Central Oregon  ·  Action Guide
Share Freely
Show Up · June 3, 2026

Two meetings. One day.
Both decide.

On Wednesday, June 3, both the Deschutes County Commissioners and the Bend City Council will face decisions on expanding surveillance technology. This guide tells you where to be, what to say, and how to be heard at each.

A Bend Privacy Alliance action guide Read time: 6 min

Every surveillance technology decision in Central Oregon over the next year will set a precedent for the decisions after it. The Sheriff's Office is asking the County to authorize a $2.4 million Axon contract that may include license plate readers. The City of Bend is considering reinstalling fixed ALPR cameras while its own ALPR policy remains inadequate. Both decisions move on June 3.

The County deferred its Axon contract on May 27 because people spoke up. The City Council committed to a public comment period before voting on its new ALPR contract because people spoke up. Showing up works. The next round is in a week.

What's on the line. Once cloud-connected camera and ALPR infrastructure is in place, expanding it gets easier with every contract renewal. The rules need to come before the cameras, not after. Both chambers can still do that. Whether they do depends on whether residents show up.

The IssueWhat is happening, briefly

Deschutes County: On May 27, the Board of County Commissioners deferred Contract No. 2026-0327 — a five-year, $2,412,669 agreement with Axon for body-worn cameras, Tasers, and fleet cameras for the Sheriff's Office. The staff report did not disclose whether the fleet cameras include Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) capability. DCSO has stated it does not currently use ALPR. Axon's Fleet 3 product line is ALPR-equipped. The County has no public ALPR policy. The contract is expected to return on June 3.

City of Bend: The City is considering re-installing fixed-location ALPR cameras (the system was previously operated through Flock Safety and dismantled after federal immigration authorities queried it 279 times in three weeks via a vendor default setting). Bend PD has submitted a new ALPR policy (Policy 428) for adoption. The policy as written has multiple gaps relative to SB 1516, including overbroad parking-use authorizations, 30-day retention of all plate reads, no real limits on outside-agency access, and enforcement uses that sweep in uninsured drivers.

The connecting thread: Oregon's SB 1516, signed March 31, 2026, sets a statutory floor for ALPR use but leaves most meaningful choices to local government. The Oregon Chief Information Security Officer has testified that Axon's cloud architecture does not let agencies hold their own encryption keys. On May 5, 2026, a lawsuit was filed alleging Oregon State Police permitted federal immigration authorities to query state law enforcement databases approximately 1.4 million times in the past year. Local agencies' ALPR systems automatically feed those same databases. The County and the City are each making decisions inside this environment.

The three asks · same for both chambers

What to ask both chambers to do.

1
Adopt a public-facing ALPR policy that complies with SB 1516, before any deployment. The County has no policy at all. The City has Policy 428, which is inadequate. Either way, the policy should be public, posted for comment, and adopted before any ALPR-capable system is acquired or activated.
2
Do not approve new surveillance contracts until the policy is in place. The cameras and the rules governing them should be approved together, not the cameras first and the rules later. Contract No. 2026-0327 should wait. Any new City ALPR contract should wait.
3
Adopt a surveillance technology ordinance. Each chamber needs a framework that requires elected-body approval — with public notice and comment — before any new surveillance technology is acquired, expanded, or upgraded. Not a piecemeal policy for each new system, after the contract is signed. Bend Privacy Alliance's Surveillance Technology Accountability Ordinance and Procurement Framework offer a starting template.

Chamber OneDeschutes County Commissioners

In person, by Zoom, or by email
BOCC Business Meeting
Wednesday, June 3 · 9:00 AM
Where
Barnes Sawyer Rooms, Deschutes Services Building, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend
Watch (no participation)
YouTube livestream: bit.ly/3mmlnzy
Attend by Zoom (with ability to comment)
Computer: bit.ly/4bXfL6g
Phone: 253-215-8782, Webinar ID 160 497 4576
Raise hand via the icon (browser) or press *9 (phone). Press *6 to unmute when called on.
Written comment
Email citizeninput@deschutes.org by noon Tuesday, June 2 for inclusion in the meeting record. Voicemail: 541-385-1734.
Time limit
3 minutes per speaker
Sample spoken comment · 3 minutes

Chair Chang, Vice Chair DeBone, Commissioner Adair — my name is [name], I'm a resident of [city/area], and I'm here about Contract No. 2026-0327, the Axon procurement.

Thank you for deferring this item on May 27. That deferral was the right call. I'm asking you today to use the time it bought.

The staff report before this Board did not say whether the fleet cameras include automated license plate reader capability. On May 20, the Sheriff's Office told a local newspaper they don't currently use ALPR. The Axon Fleet 3 product line used by Bend PD, Redmond PD, and Prineville PD is ALPR-equipped. If this contract includes Fleet 3, the Board is being asked to authorize the County's first ALPR deployment.

The Deschutes County Sheriff's Office policy manual contains no policy governing ALPR. Policy 8.21 governs deputy incident recording. Policy 4.30 governs traditional database queries. Policy 4.35 governs generative AI only. None of them address bulk scanning of license plates belonging to uninvolved drivers, or hotlist alerting, or inter-agency data sharing through a vendor cloud.

This matters because last June, federal immigration authorities queried Bend PD's Flock database 279 times in three weeks through a vendor default setting. This month, Oregon State Police are being sued for permitting 1.4 million federal queries of state law enforcement databases over the past year. Axon Fleet ALPR systems automatically feed those same databases.

I'm asking the Board to do three things. First, direct the Sheriff's Office to develop a public ALPR policy that complies with SB 1516 before any ALPR-capable system is deployed. Second, do not approve Contract 2026-0327 until that policy is adopted. Third, adopt a county-wide surveillance technology ordinance so this decision is not made piecemeal, one contract at a time.

The pending federal grant decision in July provides natural breathing room. There is no operational urgency to vote before then. Thank you.

~440 words · reads in about 2:50 at a measured pace
Questions to ask the County Commissioners
  1. Does Contract No. 2026-0327 include Automated License Plate Reader hardware, software, or capability that can be activated later? If yes, please identify it specifically. If no, will the Board commit in the motion that no ALPR or vehicle analytics functions may be enabled later without separate public notice and Board approval?
  2. Does the contract include Axon Draft One or any other AI-assisted report-writing, transcription, redaction, or analytics features? If so, how does that comply with DCSO Policy 4.35, which prohibits uploading restricted, confidential, or protected data to AI tools?
  3. The staff report references an internal audit. The County Internal Auditor's December 1, 2025 report — Body-Worn and In-Car Camera Program: Foundations in Place, Improved Oversight and Reporting Needed — is publicly available. Will the Board specify which of the audit's recommendations Contract No. 2026-0327 actually implements, and which it does not? In particular, how does the contract address the "improved oversight and reporting" identified in the audit's title?
  4. Under Axon's cloud architecture, who holds the encryption keys to County data — the County or Axon? How does that comply with SB 1516?
  5. Will vendor default settings that enable federal data sharing be disabled at the contract level, rather than relying on user configuration as Bend PD's Flock deployment did?
  6. Will the Sheriff's Office commit to publishing monthly ALPR audit reports comparable to Sunriver Police Department's, if ALPR is deployed?
  7. Given that a federal Community Project Funding award is pending with results in July, what is the operational reason to authorize this contract before then?
  8. Will the Board commit to studying and adopting the ACLU's Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) framework as a model for governing County acquisition and use of surveillance technology?

Chamber TwoBend City Council

In person, by Zoom, or by email
City Council Business Meeting
Wednesday, June 3 · 6:00 PM
Where
City of Bend Council Chambers, 710 NW Wall Street, Bend
Watch and attend virtually
Livestream and virtual participation information posted with the agenda one week before the meeting at bendoregon.gov · City Council Meetings, Agendas, and Videos. Meetings are also broadcast on COTV Channel 11.
Public comment in-meeting
The Visitor's Section at the start of each regular business meeting is the time community members can address Council on any topic. You must arrive a few minutes before 6:00 PM and fill out a comment card to be called on. Council does not respond or answer questions during this section. If you are part of a group on the same subject, Council asks that one designated spokesperson speak.
Written comment
Email council@bendoregon.gov. Emails to this address are received by all Councilors and some staff. Send before the meeting for inclusion in the record.
Time limit
2 minutes per speaker
Sample spoken comment · 2 minutes

Mayor and Councilors, my name is [name], a Bend resident. I'm here about the upcoming ALPR decisions: Policy 428 and the potential reinstallation of fixed license plate readers.

Thank you for committing to a public process before voting on any new ALPR contract. I'm asking Council to use that commitment fully.

Policy 428 as submitted does not yet comply with SB 1516. It permits outside-agency sharing without the statute's narrow purpose limits. It expands the parking-use authorization beyond what state law allows. It keeps every plate read for 30 days, the statutory maximum, when 72 hours would still allow real-time alerts with far less surveillance overhead. It authorizes plate-reader enforcement against uninsured drivers — an optional use the statute permits but does not require. The statute is a floor. Bend can set a higher local standard.

This matters here because we know the failure mode. Last June, federal immigration authorities queried our previous Flock system 279 times in three weeks because a vendor default was not disabled. Oregon State Police are now being sued for permitting 1.4 million federal queries of state databases this past year. The infrastructure leaks.

Three asks. First, do not adopt Policy 428 without a full public hearing and amendments to align with SB 1516's intent. Second, do not approve any new ALPR system until the policy is fixed. Third, adopt a citywide surveillance technology ordinance that requires Council approval — with public notice and comment — before any new surveillance technology is acquired, expanded, or upgraded.

Thank you.

~290 words · reads in about 1:55 at a measured pace
Questions to ask the City Council
  1. Will Council commit to a noticed public hearing on Policy 428 before adoption, separate from the Visitor's Section?
  2. SB 1516 limits ALPR sharing with federal and out-of-state agencies to narrow, purpose-limited circumstances. Where in Policy 428 is that limitation made operational, and what happens when a federal request does not meet it?
  3. The statute permits ALPR use for "regulating the use of parking facilities." Policy 428 expands this to "parking regulation and the management of parking facilities." What does the second clause authorize that the first does not, and is Council comfortable with that scope?
  4. Why is the data retention period set at 30 days — the statutory maximum — rather than a shorter period like 72 hours that would still support real-time alerts?
  5. Under Axon's cloud architecture, who holds the encryption keys to the City's plate data — the City or Axon? How does that comply with SB 1516?
  6. Will any new ALPR deployment include a commitment to publish monthly audit reports, comparable to Sunriver Police Department's?
  7. What process will Council use to ensure that vendor default settings enabling federal data sharing are disabled at the contract level, given what happened with the Flock deployment in June 2025?
  8. Will Council direct staff to develop a citywide surveillance technology acquisition ordinance, so future decisions are governed by a public framework rather than reviewed contract by contract?
  9. Will Council commit to studying and adopting the ACLU's Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) framework as a model for governing City acquisition and use of surveillance technology?
Email the County Email the City

If you only do one thing, write an email. The County address is citizeninput@deschutes.org by noon Tuesday, June 2. The City address is council@bendoregon.gov any time before the meeting. Two sentences is enough. "I want clear rules before the cameras go up" is a complete statement.

If you can do two things, attend one of the meetings remotely. The County is at 9 AM by Zoom. The City is at 6 PM — if attending in person, arrive a few minutes early and fill out a comment card. Virtual options for the City are posted with the agenda the week before. You do not need to be an expert. You do not need to read from a script. Showing up is the thing.

If you can do three things, forward this to people in Bend and Deschutes County. The May 27 deferral happened because people knew it was happening. The next vote will go the same way — or not — for the same reason.

Bend Privacy Alliance — Bend Surveillance Oversight — Privacy, Transparency, Civil Rights
Bend Privacy Alliance · Share freely · No copyright claimed
What to Know Before You Go — Bend Surveillance Oversight
Bend, Oregon  ·  Public Notice
Share Freely
What to Know Before You Go

The City is moving on surveillance.
Are you?

Bend is considering fixed automated license plate readers at the same time the Police Department has submitted an ALPR policy that does not yet protect the public. The two decisions are happening in parallel. The public should not be silent.

A Bend resident's call to show up · June 3 Read time: 4 min

Modern police camera systems are not just cameras. They produce location data, store it in vendor-controlled cloud platforms, and can be searched, shared, and connected to other systems long after the original purchase. Once the infrastructure is in place, expanding it gets easier with every contract renewal and software update.

That is why the rules matter before deployment, not after. And right now, two things are moving at once in Bend.

First, the City has been evaluating Axon's fixed-location automated license plate reader cameras — the kind that scan every passing vehicle and record where it was, when, and where it was going. Second, the Bend Police Department has submitted a new ALPR policy (Policy 428) for adoption.

If the cameras get approved while the policy is still inadequate, Bend will be left with a powerful tracking system and rules that do not match the technology. That is the moment to speak up. Not after.

Nobody is watching the watchers. Oregon's SB 1516 sets the statutory floor for ALPR use, but it leaves most of the meaningful choices to local government. Bend gets to decide whether to take the broadest uses state law still allows, or to set a higher local standard. That choice is being made right now.

Section OneWhy Policy 428 doesn't yet protect the public

A line-by-line comparison of Policy 428 against SB 1516 turns up multiple places where the policy either omits requirements the statute imposes or adopts the most expansive reading of what the statute allows. Four of the clearest:

01

Outside-agency access has no real limits

SB 1516 says Bend cannot share license plate data with federal or out-of-state agencies except in narrow, purpose-limited circumstances — with no unrestricted or ongoing access. Policy 428 does not say that. As written, it could allow much broader sharing than the statute permits.

02

The parking-use authorization is broader than state law

The statute permits ALPR use for "regulating the use of parking facilities" — one bounded purpose. Policy 428 expands this to "parking regulation and the management of parking facilities" — two distinct authorizations joined together. That extra phrase could justify routine plate scanning across neighborhoods, parks, and event areas, far beyond a parking lot.

03

Administrative uses sweep in everyday drivers

Policy 428 authorizes ALPR use to identify uninsured and unregistered vehicles. The statute permits this but does not require it. Automated scanning for these conditions risks turning the system into a poverty-enforcement tool, with the heaviest burden falling on residents who are uninsured because they cannot afford insurance, registration fees, or repairs. Bend can choose not to do this.

04

Data is kept for 30 days — even if you've done nothing wrong

Policy 428 keeps every plate read for 30 days, the maximum SB 1516 allows. There is no requirement to keep non-hit data that long. A shorter retention period — 72 hours, for example — would still let officers act on real-time alerts while dramatically reducing the risk of misuse, breach, fishing expeditions, and retrospective tracking of people not suspected of anything.

These are not the only issues. There are missing security-incident notification requirements. Missing audit-log fields the statute requires. No definitions section. No reference to the private right of action SB 1516 gives Oregonians against vendors who misuse data. The full list is in the formal Council comments. But these four are concrete enough to talk about at a public meeting.

What to ask Council to do

Three things, before the cameras go up.

1
Do not accept Policy 428 without a public hearing and public comment. A policy this consequential should not be adopted without giving residents a real chance to be heard on the record.
2
Do not approve any new ALPR system until the policy is amended. New cameras should not be deployed while the rules governing them are inadequate. Fix the rules first.
3
Adopt a surveillance ordinance that protects the public. Bend needs a citywide framework that requires Council approval before any new surveillance technology is acquired, expanded, or upgraded — not a piecemeal policy for each new system, after the contract is already signed.

How to show up.

In Person
June 3 City Council Business Meeting
Show up for public comment. You do not need to be an expert. "I want clear rules before the cameras go up" is a complete statement.
By Email
Write to Council directly
council@bendoregon.gov
Together
Forward this to people in Bend
Most residents have no idea this is moving. The biggest reason these things slide through is that nobody knew they were happening.
Email Council Now

This is not about whether police should have tools. It is about whether the public gets a say in how those tools are governed. Body cameras can serve accountability. Patrol vehicle cameras can serve safety. But when those systems are connected to vendor-controlled cloud platforms, AI tools, license plate readers, and broader data-sharing networks, the public deserves clear rules before the technology expands.

Powerful public safety tools should answer to public rules. That is not anti-police. That is responsible governance.

If you read nothing else from this page, remember: June 3, City Council Business Meeting, public comment. Show up. Or write. Or forward this. Any of the three counts.

Share freely · No copyright claimed on this page

Your Page Header Title

Section Image