Sacramento County Grand Jury
• 2023-2024
• Agency Response
Response to:
Keep Your Eyes Off My Privacy!
Sacramento County Sheriff's Office Jim Cooper Sheriff August 12, 2024 The Honorable Bunmi Awoniyi Presiding Judge*
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F2
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
SSO's practice of sharing ALPR information with out-of-state entities violated SB 34 and unreasonably risked the aiding of potential prosecution by the home-state of women who traveled to California to seek or receive healthcare services. Response to Finding 1: The SSO disagrees with the findings. We do not allow out-of-state or Federal agencies access to our ALPR information. The SSO is committed to using ALPR technology for legitimate law enforcement purposes and in compliance with the 2020 audit report. REFER ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO SHERIFF'S OFFICE • 4500 ORANGE GROVE AVENUE • SACRAMENTO, CA 95841-4205
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The SSO should update and post its policies and procedures conspicuously on its website to reflect its change in policy to no longer share ALPR data with out-of-state LEAs or the federal government no later than October 1, 2024.
F3
SSO's failure to require case number entries with sufficient specificity to track the validity of the request puts ALPR information at risk for unauthorized access, misuse, or disclosure. Response to finding 3: The SSO disagrees partially with the finding. All users must enter a case number or reason for their inquiry. There is no mechanism in the system to bypass user error. Training and audits are the only available means to ensure justification and, if applicable, case information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The SSO and other Sacramento County ALPR system administrators should require sufficient and verifiable information which will enable complete and accurate audits on all ALPR data requests no later than January 1, 2025.
F4
SSO conducts periodic cursory internal audits of their data, equipment, and processes that do not adequately protect an individual's privacy. The audits are not scheduled or consistent, thereby raising the risk of misuse and abuse of the data. Response to Finding 4: The SSO partially disagrees with the findings. SSO currently conducts annual audits, which are scheduled at regular intervals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The SSO should administer quarterly internal audits of ALPR data requests to include user searches and utilize a third-party, external entity to conduct annual audits beginning January 1, 2025. Audit results should be posted conspicuously on the agencies website no later than thirty days after each internal and external audit.
F5
SB 34 requires local LEAs to make their ALPR policies available to the public and post it conspicuously on the agency's website. The failure of most local LEAs to clearly post ALPR policies that can be easily found by the public is noncompliant with California state law. Response to Finding 5: The SSO disagrees with the findings. SSO ALPR policy is posted online under our transparency page. A "Sacramento Sheriff ALPR" web search will direct you to our current policy. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
All Sacramento LEAs should ensure that their ALPR policies are made available to the public and posted conspicuously on the agencies' websites no later than January 1, 2025.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.