East Windsor debates automated enforcement and an unregistered-vehicle program amid privacy concerns

The Board of Selectmen spent substantial time on June 4 considering two related enforcement proposals: a vendor-run program to identify unregistered or improperly registered motor vehicles and a draft ordinance authorizing automated traffic enforcement and specifying data retention and permitted uses of revenue.

Supporters, led by the town assessor (Ellen), said privately contracted firms using license-plate readers (LPRs) can identify vehicles that appear to be registered out of state but that are domiciled in East Windsor and therefore taxable; the companies would investigate and present findings to the assessor for inclusion on the grand list. The assessor said two firms currently offer the service in Connecticut and that they typically work on a commission basis and charge an additional fee to the taxpayer, meaning no up-front cost to the town. “They determine ownership and residency over a 90-day period of any questionable vehicles,” the assessor said, noting some neighboring towns have recently adopted similar programs.

Opponents raised privacy and equity concerns and urged caution. One selectman called the program “a fishing expedition” that would subject residents to pervasive surveillance; another asked whether the same results could be achieved through improved cross‑state data sharing and targeted investigations. Residents at the meeting pointed out legitimate out‑of‑state residency patterns — for example, seasonal workers or homeowners who commute — that the program must not misclassify.

Those privacy concerns carried into the separate discussion about automated traffic enforcement. Deputy Chief Murphy and police staff reviewed a draft ordinance that would allow automated speed enforcement and define how fine revenue may be used. The key contested points were data-retention limits and permitted uses: a provision requiring deletion of images after 30 days was questioned because state law allows retention up to one year for similar systems; several board members recommended aligning the ordinance with state statute. Police and staff urged including allowable uses such as road safety projects, traffic-calming infrastructure, driver education, and limited funding for administration or overtime, while also adding explicit prohibitions on commercial use and broad data-sharing.

Board members proposed practical safeguards: require independent audits of vendor compliance, spell out an appeals process with evening and online hearing options so residents can contest citations, and set clear policies on what analytic data the town may keep. Several members requested information from Vernon (which launched a comparable program in April) before deciding whether to hire a vendor; the chair said the town would revisit the subject after reviewing Vernon’s experience.

The meeting produced no final vote on adopting either policy. Staff will gather follow-up data — including Vernon’s experience, fee structures, vendor data-handling practices and statutory language — and bring a revised draft and options back to the board.

What happens next: The board deferred both decisions pending additional information from other towns and clarification of statutory requirements for retention and allowable uses of the data. If the town proceeds, language on retention, vendor auditing, appeals, and explicit prohibitions on non‑law‑enforcement uses will be prioritized.

Quotes: “They determine ownership and residency over a 90-day period of any questionable vehicles,” the assessor said of vendor investigations. Deputy Chief Murphy warned the program “has a potential to generate a lot of revenue” but emphasized the need for transparency and statutory compliance.

Ending: No ordinance was adopted; the board asked staff to gather more data from comparable towns, consult relevant state statute, and return with clearer options and vendor proposals.