Local Politics
  1. Home
  2. US
  3. Alaska
  4. Anchorage
  5. Issues

AO 2026-108 surveillance technology and license plate readers

At a glance

  • What: AO 2026-108 would repeal and replace Anchorage Municipal Code chapter 3.102 and amend AMC 17.15.040 to clarify limits on surveillance technology and add new restrictions on automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems. It also covers the police real-time crime center.
  • Versions: the original (sponsored by Vice Chair Volland, McCormick and Scout), an administration "S" version (co-sponsored by Goecker; backed by Mayor LaFrance), and an "S1" version from the vice chair. The public hearing was already closed.
  • Where it stands: debate ran about 108 minutes on Oct 20 with the S version as the working text. The Assembly adopted three amendments, a fourth (14-day data retention) was still pending, and the whole item was postponed to the regular meeting of Nov 4 on an 11-1 vote when the meeting hit its 11 p.m. limit.
  • What's next: Nov 4 (a Wednesday, the day after the election). Amendment 5 and the main vote remain, and the Nov 4 agenda is already crowded.

Introduction (August 18, 2026)

  • The ordinance was added to the August 18 agenda by addendum (with Assembly Memorandum AM 554-2026, both laid on the table). McCormick moved to introduce AO 2026-108 and set it for public hearing at the regular meeting of September 1, 2026, seconded by Scout with Baldwin Day concurring third. The minutes show the incorporation of the addendum passing 11-0 (Volland excused) but give no separate vote line for introduction. Sponsors in the minutes: McCormick, Scout and Vice-Chair Volland.
  • The title in the minutes: repeal and replace Anchorage Municipal Code chapter 3.102 and amend section 7.15.040 to clarify existing restrictions on surveillance technology and set new restrictions on automated license plate reader systems, real-time crime center operations and live camera monitoring; limit retention of surveillance data; prohibit participation in external surveillance data networks; require Assembly approval for acquiring surveillance technology; and provide for audit and enforcement.
  • Same night, the police real time crime center audio visual purchase was postponed to September 1: see Real Time Crime Center Audio Visual Purchase.

What the S version does

  • Requires the police department to submit surveillance, ALPR and real-time crime center policies to the Assembly and to notify it promptly of changes and of complaints about possible violations.
  • Requires Assembly approval of any contract that would expand police technology.
  • Limits data sharing with state and federal agencies to criminal law enforcement purposes. The mayor said other versions would halt joint operations such as the annual summer drug-suppression effort and human trafficking investigations.

Amendments on Oct 20

  • Brawley amendment 2 (passed 12-0): no municipal agency may share surveillance data for a purpose that would be prohibited if done directly, unless required by law, a judicial warrant or a court order. The administration said it supports this clarification. Volland cited a recent federal court ruling suppressing evidence from a warrantless ALPR history search and said he needed this amendment to support the S version.
  • Amendment 4, Volland/McCormick/Scout (passed 8-4 as amended): lowers the bar for the Assembly to suspend an agency's use of a technology after a hearing. The S version required a violation to be knowing, material and consistent. Baldwin Day's amendment to the amendment (passed 12-0, after a call for the question carried 8-4) changed this to knowing, material or consistent and restored the "until the Assembly finds the violation cured" clause. Perez-Verdia's attempt to restore "knowing material" in the remedial-action clause failed 6-6. Perez-Verdia and Goecker argued the Assembly should not drift into managing departments; Silvers questioned whether the section was needed at all since the Assembly can act by ordinance. The municipal attorney said the section gives a faster, clearer path than an ordinance and that "knowingly" is a legal standard.
  • Amendment 5, Volland/Scout (pending): would write a 14-day retention limit for ALPR and real-time crime center data into code. The police chief said current policy already deletes camera feeds and ALPR data after 14 days unless tied to a case, and that body camera and dash camera video (kept longer, two years for minor incidents) is not meant to be covered. Members worried the wording could sweep in other cameras, so Volland amended it to strike "a camera owned or operated by the municipality" (passed 10-2). The amendment itself had not been voted when time ran out.

Oct 14 worksession

  • Second worksession (about 57 minutes, no votes), held to preview the S and S1 versions and amendments before the Oct 20 debate.
  • McCormick proposed a charter-level amendment (warrant to track a person over time, no joining outside surveillance networks or buying bulk data, no distance biometric surveillance). A dispute followed over whether it would block redaction of dashcam and body camera footage; Gardner (municipal attorney) saw a risk, while Volland read the biometric definition as covering only automated processes. If approved, such an amendment would require re-noticing and reopening the public hearing, and the amended ordinance would need eight votes.
  • Brawley previewed amendments narrowing license plate reader uses, requiring Assembly approval of vendor demonstrations, specifying a judicial warrant and prohibiting signals surveillance; sponsors previewed amendments on data sharing, Department of Motor Vehicles access and the suspension standard.
  • Gardner flagged that a flat ban on using evidence derived from signals tools has no knowledge requirement and that "violent crime" may need a cross-reference to a definition.

Open concerns

  • Whether the suspension power respects separation of powers and how the Assembly would learn of violations in real time.
  • Whether to codify data retention limits or leave them to department policy for operational flexibility (the municipal attorney noted a change from 14 to 15 days would otherwise need an ordinance).
  • The chief also raised public-safety needs, for example more cell-phone location tools requested by participants at a conference on missing and murdered Indigenous people.
  • Written comment on file includes a letter from the Rabbit Creek Community Council.

Sources

Discussion time

About 165 minutes across 2 meetings (from transcript timestamps; approximate).

Meeting Minutes
2026-10-20 - Assembly Regular 108
2026-10-14 - Assembly Worksession 57

Log

  • 2026-11-04 - 2026-11-04 - Assembly Regular Meeting: amendments 5, 9 and 11 failed 5-7, amendment 12 passed 12-0, amendment 6 withdrawn; ordinance as amended passed (final count garbled in the captions, apparently 11-1).
  • 2026-10-14 - 2026-10-14 - Assembly Worksession: Worksession previewing the S and S1 versions and amendments; McCormick's charter amendment drew a redaction-scope dispute, Brawley previewed amendments 2 to 5, and sponsors previewed amendments on sharing, DMV access and the suspension standard. No votes.
  • 2026-10-20 - 2026-10-20 - Assembly Regular: S version moved as the base text; Brawley amendment 2 (12-0), amendment 4 as amended (8-4), amendment 5 amended and pending; item postponed to Nov 4 (11-1) at the 11 p.m. cutoff. The motion to extend the meeting to 11:30 failed.
  • 2026-08-18 - 2026-08-18 - Assembly Regular: Added by addendum and introduced on McCormick's motion, with the public hearing set for September 1.