Cape Coral must govern ALPR technology before it expands further
To the editor:
Technology is moving forward.
The question is whether Cape Coral residents and taxpayers will be proactive — or sit idly by while a citywide surveillance system expands without meaningful transparency, public debate, or accountability to our elected representatives.
Automated License Plate Readers can be valuable law-enforcement tools. They can help locate stolen vehicles, find missing or endangered people, identify vehicles connected to serious crimes, and improve officer safety.
That is not the issue.
The issue is how and why Cape Coral’s surveillance system was implemented and expanded, who authorized it, what rules govern it, and whether the public will have any meaningful role in deciding what happens next.
On Aug. 21, 2024, the Cape Coral City Council adopted Resolution 214-24, approving an agreement with RedSpeed for a school-zone speed detection camera program.
The resolution and accompanying contract were clearly presented as a program for speed-detection cameras within identified school zones. They were not presented to the City Council or the public as authorization for a broader citywide ALPR network operating at major intersections and entry and exit points throughout Cape Coral.
The contract did include license-plate-reader technology and integration. But including ALPR capability within a school-zone contract is not the same as expressly approving a separate citywide surveillance network.
CCPD has since stated that the broader system was deployed in phases during 2025 at major entry and exit points, high-traffic intersections, and other strategic locations — and that the department itself authorized the deployment.
That should concern every resident, whether they support the technology or not.
During discussion of Resolution 156-26, Councilwoman Rachel Kaduk specifically referenced Resolution 214-24 and the resulting installation of Flock cameras throughout Cape Coral. She then asked whether the newer resolution would install additional Flock cameras.
Chief Sizemore responded only:
“I can confirm it is not Flock cameras.”
That may have answered the narrow question about Resolution 156-26, but it avoided the larger issue Kaduk had placed directly before him: how Resolution 214-24 resulted in a broader citywide ALPR deployment and whether Council knowingly authorized it.
That was not a meaningful attempt to inform the Council.
It was the narrowest possible answer to a much larger question.
That was not an answer. That was avoidance.
Transparency cannot depend on an elected Council member asking exactly the right question using exactly the terminology preferred by the department.
The risk of misuse is also not hypothetical.
An Institute for Justice review of media reports and public records has identified at least 28 cases nationwide in which officers allegedly used ALPR systems to monitor romantic partners, former partners, coworkers, or strangers. Most reportedly came to light only after victims complained — not through routine internal police controls.
These cases do not mean every officer will misuse the system.
They demonstrate why internal safeguards alone are not enough.
Cape Coral should also act now because this issue will become far more difficult after a tragedy.
We are one murder, rape, kidnapping, or other violent crime away from someone arguing that broader surveillance could have prevented it. Public pressure could then produce a rushed expansion involving more cameras, longer retention, broader sharing, and fewer protections.
We have seen this pattern before.
Seat-belt laws, child-car-seat requirements, smoking bans, REAL ID, and mask and vaccine mandates were each criticized by many people as government overreach or an unacceptable loss of personal freedom.
Over time, public sentiment shifted, and many of those restrictions became accepted or normalized.
Whether one agrees with each policy is not the point.
The point is that the balance between liberty and public safety can shift rapidly — especially after a crisis.
We can establish reasonable safeguards now, while the issue can still be debated calmly, or wait for a tragedy to produce a rushed response that sacrifices far more liberty than necessary.
A police department should not be able to quietly create and expand a citywide surveillance system capable of recording the movements of thousands of residents without clear public rules, meaningful oversight, and an express vote by the elected City Council.
Cape Coral should immediately shut down the citywide ALPR system until appropriate safeguards are formally adopted and implemented.
Those protections should include Council oversight, quarterly public reporting, court approval for historical searches, defined retention and review rules, strict data-sharing limits, resident access, penalties for misuse, and mandatory Council approval before new cameras, features, integrations, or surveillance capabilities are activated.
Once those protections are in place, the City Council can publicly decide whether-and under what conditions-the system should resume.
Cape Coral does not have to choose between public safety and civil liberties.
Cape Coral can use this technology-but only under rules that are publicly adopted, independently reviewed, transparent, and enforceable.
Acting now is not anti-police.
It is how we protect both public safety and liberty before the next crisis makes thoughtful policy nearly impossible.
Because every taxpayer matters — and public safety should never come without accountability.
Wes Owen
Cape Coral