Councilors,
Attached are my detailed comments on Bend Police Department Policy 428, dated May 15, 2026, along with a one-page summary of requested amendments and Exhibit A, a section-by-section comparison of SB 1516 and Policy 428.
My central concern is that Policy 428 has two separate problems.
First, the policy contains specific operational and textual gaps that should be closed before adoption — places where the policy authorizes uses broader than the statute permits, omits required vendor contract terms, or fails to require audit and logging fields the statute requires the operative documents to contain.
Second, even where the policy fits within SB 1516, it adopts the broadest uses state law still allows rather than a narrower local standard appropriate for Bend.
SB 1516 is the statutory floor for ALPR use in Oregon — it is not the ceiling for local privacy protection.
The clearest example is the parking-use authorization. SB 1516 §4(2)(g) permits ALPR use for “regulating the use of parking facilities” — one bounded purpose. Policy 428.3 expands this to “parking regulation and the management of parking facilities” — two distinct authorizations joined by “and.”
That is the operative permission on the face of the document and cannot be cured by deference to state law.
The attached letter identifies similar operational gaps in the policy’s required vendor contract terms, including missing CJIS Security Addendum execution and security-incident notification language; the monthly vendor audit fields, including missing the per-search detail SB 1516 §6(1)(i) requires; and the outside-agency search log, including the missing cameras-accessed field SB 1516 §5(2)(b)(C) requires.
It also addresses SB 1516 §5(2)(b)’s substantive scope limits on outside-agency sharing — “limited to data relevant” and “no unrestricted or ongoing access” — which are independent of the prohibited-purpose list in Policy 428.6.3 and worth operationalizing through the written request-certification process described in Part II.
The letter also describes eighteen local strengthenings grouped into seven categories:
- administrative-use limits,
- sensitive-location and occupant protections,
- outside-agency controls,
- retention and historical-search limits,
- vendor and cybersecurity controls,
- public accountability and complaint redress, and
- Council-approval requirements.
Each is consistent with SB 1516; none asks the City to use ALPRs in a way state law prohibits.
I respectfully ask Council not to treat Policy 428 as final until Bend PD closes the operational and textual gaps identified in the letter and Exhibit A, and until Council considers stronger local safeguards.
I would also encourage Council to advance the broader Bend Surveillance Technology Accountability, Privacy, and Civil Rights Ordinance so future surveillance technologies are not added in piecemeal department-policy form without public notice and Council approval.
I am happy to answer questions, provide further clarification, or discuss any of the items in the attached materials at the Council’s convenience. I can be reached at
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Attachments
The documents attached to my email to Council are available below:
Leave a Reply