The Hudson County Board of Commissioners are holding off on allowing Weehawken to install automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras on light poles under county jurisdiction over immigration enforcement/privacy concerns raised at yesterday’s meeting.
By Dan Israel/Hudson County View
The resolution was carried unanimously (9-0) to the next meeting at the request of Commissioner Bill O’Dea (D-2) after thorough discussion of the topic between residents, the board, and County Counsel Alberico De Pierro.
Officials said that this was just granting permission for Weehawken to install their ALPR cameras, noting that the equipment belongs to the township, not the county.
“Having spoken to law enforcement, I fully understand that there’s a process in place if a request is made for data,” West New York resident Mark Bloomberg stated during public comment.
“But the way a lot of these systems are designed is that external parties can just make their own requests. You can be law enforcement in Illinois or in Texas and you just go into the database and you basically just put a request in because all of this information is sitting out on a cloud.”
He had previously raised privacy concerns to the board over ALPR cameras and their use in immigration enforcement, inquired if the board did their due diligence with Weehawken before approving this resolution.
He asked the board to table the resolution and do more research on the privacy implications in this instance and regarding ALPR cameras in general, contrasting it to the county’s recent efforts to combat U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions.
“The Privacy Protection Act included in any of these agreements moving forward, including this one, if approved, the law department has drafted an acknowledgement that will require the municipality to sign off that they will comply with the Privacy Protection Act and not share,” Bloomberg also said.
“It says, ‘By signing this acknowledgment form, you acknowledge that your municipality shall comply with the act and agree not to share any information collected by the municipality’s ALPR cameras with any immigration enforcement agency, including ICE, for civil immigration purposes.’”
Jersey City resident Courtney Walker noted that the Privacy Protection Act has two loopholes in it, one related to the ALPR cameras.
According to Walker, the bill allows New Jersey to share ALPR camera data with out-of-state and federal agencies for any criminal investigation, without a judicial warrant, creating implications beyond immigrants to women and the LGBTQ+ community- particularly when it comes to healthcare.
“Reproductive healthcare, gender-affirming care, and immigration services are all legal in New Jersey, but they’re crimes in other states,” she exclaimed.
“So those seeking gender-affirming care or abortion access in New Jersey could be targeted by federal authorities if they’re coming from a state where those are outlawed.”
Walker cited examples that people coming from states like Texas for abortions or gender-affirming care could be targeted using these ALPR cameras, underscoring the need to pass state legislation to close this loophole.
“If somebody wants an abortion coming from Texas and comes to Jersey, federal authorities can just look up that information in this license plate reader system potentially, and that Privacy Protection Act didn’t protect us from it,” she continued.
“There is a law in the state legislature which Raj Mukherji is the second prime sponsor on, which would close this loophole potentially, but again, that’s what’s at risk if we approve automatic license plate readers from now on. So I just want to emphasize, it’s not just an immigration issue, it’s a healthcare issue as well.”
Board Chair Anthony Romano (D-5) was initially concerned by advocates detraction of ALPRs for law enforcement actions.
He called them an important tool for preventing the transfer of drugs across state lines, noting he used to work narcotics back when he was on the force.
“I understand all the concerns and … I know that no officer in this county will intentionally violate the [state] Attorney General’s guideline order or the county’s guideline,” Romano stated.
“But with regards to … that information, we’re going to follow … as Alberico said, whatever we’re told to do to ensure there is no violation.”
Walker countered that President Donald Trump’s (R) administration is not focused on narcotics instead targeting immigrants, women, and the LGBTQ+ community.
In response, Romano quipped that that doesn’t mean the county can stop Weehawken from implementing the ALPR cameras considering their proximity to the Lincoln Tunnel.
While Romano insisted “there’s a balance,” Walker retorted that “you’re putting peoples’ lives at risk,” to which he fired back it goes “both ways” – insinuating that hindering narcotics enforcement also puts peoples’ lives at risk.
“I would love to know the magnitude of how effective those actually are in capturing. That’s the balance and risk you have to weigh. You have to be aware of that,” Walker concluded.
De Pierro reiterated that the county is following the law as signed by Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D), and that if there are any changes, the county will amend their acknowledgement form.
While Romano and Commissioner Al Cifelli (D-9) stated that the ALPR cameras in police cars only stop if the system flags a license plate and questioned how long that data was stored, De Pierro told them he “can’t speak intelligently on the topic without doing some research.”
However, that was not enough for O’Dea to vote on the resolution instead of carrying, who turned quickly looked up on ChatGPT on his phone that many departments keep the data from anywhere from 30 to 90 days.
De Pierro cast doubt on the accuracy of the information from ChatGPT, but O’Dea retorted that “if you’re not willing to carry an item to do legal research, I’m limited to what information I can get in there minutes.”
“I said I’ll gladly do the research,” De Pierro stated firmly.
“Let’s table the resolution then,” O’Dea suggested.
O’Dea motioned to carry the resolution to the next meeting later in April, which was seconded by Cifelli and approved by most of the board 7-1(1).
Commissioner Caridad Rodriguez (D-7) abstained and Romano voted no because “they’re not our cameras.”
Since it was carried, Romano then suggested that representatives from Weehawken and the Police Chief’s Association attend the next meeting to shed light on the topic.
Later in the meeting, Romano told the Board Secretary Carol Jean Doyle, also the Kearny mayor, that he and Rodriguez were changing their votes to support carrying the resolution to the next meeting, making it unanimous approval (9-0).
 cameras over ICE/privacy concerns raised.){kind=link}
Are these license plates readers for moving violations or parking violations?
The resolution doesn’t indicate what they would be used for, but the cameras would be mounted on street lights near the Park Ave and Willow St bridges. I don’t think NJ issues moving violations using remote cameras, so it’s possible these are for general surveillance and crime investigations.