Overland Park Real-Time Information Center (RTIC)
To: Mayor, City Council, and Residents of Overland Park
Subject: Building a National Model for Accountable Police Technology
Prepared by: Overland Park Voice
The Overland Park Real-Time Information Center (RTIC) is a major investment in our city's safety. This proposal ensures that this new technology works for everyone by establishing clear rules for oversight, data ownership, and privacy.
Four Key Pillars:
Overland Park is making a significant investment in police modernization, integrating drones, license plate readers (LPRs), body cameras, and private camera feeds into a centralized "Real-Time Information Center" (RTIC) powered by Axon Fusus. This new tool positions the city to supplement existing public safety operations with additional capability, particularly as the Kansas City metro prepares for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
With that investment comes an opportunity. Over two dozen municipalities nationwide, from Oakland to Boston to Madison, have adopted governance frameworks for exactly this kind of technology. None of them are in Kansas. Overland Park can be the first, and the work happening here can serve as a model for the region and the state.
Strong governance is not an obstacle to effective policing. It is the foundation of public trust that makes effective policing possible. The proposals below are offered in the spirit of building that foundation together.
To ensure clear enforcement, the following terms are defined for purposes of this Ordinance:
Part I
As the RTIC comes online, formalizing its governance through the Council creates democratic legitimacy, clear expectations for the Police Department, and a framework the public can have confidence in.
A formal Council authorization establishes clear operating conditions and creates a structured review process. This protects the Police Department by giving them a defined mandate, and it protects residents by ensuring ongoing accountability.
A clear, public accounting of what the RTIC does and how it works builds community understanding and confidence. It also provides the Council with the information needed to make informed decisions about the system's future.
Vendor software updates can introduce significant new capabilities like predictive modeling, geofencing, or behavioral analytics that may fundamentally change the nature of the tool. A structured notification process ensures the Council and public stay informed as the technology evolves, rather than discovering new capabilities after the fact.
An advisory panel provides the Council with independent technical perspective and gives residents a structured role in oversight. This model has worked effectively in other cities when designed to complement the Council's decision-making authority rather than duplicate it.
During fast-moving, high-stakes incidents such as active shooters, pursuits, hostage situations, and other critical events, the RTIC provides officers with an additional source of real-time information that supplements existing response capabilities. This section ensures the tool integrates smoothly into those existing operations without unnecessary friction, while maintaining a lightweight accountability process that protects officers by documenting lawful use.
Proposed Requirement:
(a) Definition of Active Incident. For purposes of this Ordinance, an "Active Incident" is any event in which: (1) there is an imminent threat to life or serious bodily harm; (2) a violent felony is in progress or has just occurred and the suspect remains at large; (3) a pursuit, barricade, hostage situation, or other critical incident is underway as defined by existing Department policy; or (4) a multi-agency emergency response has been activated in direct response to conditions described in items (1) through (3). Planned events, parades, VIP visits, protests, routine mutual aid operations, and multi-agency coordination not arising from an imminent threat to life do not qualify.
(b) Operational Authority During Active Incidents. During an Active Incident, the following provisions are suspended for the duration of the incident:
(c) Provisions That Remain in Effect. The following provisions are never suspended, including during Active Incidents:
(d) After-Action Documentation. Within seventy-two (72) hours of the conclusion of any Active Incident in which RTIC assets were utilized, the Police Department shall file an after-action summary with the Civilian Technology Advisory Panel. The summary shall include: (1) the nature and duration of the incident; (2) which RTIC capabilities were utilized; (3) the retroactive Case Number or CAD ID; and (4) identification of any provisions that were suspended under subsection (b) and the justification for each.
(e) Abuse Prevention. The Active Incident designation shall not be used to circumvent the routine governance provisions of this Ordinance. If the Civilian Technology Advisory Panel identifies a pattern of Active Incident designations that appears inconsistent with subsection (a), it shall refer the matter to the Council with a written recommendation. The Annual Transparency Report (Section 19) shall include the total number of Active Incident designations invoked during the reporting period.
Part II
The shift from on-premise servers to cloud-native systems means City data lives on third-party servers. Sound vendor management protects the City's fiscal interests, legal position, and residents' privacy. The introduction of AI analytics means vendor systems now generate new categories of data (Derived Data) from the raw inputs the City provides. Governance must cover both.
Clear contractual data ownership protects the City from vendor practices like using municipal data for AI training or resale. Equally important, when the City directs data to be deleted, there must be a mechanism to verify that the vendor has actually complied.
(a) Ownership. The City of Overland Park retains 100% exclusive ownership of all data collected by or through the RTIC, including all Derived Data as defined in Section 0. The vendor is contractually prohibited from accessing, viewing, analyzing, or using any video, audio, metadata, or Derived Data for product development, AI training, marketing, or resale. This prohibition applies to both raw and "anonymized" data. Violation constitutes a material breach of contract.
(b) Vendor Deletion Verification. Upon any deletion required by the Retention and Deletion Schedule (Section 18), the vendor shall provide the City with a written certification of hard-deletion confirming that the specified data, including all copies, backups, archives, and Derived Data generated from the specified source, has been permanently destroyed from all vendor systems. These certifications shall be: (1) logged in the immutable audit trail; (2) provided to the Civilian Technology Advisory Panel on a monthly basis; and (3) subject to audit by the City Auditor upon request. Failure to provide timely certification constitutes a material breach of contract.
Ensuring data portability protects the City's ability to negotiate competitively and switch providers if a better option emerges.
Clear rules for external data sharing protect the City's legal position, particularly during periods of heightened federal agency presence such as the World Cup.
Defining the boundary between the RTIC's own data collection and commercially purchased data ensures the tool's scope remains consistent with what the Council authorized.
Part III
The RTIC's reach extends beyond city-owned cameras. When private businesses and individuals voluntarily connect their feeds to the police network, transparency about those partnerships builds trust with the broader community.
A publicly accessible registry allows residents to understand the scope of the camera network and gives participating businesses and individuals clarity about their role.
Private surveillance vendors, including Flock Safety, Ring/Amazon Neighbors, and community camera partnership programs, maintain their own law enforcement access portals. Without this provision, an officer could bypass every safeguard in this Ordinance by querying a vendor's platform directly.
Proposed Requirement: No member of the Overland Park Police Department or any City employee shall access surveillance data collected within Overland Park city limits through any third-party vendor portal, law enforcement partnership program, or direct data-sharing arrangement unless:
(a) The access is documented with a valid Case Number or CAD ID, consistent with Section 14;
(b) The access is logged and provided to the Advisory Panel monthly and included in the Annual Transparency Report;
(c) The third-party platform and data accessed are disclosed in the Surveillance Impact Report;
(d) Any new vendor relationship providing access to local surveillance data requires Council notification within thirty (30) days.
Surveillance data collected within Overland Park, accessed by Overland Park personnel, is subject to Overland Park governance, regardless of which platform is used to access it.
Private surveillance infrastructure routinely captures footage of neighboring residential properties, public sidewalks, and streets. When this footage is made available to law enforcement, residents whose property or movements were incidentally captured have no notice, no consent mechanism, and no recourse. To protect the privacy of neighbors, we require four distinct protections:
(a) Field-of-View Disclosure: Any private camera feed integrated into the RTIC shall include, in the public registry, a general description of the camera's field of view. If it captures residential property beyond the owner's parcel, the City shall notify affected neighbors within thirty (30) days. Affected residents may object to the Advisory Panel.
(b) Third-Party Footage Requests: Any request for private footage shall be: (1) linked to a valid Case Number or CAD ID; (2) logged with the requesting officer's identity, the source, the date range, and the disposition; (3) included in aggregate form in the Annual Transparency Report.
(c) Bulk Access Prohibition: OPPD shall not participate in any program providing standing, automated, or bulk access to residential camera footage without individualized case-based requests.
(d) Vendor Disclosure Requirement: The Surveillance Impact Report shall disclose all active relationships with private surveillance vendors, including the name, data type, and terms of access.
Part IV
The RTIC introduces algorithmically generated alerts, pattern matches, and automated flags into police operations. These outputs need to integrate into existing evidentiary and procedural standards rather than creating shortcuts around them.
Facial recognition technology is uniquely invasive. It converts every camera in the network into an identity checkpoint, carries documented accuracy disparities across demographic groups, and creates a capacity for mass identification that cannot be effectively constrained through use policies alone. Cities including San Francisco, Boston, and Portland have adopted this prohibition.
Requiring a case number or dispatch ID for database queries is consistent with evidence management best practices and ensures the tool is used for investigations, not general surveillance.
Requiring corroboration ensures this new tool's outputs integrate into existing evidentiary standards rather than creating a lower threshold for enforcement action. It also protects officers and the City from liability arising from AI errors.
Explicit protections for constitutionally protected activity are standard practice in surveillance governance frameworks nationwide.
Part V
Accountability mechanisms protect the public, the Police Department, and the City's elected officials by ensuring that the governance framework operates as intended. This Part includes both system-level accountability (audit logs, transparency reports, evidentiary exclusion) and personal accountability (discipline referrals, private right of action) to ensure the framework has real enforceability.
An independent audit trail is the foundation of every other accountability measure in this framework.
A tiered approach balances investigative needs with residents' privacy. This schedule applies equally to raw data and to Derived Data.
Proposed Requirement: Data retention shall follow a tiered schedule based on evidentiary status:
"Hard-deletion" means cryptographic destruction of the files, not merely removal from a search index. Vendor deletion certifications are required under Section 6(b).
Public reporting on the tool's effectiveness serves everyone's interests. The report must be published on the City's website at least 30 days before the Council's review hearing. It must include:
Clear rules for body camera integration protect both officers' operational needs and residents' expectations under the Kansas Open Records Act.
When external agencies operate within Overland Park or access RTIC data, clear rules protect the City's legal position. This is particularly important during the World Cup.
An evidentiary exclusion provision gives the ordinance enforceability in municipal court proceedings.
The rules in this proposal only matter if breaking them has real consequences for the department and for individuals.
(a) Private Right of Action: Any resident whose data is collected, retained, shared, or accessed in violation of this framework may bring a civil action against the City or the individual officer responsible. This right exists regardless of whether criminal charges are filed and regardless of which court handles any related criminal case. This is modeled on Oakland, California's surveillance oversight ordinance.
(b) Mandatory Discipline Referral: Any officer or City employee found through the audit log or Advisory Panel review to have violated the access rules will be referred to Internal Affairs for investigation and, where applicable, referred for criminal prosecution. This is not discretionary. The referral is automatic upon a finding of violation.
(c) Whistleblower Protection: City employees who report violations of this framework in good faith are protected from retaliation.
Phase 1: Immediate
Council authorization, facial recognition ban, audit logs active, data sharing firewall operative, parallel access prohibition in effect, private right of action takes effect.
Phase 2: Within 6 Months
Civilian Panel seated, Private Camera Registry published, vendor contracts reviewed for data ownership and proof-of-deletion compliance, retention schedule implemented, discipline referral process operative.
Phase 3: Within 24 Months
First full public review, Surveillance Impact Report, and Annual Transparency Report published. Data broker audit completed. Full ordinance review based on operational experience.
Overland Park has always taken pride in being well-managed. This proposal extends that principle to one of the most consequential technology investments the city has made.
The RTIC is a powerful new tool. Like any tool adopted by a well-run department, it works best when it operates within a clear framework. The governance outlined here does not change how officers do their jobs. It ensures that a new capability, one that collects significant amounts of data about residents, integrates into the department's existing standards of accountability rather than operating outside them.
By building governance alongside capability, Overland Park can become the first city in Kansas to adopt a comprehensive surveillance accountability framework, demonstrating that strong communities are built on both safety and trust.
The goal is straightforward: make sure the tools built to protect this community can never be turned against the people who built it.
Appendix
To illustrate how the governance framework operates alongside existing police operations, the following scenarios walk through two common use cases: one emergency and one routine.
3:42 PM.
911 calls report an active shooter at a shopping center in Ward 3. Officers respond immediately using existing training, protocols, and dispatch procedures.
What the RTIC adds:
RTIC analysts pull live feeds from connected cameras, deploy drone assets, and query LPR data for fleeing vehicles. An analyst relays supplemental information to officers in the field.
What governance applies:
This is an Active Incident under Section 5(a)(1). Officers access feeds without pausing to enter a case number (assigned retroactively within four hours). The audit log captures everything automatically. Facial recognition remains prohibited. Within 72 hours, an after-action summary is filed with the Advisory Panel.
What happens to the data afterward:
Unflagged footage and LPR data follow the standard retention schedule. Derived Data is deleted on the same schedule as its source. Data flagged to the investigation is retained per the tiered schedule. The vendor provides deletion certifications.
Bottom line:
The governance framework imposes zero delay on emergency response. What it adds is automatic logging that protects officers, a lightweight after-action report, and a clear data lifecycle.
Monday morning.
OPPD detectives are assigned to a pattern of catalytic converter thefts across Wards 2 and 4. There is no active incident. Detectives investigate using standard methods.
What the RTIC adds:
A detective reviews LPR data and camera footage from the areas and timeframes where thefts occurred, looking for vehicle patterns.
What governance applies:
This is routine use. The detective enters a Case Number before querying (Section 14). The query is logged (Section 17). If an LPR alert matches a suspect vehicle, the detective corroborates with at least one independent data point before initiating a stop (Section 15).
What happens to the data afterward:
Unflagged data continues to be deleted on schedule. Flagged data is retained for the case duration plus one year, but no longer than three years without a court order.
Bottom line:
The governance framework adds a case number entry and logging, plus a clear chain of custody that will hold up in court and protection for the department from evidentiary challenges.
| Active Incident | Routine Use | |
|---|---|---|
| Officers respond using | Existing training & protocols | Standard investigative methods |
| RTIC provides | Additional real-time information | Additional investigative leads |
| Real-time feed access | Unrestricted | Case number required |
| LPR / algorithmic alerts | Act under existing standards | Corroboration required |
| Body cam live-streaming | Permitted | Not permitted |
| Facial recognition | Prohibited | Prohibited |
| Audit logging | Automatic (always on) | Automatic (always on) |
| Derived Data deletion | Same schedule as source data | Same schedule as source data |
| After-action documentation | Required within 72 hours | Standard case documentation |
| Retention ceiling | Applies (with court order extension) | Applies (with court order extension) |
This distinction ensures that the RTIC operates smoothly when it can add the most value, while maintaining accountability for the routine, day-to-day queries that make up the vast majority of the tool's use.
This document is offered as a public resource for residents of Overland Park. It is not affiliated with any political party or campaign.
© 2026 Overland Park Voice. All rights reserved.
Visit opvoice.org for more information.