Agenda - Council - 09/22/2026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

"slippery slope" concern about government surveillance but believed consistency mattered when evaluating privacy. He observed that individuals routinely carried cell phones capable of collecting substantially more detailed information about their location and activities than a fixed ALPR camera. He therefore had difficulty supporting the removal of a public -safety tool that could help locate missing children, stolen vehicles, or criminal suspects while accepting far more extensive private tracking through everyday personal technology. He indicated that, while generally favoring limits on government intrusion, he supported reasonable law -enforcement use of ALPR technology, subject to the safeguards described. Chief Bluml emphasized that staff did not take the community's trust in its Police Department for granted. Officers had always been entrusted with highly sensitive access in performing their duties, including entering and checking a residence when responding to an alarm and finding an open door. Body cameras had added another layer of documentation, but the underlying responsibility to exercise judgment appropriately had always existed. He stated that the Police Department took that trust seriously and worked to maintain relationships within the community. Chief Bluml noted that discussions about ALPRs frequently focused on major crimes, but the technology also mattered to individual victims of less -publicized offenses. He cited a recent burglary suspect traveling from Elk River into Ramsey and hit-and-run investigations in which ALPR searches could provide a lead. He reported that Ramsey's eight ALPR cameras had been used for 1,012 vehicle searches since January 1, averaging approximately 28 searches per week. He cautioned that the number of searches should not be interpreted as the number of criminal cases because a single investigation could involve numerous queries. For example, one officer conducted 13 searches while trying to identify a hit-and-run suspect vehicle from a description when the license plate was unknown. City Administrator Hagen asked Council for policy direction regarding continued participation. He asked whether Council was generally comfortable leaving the existing cameras in place and potentially considering additional or relocated cameras as the County pilot developed, or whether members wanted additional discussion. He noted that Council could also consider a separate public open house or question -and -answer session. However, colleagues' feedback suggested such meetings elsewhere had sometimes been lengthy without producing substantial additional information. Councilmember Riley believed Council had received useful information but was not yet in a position to provide final direction. He suggested bringing the matter back as a Council item after members had time to digest the presentation and information. Councilmember Peters indicated that he did not believe an open house would be productive and expressed support for Chief Bluml's recommendation if the Chief considered continued use of the technology important to Ramsey. Councilmember Buscher agreed with much of Councilmember Riley's position but believed transparency remained important. She indicated that if residents demonstrated interest in an open house, they should have an opportunity to attend, express concerns, and ask questions before Council reached a final decision. City Council Work Session / September 8, 2026 Page 5 of 8