’s proposal to use only capital gains over 6.5 percent of revenue.
• Objective Withdrawal Standards. Sets objective measures for when withdrawals can be made in order to ensure the RDF is a "locked box" for economic downturns, not a slush fund that could easily be raided on a majority vote. Also limits the amount that can be withdrawn to the lesser of 50 percent of the reserve balance if no funds were withdrawn the previous year, or the amount needed to maintain a "current services" budget adjusted for population growth and inflation.
• Ensuring the Reserve Is Built. For the first 15 years, requires half of the RDF transfer amount to go into the reserve fund while the other half is used to reduce budgetary debts, including unfunded pensions and other retiree benefits. After 15 years, all of the RDF transfer will go into the reserve by default, but the state still would have the option to use up to half the transfer to reduce the same debts or unfunded obligations.

Billions in Reserves Projected. The RDF bill (ACA 2X 1) was recently signed into law following a special session, rather than as part of the budget process, but the new requirements would not take effect until 2015-16 if voters pass the measure this November. (The 2014-15 budget does include a $1.6 billion deposit to the current Budget Stabilization Account, made under Proposition 58’s current reserve requirements.) However, as shown in the table on the next page, the Department of Finance projects rainy day transfers of $6.1 billion over three years beginning in 2015-16, including $3 billion for debt reduction and $3 billion for the general reserve. Notably, $5.3 billion of these combined amounts results from the up-front 1.5 percent set-aside that Republicans negotiated.

 

 

 

 

Rainy Day Fund Forecast Dollars in Millions
		2015-16	2016-17	2017-18	Total
	Annual 1.5% of General Fund Revenues	$1,699	$1,772	$1,851	$5,322
	Capital Gains Taxes in Exces s of  8% of General Fund Revenues	$174	$233	$341	$747
	Total Rainy Day Amount	$1,873	$2,005	$2,191	$6,069
	Debt Repaym ent (50%)	$937	$1,002	$1,096	$3,034
	Depos it to General Res erve (50%)	$937	$1,002	$1,096	$3,034
	Note : Capital gains amounts are net of amounts attributable to Proposition 98.  All estimates assume there are no budget shortf alls that w ould allow other uses of Rainy Day amounts to maintain spending.   S o urc e : Department o f Finance, Califo rnia State B udget - 2014-15

Source: Senate Republican Fiscal Office

California State Budget Analysis 2014-15

Key California Budget Findings for 2014-15*:
Budget Sets New Record High for State Spending. General Fund spending hits $108 billion, eclipsing the pre-recession peak of $103 billion. True General Fund program spending also hits a record $119 billion after accounting for fund shifts and other accounting maneuvers (see Expenditures page 11), which is $11 billion higher than last year. Lastly, total state spending (from all fund sources) is $254.4 billion – nearly $25 billion above the previous record of $230 billion.
More Spending and Less Debt Repayment. Legislative Democrats lost the battle to prop up higher state spending by using the Legislative Analyst’s riskier General Fund revenue forecast, which was $2.5 billion higher than the Governor’s estimate. Relative to the Governor’s budget plan, the final budget agreement increases baseline state spending by about $900 million, and reduces the amount of debt repayment by $700 million. However, it could have been much worse, given legislative Democrats’ initial proposal to increase state spending by $3 billion above the Governor’s plan.
Rainy Day Fund Starts but Everyday Reserve is Dangerously Low. The budget begins to fill the rainy day fund with a $1.6 billion transfer to the “Budget Stabilization Account” created by Proposition 58 (2004). However, the everyday reserve known as the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU), at $450 million, is less than half of the historical minimum target level of $1 billion. As budget deficits have been the norm for the past decade the SFEU has rarely ended up in the black by the end of the year, but ‘best budget practices’ suggest that a $108 billion budget should have more than $450 million in reserve. In fact the state Medi-Cal program alone has incurred deficiencies in excess of that amount for three years in a row.
Do Not Pass the Debt Burden to Future Generations. The final budget does pay down the “wall of debt” by $10.4 billion, which is about $700 million less than the Governor’s original plan and significantly less than most Republicans would like. Over the past decade or so the state has repeatedly taken actions to provide services without paying the full cost – as a result California has incurred debts and liabilities that exceed $340 billion according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The current debt load is nearly $9,000 for every single Californian. It is not responsible to create new spending commitments when the state cannot even pay for the commitments already made.
Fight to Fix Teacher Retirement Plan. Picking up on the Republican proposal contained in SB 984 (Walters), the budget includes a plan of shared responsibility among the state, teachers, and school districts to address the massive $74 billion shortfall in the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) (see Employee Retirement page 23). When fully implemented, the additional contributions will cost about $5 billion more per year for about 30 years to eliminate the unfunded liability and guarantee our teachers the pensions they have earned.
Caltrans’ Overstaffing Diverts $500 million from Local Streets and Roads. The budget provides $1.7 billion and 9,894 full-time equivalent positions for the Capital Outlay Support Program (COS Program) within Caltrans despite a Legislative Analyst’s Office report that indicated the COS Program is overstaffed by 3,500 positions at a cost of more than $500 million annually. There is no logical explanation for the legislative Democrats’ lack of concern about this massive waste of money that could be used to fix streets and roads throughout California, but the fact that these are public employee union positions may shed some light on the matter.
Working Families Now Pay for Drug Felons on Welfare. The 2014 budget eliminates the common sense restriction against giving cash benefits to drug felons in both the CalWORKs and CalFresh (food stamps) programs. This foolish new policy is expected to cost taxpayers at least $40 million annually. In addition to being a terrible policy that likely wastes tens of millions of dollars to support the drug trade, allowing drug felons to be eligible for cash aid could actually hurt the children in these households. Currently, vouchers are used for rent and utility payments instead of cash to ensure the funds do not get used by the drug addicted adult, but with the drug felon now eligible to receive aid the cash will go to the drug felon, probably leaving these children worse off than they are now.

Reserve Restrictions Hurt Schools and Children. This budget imposes onerous new restrictions that impact school districts’ ability to maintain rainy-day reserves. Once their reserves are gone, their ability to deal with unplanned fiscal events will be weakened, such that any economic downturn could push them into insolvency. These restrictions have been condemned by every major education advocacy group in the state, with the exception of the teachers’ unions. Others have said:

• The ACLU, Children Now, the Education Trust West, and Public Advocates have jointly declared that “we are opposed to this proposal and see it as inconsistent with the principle of local control. It will have a disproportionate impact on schools serving low-income students, English learners, and foster youth.”
• The Education Management Group has called the restrictions “fiscally irresponsible and counter to the concept of subsidiarity” and observed that they ignore recent history, when many school districts were able to survive the great recession only because prudent management of their reserves allowed them to avoid having to make even greater cuts.
• Megan Reilly, chief financial officer of the Los Angeles Unified School District, may have put it most succinctly when she said, “I think it’s stupid.”

 

A Blank Check for High Speed Rail. The Budget includes $250 million in Cap and Trade funding for the high speed rail (HSR) project in 2014-15. Additionally, it allocates 25 percent of future Cap and Trade revenues, beginning in 2015-16, to the project through a continuous appropriation. This equates to hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually on HSR without future votes of the Legislature, despite LAO warnings that it is legally risky to link the bullet train to Cap and Trade funds. The people of California no longer support the high speed rail project because it has become clear that it is an ill-conceived ‘boondoggle’ that will drain billions away from more worthwhile projects such as fixing schools and the state’s crumbling transportation infrastructure.

 

Medi-Cal Growth Devours the Budget. Writer P.J. O’Rourke could not have been more correct when he said: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.” Nearly one-third of Californians (11.5 million people) will be enrolled in the state Medi-Cal health program at a cost of over $90 billion (all fund sources). The rapid expansion of Medi-Cal associated with Obamacare is driving explosive enrollment and cost growth far beyond anything that was anticipated. The budget includes $17.3 billion General Fund for Medi-Cal, which now projects 2.7 million new enrollees associated with Obamacare. This massive cost will divert funds from other core programs such as education, courts, public safety, and the social welfare safety net.

 

 

*Senate Republican Fiscal Office