On October 14, the Overland Park Police Department presented an updated policy for its automated license plate readers (ALPRs) to the City Council's Public Safety Committee. The new rules took effect the week before, KCUR reported. ALPRs are cameras that photograph license plates and record when and where a vehicle passed. Overland Park has 37 fixed cameras at eight sites, an eight-camera test site for a newer Axon system, and ALPR capability in 110 patrol cars.
These tools help find stolen cars, solve serious crimes, and locate missing people, and the department shared real Overland Park cases where they did exactly that.
The Cases the Department Shared
- A missing person: another metro agency entered a plate tied to a missing person. An Overland Park camera alerted when the vehicle passed, officers found the driver disoriented, and the person was taken to a hospital and reunited with family.
- An armed robbery: a seller meeting a buyer from social media was robbed at gunpoint. Plate reader data helped identify the suspect's vehicle, and the suspect was charged.
- A burglary series: a suspect who hit 11 stores across seven states was identified after a plate read led detectives to his probation officer. He pleaded guilty.
What Changed
- Retention cut to 30 days. Plate data was kept for two years until 2026, then one year, and now 30 days.
- No facial recognition.
- Protected activities are off-limits.
- Every search needs a reason.
- Data sharing is paused until formal agreements are written.
- Monthly audits of searches, checking 1% of those deemed valid.
The Full List of Changes
- Retention: cut from one year to 30 days. It was two years before 2026.
- Facial recognition: the policy prohibits integrating it.
- Protected activities: data can't be used to monitor free speech, religious activity, or other constitutionally protected activity. News reports on the policy say it also bars use for immigration or tax enforcement. Fixed cameras can't be placed within 100 feet of a place of worship, polling place, or medical facility without the agreement of the owner or operator.
- Searches: every search requires a case number and a specific reason. Vague reasons like "investigation" or "routine patrol" aren't allowed.
- Data sharing: other agencies need a formal agreement or written request. All sharing is paused until agreements are written. Committee Chair Gregg Riess, a council member, pressed the department on this, citing reports that Kansas City, Kansas license plate data had been searched by agencies in Texas.
- Audits: searches are "audited every 30 days by our Technology Captain," and the audit will "check 1% of all searches that are deemed valid."
- Misuse: referred for discipline and, if criminal, to the District Attorney.
- Training: now required annually.
- Coming in 2027: a public dashboard summarizing plate reader use, and an alert when the same plate is searched repeatedly. The Chief asked the vendor to build that alert after seeing how misuse cases play out nationally.
Chief Doreen Jokerst and her team deserve real credit. They sought outside input, including from the ACLU of Kansas, which called the policy a significant step forward.
Why It Isn't Enough
The rules can change without a vote. These are internal department rules. Retention changed twice this year, and the Council voted on neither change.
More on How the Rules Were Set
The original two-year retention period was set by department staff based on how much data the city's servers could hold, and it went unchanged for more than a decade. The Chief said the department had to estimate the new 30-day period through conversations with investigators, because the current system makes it hard to pull historical usage data.
When a committee member asked whether the department wants to expand camera coverage, the Chief said there could be room for that discussion, but that her current focus is a more robust system, and that she would never do something without making sure everyone understands what's happening. Asked directly whether she wants to expand coverage, she answered, "I think eventually."
Today's rules are good because today's chief chose them. The next chief could choose differently.
The department audits itself. Outside review was declined, though other states require it.
The Audit Exchange
Council Member Melissa Cheatham asked whether the department would accept an independent audit. The answer was that no process exists and that outside review could violate federal CJIS security rules for criminal justice data. Cheatham followed up by noting that some of the worst misuse cases nationally involved agency heads themselves, and asked how an audit that reports to the chief accounts for that. The answer was that staff can report concerns to the city manager.
Federal CJIS rules already allow outside access under formal agreements, and the same rules let the department store this data in its vendor's cloud. Minnesota requires independent audits of police plate reader programs, usually by outside firms, and publishes the results. In Seattle, Washington, the city's Inspector General reviewed police searches on Axon's platform, the same one Overland Park uses. About 47% of Seattle's 2025 searches had no justification given.
An independent reviewer wouldn't need case details. Reviewing the search logs (who searched, when, and whether a valid case number was attached) is enough to catch misuse.
Shared data may not stay protected. The department said it can't require partner agencies to follow Overland Park's standards.
Why Data-Sharing Agreements Matter
Cheatham asked whether agencies receiving Overland Park's data would have to meet the same standards on retention, audits, and access. The Chief said she couldn't place stipulations on other departments. Cheatham urged the department to partner only with agencies that have similarly high standards, and Riess said he liked the idea.
The city can't control other agencies' policies, but it can decide which agreements it signs. Once our data is shared, our 30-day limit only protects our own copy.
Residents can't check for themselves. State law lets police keep plate data closed to the public.
What Residents Can and Can't Do
Cheatham asked whether a resident could find out if their own plate had been searched. A department technology officer answered that under Kansas open records law, plate data and camera locations can be withheld. If someone suspects misuse, such as an ex-partner who's an officer searching their plate, the only option is filing a complaint with the department.
The planned 2027 dashboard is a welcome step, but the sample shown to the committee reports what the system collects (how many plates it read, how many matched a hotlist) rather than how it's used: how many searches officers ran and why, what the audits found, and who outside the department searched our data. Misuse happens in searches, so that's what residents most need to see.
Private cameras play by their own rules. Police can search privately owned Flock cameras across the city.
The Flock Question
Council Member Richard Borlaza asked why Flock, a vendor whose cameras here are owned by private businesses, draws more criticism than the city's own systems. The Chief said she couldn't speak in detail about a system the city doesn't own or operate. She said she judges the department's own systems by their governance, safeguards, and accountability, in a way that's "almost vendor agnostic," and stressed that "we own our own data." Police can still search the Flock cameras. Where they go and how long their data is kept is up to their owners.
The concerns don't depend on the brand, either. In September 2026 testimony to a U.S. Senate subcommittee, security researcher Benn Jordan urged Congress to apply any rules for Flock to other camera networks, including Axon, which Overland Park uses (Atlanta News First). There's no safe vendor, only safe rules.
The camera is the least of it. The real issue is how much data about residents gets collected and kept.
Beyond License Plates
Borlaza also asked what the "additional details" field in the search tool can look for. Police Major Keith Jenkins said it can search for things like a roof rack or a window sticker. It doesn't work well at night or after snow, but the capability is there.
Under Kansas law, what makes a camera a plate reader is the software running on it. As software improves, the line between ordinary cameras and plate readers gets thinner. That's why we think the rules should follow the data, not the device.
What We're Asking For
Residents who aren't suspected of anything shouldn't have their movements recorded and stored by their government. These tools are already part of how Overland Park keeps people safe, so we're starting with the strongest protections we can put in place now: rules for automated resident data collection set by elected officials, independent review of how the data is searched, minimum standards for any agency we share data with, the same standards for every camera the police can access, and regular public reporting on how these systems are used. Those rules should be a floor, not a ceiling.