On the agenda: Wilmette meeting — Automated License Plate (Sep 10)

1. Agenda - Revised
Documents:
2026-09-10 - PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AGENDA.PDF
2. Packet
Documents:
2026-09-10 - PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE PACKET.PDF
3. 09-10-26 Public Safety Committee Additional Agenda Material
Documents:
09-10-26 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ADDITIONAL AGENDA MATERIAL.PDF
4. 09-10-26 Public Safety Committee Additional Agenda Material 2
Documents:
09-10-26 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ADDITIONAL AGENDA MATERIAL 2.PDF

1200 WILMETTE AVENUE
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091-0040

NOTICE OF MEETING
OF THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF WILMETTE
Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 10:00 A.M.
Village Hall Council Chambers (2nd Floor)
1200 Wilmette Avenue, Wilmette, Illinois

AGENDA
I.

Call to Order

II.

Approval of Minutes from the January 12, 2026 Meeting

III.

Approval of Minutes from the July 28, 2026 Meeting

IV.

Review and Discussion of Automated License Plate Reader Program

V.

Public Comment1

VI.

Adjournment

Trustee Gerry Smith, Chair

1 Members of the public that attend the above noticed meeting may address this public body during Public Comment.

Members of the
public that will not be attending the above noticed meeting may submit a comment in advance of the meeting by emailing their comment
to [email protected]. All emailed comments received two hours prior to the start of a meeting will be provided, unredacted,
to the public body. Emails received at any time within two hours of the beginning of the meeting until its adjournment will be included in
the draft minutes of the meeting.

1200 WILMETTE AVENUE
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091-0040

NOTICE OF MEETING
OF THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF WILMETTE
Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 10:00 A.M.
Village Hall Council Chambers (2nd Floor)
1200 Wilmette Avenue, Wilmette, Illinois

AGENDA
I.

Call to Order

II.

Approval of Minutes from the January 12, 2026 Meeting

III.

Approval of Minutes from the July 28, 2026 Meeting

IV.

Review and Discussion of Automated License Plate Reader Program

V.

Public Comment1

VI.

Adjournment

Trustee Gerry Smith, Chair

1 Members of the public that attend the above noticed meeting may address this public body during Public Comment.

Members of the
public that will not be attending the above noticed meeting may submit a comment in advance of the meeting by emailing their comment
to [email protected]. All emailed comments received two hours prior to the start of a meeting will be provided, unredacted,
to the public body. Emails received at any time within two hours of the beginning of the meeting until its adjournment will be included in
the draft minutes of the meeting.

1200 Wilmette Avenue
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091
MEETING MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE OF THE VILLAGE BOARD
January 12, 2026
1:00 P.M.
Village Hall Council Chambers
1200 Wilmette Ave, Wilmette, IL

Members Present:

Trustee Gerald Smith, Chair
Trustee Stephen Leonard
Trustee Michael Lieber

Staff Present:

Jeff Stein, Corporation Counsel
Michael Robinson, Chief of Police
Landon Girard, Deputy Chief
Sara Phyfer, Assistant to the Village Manager

I.

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM. Committee Members Chair Smith,
Trustee Leonard and Trustee Lieber were present.

II.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2025, MEETING
Chair Smith directed the Committee’s attention to the draft minutes of the Public Safety
Committee (PSC) meeting of September 12, 2025. Chair Smith moved to approve the
minutes as drafted, seconded by Trustee Lieber. All voted aye. The motion carried.

III.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 10, 2025, MEETING
Chair Smith directed the Committee’s attention to the draft minutes of the Public Safety
Committee (PSC) meeting of November 10, 2025. Chair Smith moved to approve the
minutes as drafted, seconded by Trustee Lieber. All voted aye. The motion carried.

IV.

CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION OF AN ORDINANCE REGULATING
ELECTRIC BICYCLES AND ELECTRIC SCOOTERS
Ms. Phyfer provided background on the Village’s actions related to electric bikes and
scooters. She stated that prior to the start of the school year, the Village issued a joint
safety message in coordination with local schools and the Park District outlining rules
related to electric mobility devices. She noted that the Park District prohibits electric
mobility devices on its property where posted, and that students are required to walk
such devices on District 97 property.
Ms. Phyfer reported that Village staff met with community organizations in the fall,
including Bike Walk Wilmette and Go Green Wilmette, to receive input. She stated
that these groups supported regulating reckless behavior and cautioned against overrestriction through licensing requirements.
Ms. Phyfer noted information previously presented at the November meeting,
including state regulations, gaps in State law, and examples of approaches used by
other municipalities. She stated that, following Committee direction, staff drafted a
proposed ordinance for Committee review.
Ms. Phyfer explained that the proposed ordinance reorganizes existing Village Code
provisions related to pedal bicycles, skateboards, golf carts, and similar devices into
a new article addressing motorized mobility devices. She stated that the
reorganization does not change existing regulations for traditional devices. She further
explained that the ordinance regulates electric bikes and scooters based on speed
rather than device type. She noted that the ordinance includes age and location
restrictions, including a prohibition on use on downtown sidewalks. She also stated
that toy and medical devices are defined separately.
Ms. Phyfer reviewed definitions included in the ordinance. She stated that “motorized
mobility vehicles or devices” are defined as wheeled, electric, or gas-powered personal
transportation devices that do not require state titling or licensing. She stated that
devices with a maximum speed of 10 miles per hour are defined as “low-speed mobility
devices,” which are not subject to age restrictions but are prohibited on Village Center
sidewalks, in posted park areas, and at Village events.
Trustee Stephen Leonard asked whether references to “Village parks” in the ordinance
include only parks owned by the Village or also parks owned or operated by the Park
District. Corporation Counsel Stein stated that the Park District is a separate legal
entity with authority to adopt and enforce its own ordinances. He stated that there is a
cooperative enforcement relationship between the Village and the Park District, but
that each entity retains jurisdiction over its own property. Ms. Phyfer stated that
communication regarding any adopted regulations would include coordination with
schools, Park District, and neighboring municipalities.
Ms. Phyfer explained the next device category under the draft ordinance, identified as
standard mobility devices. She stated that this category includes the three classes of
low-speed electric bicycles and scooters capable of higher speeds. She explained that
the speed limit of 28 miles per hour in the ordinance mirrors the top speed for Class 3
Page 2

Not Yet Approved

e-bikes.
Ms. Phyfer stated that under the draft ordinance, operators of standard mobility devices
would be required to be at least 16 years of age and that no driver’s license would be
required. She further stated that operation would be regulated based on speed and
location, allowing operation on sidewalks at speeds of up to 10 miles per hour and on
streets and bike paths at posted speed limits. She stated that the same location
prohibitions previously described, including restrictions on Village Center Sidewalks,
Village Green, Village owned parks, and where signage otherwise prohibits.
Ms. Phyfer then described the out-of-class device category, which includes higherspeed electric bicycles that are not required by the State to be titled or licensed but
exceed the 28 miles per hour speed limit applicable to standard mobility devices. She
stated that motor driven cycles, as defined by State law, are subject to State titling and
licensing requirements and are therefore not regulated under the proposed ordinance.
Ms. Phyfer also provided definitions for toy devices, described as non-motorized, selfpropelled equipment intended for children and subject to the same location restrictions
as other categories, and medical devices, which are exempt from the ordinance’s
restrictions.
Ms. Phyfer reviewed enforcement provisions of the draft ordinance. She stated that the
ordinance prohibits reckless behavior of regulated devices and authorizes law
enforcement officers to issue citations. She stated that citations may result in
administrative hearings or court proceedings and that fines for violations would range
from $50 to $750, consistent with other Village Code violations.
Trustee Leonard asked whether parents could be held responsible for a child’s reckless
operation of a regulated device. Corporation Counsel Stein stated that criminal or
quasi-criminal liability generally cannot be imposed on parents for a child’s individual
reckless acts unless the parents directly provided a prohibited device or acted
recklessly in doing so. He stated that the parental responsibility language in the
ordinance applies to situations in which parents permit children under the age of 16 to
operate prohibited devices. He further stated that reckless operation would generally
be attributed to the minor and that criminal liability requires evidence of intent.
Corporation Counsel Stein stated that parental liability would apply only if the parent
knowingly allowed prohibited conduct.
Trustee Leonard asked whether the same principles would apply if a younger child
operated a device recklessly. Corporation Counsel Stein stated that the same standard
would apply and that liability would rest with the minor unless additional circumstances
established parental responsibility.
Trustee Lieber asked whether parental responsibility could apply when a parent allows
a child under the legal age to use a prohibited device regardless of reckless behavior.
Corporation Counsel Stein stated that allowing a child under the age of 16 to operate
a prohibited category of device could result in parental liability even if the device was
operated safely, while reckless operation would be attributed to the minor.
Ms. Phyfer stated that enforcement of the parental responsibility provisions would be
handled through administrative citations and hearings using established fine ranges.
Page 3

Not Yet Approved

Ms. Phyfer stated if the Committee supports the ordinance, staff can present it at the
January 27 village board meeting, and that a Quarter 4 review would be implemented
to determine if any amendments are needed, or sooner if state law changes. She
stated that the Northwest Municipal Conference is submitting a legislative proposal for
the spring session that has a similar approach based on device speed.
Ms. Phyfer also emphasized the need for an extensive public education campaign,
noting one benefit of the timing of this discussion is it gives the Village time to get this
information out before people start spending more time outside. She further stated that
except in cases of reckless and dangerous behavior, Staff also recommends a citation
grace period where only warnings would be issued to allow the community time to learn
about and adjust to new rules.
She also emphasized that the goal is safety, not issuing tickets. She noted when our
officers interact with kids, they strive to have a positive interaction and encourage and
reward safe behavior, as opposed to focusing on punishing bad behavior.
Trustee Smith initiated the public comment segment of the meeting. Chief Robinson
first responded to an earlier summary about police enforcement, reiterating that their
philosophy was accurately represented and the Department strives to focus on
education and foster positive relationships with youth, emphasizing safety over
punishment.
Beth Drucker stated she is with Bike Walk Wilmette requested clarification on whether
non-motorized devices such as pedal bicycles, skateboards, and roller skates would
be prohibited in village-owned parks. She noted that some materials appeared to
suggest a ban and asked for clarification on which parks are village-owned versus
managed by the Park District, stating that the distinction is unclear.
Corporation Counsel Stein responded that non-motorized devices are permitted in
village-owned parks unless signage explicitly prohibits their use. He identified Howard
Park, Veterans Park, and the Village Green in front of Village Hall as village-owned
parks. He explained that most other parks are managed by the Park District and are
subject to separate rules and enforcement. He noted that prohibitions in village-owned
parks are indicated by posted signage, citing skateboarding restrictions near Village
Hall as an example. He also stated that future communication efforts would clarify park
ownership and applicable regulations.
Ms. Drucker additionally noted that the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus is scheduled to
discuss the topic on February 17 and stated that interested parties could participate.
She also stated that the Village supported bicycle safety education programs, which
previously included training for second, fourth, and sixth grade students but were later
reduced to second grade only. She stated that no current system is in place to provide
safety education for older students and noted the absence of programs targeting
students beyond second grade.
Mark Weyermuller questioned why the Village is dedicating time and resources to
regulate electric bikes and scooters locally, when such matters could be more
efficiently and consistently addressed at the state level. Mr. Weyermuller expressed
concerns about the inefficiency and potential confusion caused by a patchwork of local
Page 4

Not Yet Approved

ordinances versus a streamlined statewide law, likening it to the universal approach
given to traffic rules like the right turn on red. He also cited the example of Chicago's
bike and e-vehicle program, describing it as problematic, and questioned whether it
was the best use of local funds to describe distinctions between small electric children's
toys and high-powered dirt bikes, suggesting that basic vehicle registration
requirements should suffice. Mr. Weyermuller stated that it would be more logical and
less burdensome for the state or county to handle such regulations instead of leaving
each municipality to create its own set of rules.
Chief Robinson provided an update regarding the current status of bicycle education
programs within Wilmette schools. He noted that the Village previously offered bicycle
safety instruction across multiple grade levels through the School Resource Officer.
These programs were reduced in recent years due to expanded responsibilities
assigned to the school resource officer and limited staffing capacity. Chief Robinson
reported that, with increased staffing now in place, the Police Department plans to
reinstate and expand bicycle and e-mobility safety education, strengthening schoolbased outreach efforts going forward.
Trustee Lieber shared feedback he had received from community members regarding
electric bicycles. He stated that the feedback expressed concerns about e-bike speeds
and associated safety issues. Trustee Lieber referenced differences between the
speeds of traditional bicycles and electric bicycles, noting that certain e-bikes are
capable of sustained higher speeds. He indicated that these speed capabilities raise
safety considerations for shared use on bike paths and sidewalks.
Trustee Lieber recommended that the proposed ordinance be amended to prohibit
higher-speed electric bicycles and electrified vehicles from use on bike paths and
sidewalks. He indicated support for allowing lower-speed, pedal-powered bicycles
while suggesting restrictions on higher-powered or throttle-based electric devices. He
noted the importance of regulating emerging transportation modes while addressing
safety considerations for cyclists and pedestrians.
Trustee Leonard raised questions regarding the increasing use of pedal bikes with an
electric assist within the community. He noted that many of these devices do not
operate at higher speeds and requested clarification on how the proposed ordinance
would categorize pedal-assist bicycles, including whether they would be treated
differently from higher-speed electric bicycles.
Ms. Phyfer responded that pedal-assisted electric bicycles may fall within state law
classifications which are included within the definition of standard mobility devices in
the proposed ordinance. Corporation Counsel Stein further explained that the
ordinance employs a speed-based regulatory framework rather than classifications
based solely on device type. He stated that this approach is intended to promote clarity,
consistency, and enforceability, while allowing the ordinance to apply to a range of
electric mobility devices.
The Committee discussed options for establishing and enforcing speed limits for
electric bicycles on local bike paths. Trustee Leonard inquired whether posted speed
limits, similar to those used on roadways, could be applied to manage safety concerns,
noting that pedal-assist bicycles and other electric mobility devices have varying
Page 5

Not Yet Approved

performance capabilities. Trustee Lieber also noted that the Village controls only a
limited portion of a major bike path, with the majority under the jurisdiction of the Park
District, which presents challenges for consistent regulation. Trustee Leonard stated
that coordination with the Park District and neighboring municipalities would be
necessary to ensure continuity and clarity for path users.
Trustee Michael Lieber raised concerns regarding the safety implications of higherspeed electric bicycles, particularly those capable of operating at higher speeds, and
noted potential risks to pedestrians and other cyclists on shared-use paths. He
questioned whether posted speed limits alone would be sufficient enough.
Corporation Counsel Stein explained that if the ordinance including restrictions on
bicycle path use were adopted, the village could reach out to the Park District and
neighboring municipalities to discuss aligning their regulations. The goal would be to
ensure consistent rules and signage along shared trails, making it less confusing and
safer for users, even though ultimate enforcement authority may still differ between
jurisdictions.
Trustee Lieber asked a question regarding the potential use of speed-monitoring
devices on bike paths. He referenced the Village’s prior use of mobile speed display
equipment on roadways and questioned whether similar devices could be used on bike
paths to allow users to view their speed. He noted uncertainty as to whether electric
bicycles are equipped with speedometers and raised concern that speed displays
might encourage some users to test maximum speeds rather than promote
compliance. He also referenced the Village’s prior use of speed trailers.
Chief Robinson responded that the Village previously utilized larger speed trailers in
various locations, including Lake Avenue, but that current speed monitoring equipment
consists of smaller, portable units that attach to light poles. He stated that these
devices are managed by the Engineering Department and are primarily used for speed
data collection related to roadway condition surveys. He indicated that the Police
Department does not currently manage or deploy those devices.
Corporation Counsel Stein stated that, if the ordinance is adopted, staff plans to
implement a comprehensive public education initiative as part of enforcement. He
noted that this would include signage, education efforts, and data collection,
particularly as weather conditions improve. He explained that the intent would be to
educate the public prior to issuing citations and that staff would not immediately move
to enforcement without outreach.
Corporation Counsel Stein further stated that the ordinance is designed to prioritize
clarity and enforceability. He explained that regulating based on speed rather than
device type simplifies enforcement, as visually distinguishing between various electric
mobility devices can be challenging. He noted that devices with similar appearances
may have different capabilities, which can complicate enforcement if regulations are
based solely on device classification rather than measurable speed.
Trustee Lieber stated that, in his view, it could be possible for observers and law
enforcement to distinguish between electric bicycles and traditional pedal-powered
bicycles based on speed and whether the rider is actively pedaling, particularly on
Page 6

Not Yet Approved

sidewalks. He indicated that this distinction could be made when a device is traveling
at higher speeds without visible pedaling. Trustee Lieber stated that, while he
recognizes the direction of the discussion, he intended to vote against the ordinance
as drafted in order to reflect that the Committee was not unanimous on the issue of
permitting higher-speed devices on bike paths and sidewalks. He noted that this
dissent might prompt further discussion at the Village Board meeting. Trustee Lieber
clarified that his concerns were limited to safety on bike paths and sidewalks regarding
electric devices where speed is over 10mph in which case he would want a complete
ban of electric devices.
Corporation Counsel Stein responded by seeking clarification regarding Trustee
Lieber’s position, asking whether his anticipated negative vote was limited solely to the
provisions addressing bike paths and sidewalks. Trustee Lieber confirmed that his
objection applied only to those components.
The Committee discussed the need for ongoing review and flexibility regarding the new
e-bike and e-scooter ordinance. Staff agreed that the ordinance may require changes
as more data becomes available or if state regulations are updated. Corporation
Counsel Stein stated the village has a duty to revisit and amend local rules in response
to evolving circumstances, ensuring that safety remains the top priority.
Trustee Lenord asked a question regarding bicycle registration provisions included in
the ordinance. Corporation Counsel Stein responded that the registration language is
carried over from older sections of the Village code. He explained that a separate code
update, distinct from the current ordinance, is planned to address technical and
administrative changes to the registration program. He noted that the existing program
is no longer widely used and has evolved toward electronic and registration-based
processes rather than formal requirements. He stated that the language was retained
in the ordinance at this time and the registration provisions would be addressed in the
future.
The Board proceeded with the formal process to recommend approval of the ordinance
regulating electric bicycles and electric scooters. Trustee Gerry Smith requested a
motion, which was made and seconded.
A roll call vote was taken on the recommendation. Trustees Smith and Leonard voted
in favor of forwarding the ordinance. Trustee Lieber voted against the
recommendation, noting his previously stated reasons.
Corporation Counsel Stein stated that the meeting minutes and accompanying staff
memorandum would reflect the recorded vote and note Trustee Lieber’s objection to
specific provisions of the ordinance was limited to the reasons mentioned before
pertaining to bike paths and sidewalks.
V.

DISCUSSION OF ELECTRONIC DETECTION & COMFORT DOG GRANT
Chief Robinson reported that the Village was selected by the U.S. Secret Service
Chicago Field Office to receive a fully funded electronic detection canine. The canine is
trained to locate concealed electronic storage devices, such as laptops and USB drives,
which may be relevant in criminal investigations, including child exploitation cases. The
canine and all associated training costs are funded by the Secret Service.
Page 7

Not Yet Approved

Chief Robinson stated that the canine is also cross-trained as a comfort dog and may
be used for community engagement activities and victim advocacy support. He clarified
that the canine is not a patrol dog and is not trained for drug detection or apprehension.
Chief Robinson noted that the handler would attend a one-week training program
funded by the Secret Service. The Village would be responsible for ongoing costs
related to food and veterinary care, estimated at approximately $2,200 annually.
Trustee Lieber asked about the anticipated use of the electronic detection and comfort
canine, including whether the resource would be shared with neighboring communities.
Chief Robinson responded that the Village participates in the North Regional Crimes
Task Force and regularly collaborates with surrounding jurisdictions by sharing
specialized resources as needed. He stated that the canine would be available for
regional use when appropriate, while remaining based in Wilmette.
Chief Robinson further explained that the primary handler is a digital forensic analyst
who would accompany the canine during investigative work. He noted that for
community outreach or comfort-related uses, the canine could be supervised by police
personnel or social work staff.
Chair Smith called for public comment on this topic.
Mark Weyermuller raised concerns regarding public access to Village meetings and
records. He stated that some meetings are recorded or broadcast with delays and that
meeting minutes are not approved until a subsequent meeting, limiting timely public
review. He requested that all Village boards and commissions record and publish video
of meetings online to improve transparency. He referenced differences in recording
practices among various boards, noting that some meetings are audio-only and require
a Freedom of Information Act request for access.
Mr. Weyermuller also commented on recent policy topics discussed by the Village. He
stated that regulation of bicycle laws should be addressed at the state level rather than
locally and expressed concerns about potential bicycle registration requirements and
associated fees. He referenced existing vehicle sticker fees and stated opposition to
additional registration costs.
He also commented on the electronic detection canine grant, stating concerns about
the use of grant funding and suggesting that additional discussion would be appropriate,
and expressed concern about the police station project and the Department’s
enforcement related to panhandling involving children. He requested that the Village
and Police Department discuss enforcement of this law.

VI.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Beth Drucker addressed the Board following the vote on the bicycle ordinance and
stated that members of Bike Walk Wilmette support the use of electric-assist bicycles
as a transportation option for responsible adult riders. She noted that electric-assist
bicycles allow users to travel longer distances, attend meetings without physical strain,
and provide mobility assistance for older adults or individuals with physical limitations.
She emphasized that concerns related to bicycle use should focus on speed rather
Page 8

Not Yet Approved

than whether a bicycle includes electric assistance. Ms. Drucker requested that future
consideration of the issue ensure that responsible adult use of electric-assist bicycles
is not unnecessarily restricted.
Trustee Leonard clarified they did not pass the ordinance and that the vote was to
recommend the ordinance to the Village Board for further review and action.
VII.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Smith moved to adjourn the meeting at 1:59 p.m., seconded by Trustee Lieber.
All voted aye, the motion carried.

Respectfully Submitted,

Emily Janowiak
Management Assistant

Page 9

Not Yet Approved

1200 WILMETTE AVENUE
WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091-0040
MEETING MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE OF THE VILLAGE BOARD
Tuesday July 28, 2026 at 6:00 P.M.
Village Hall Council Chambers
1200 Wilmette Ave, Wilmette, IL

Members Present:

Trustee Gerald Smith, Chair
Trustee Stephen Leonard
Trustee Michael Lieber

Staff Present:

Erik Hallgren, Assistant Village Manager
Dan Manis, Public Works Director
Brian Lambel, Fire Chief
Ryan Menzies, Deputy Fire Chief
Michael Scheetz, Deputy Fire Chief

Meeting Minutes
I.

Call to Order
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Committee Members Chair
Smith, Trustee Leonard, and Trustee Lieber were present and the meeting was
convened with a quorum.

II.

Review and Discussion of Ladder Truck Purchase Plan
Assistant Village Manager Hallgren gave an overview of the Ladder Truck
Purchase Plan. Aerial Ladder Trucks FD204 and FD205 were discussed with
different options including an alternate used truck, cost share with other
municipalities, and procuring different units for the Village. Mr. Hallgren stated that
the discussion has two parts. The first part is to purchase a barely used unit from
New York or to order a new unit that would take 36 months to receive. The second
part is the deferred replacement plan. The options would be to repair an existing
unit that unit or to procure another used unit.
Deputy Chief Scheetz explained the different costs associated with the Aerial
Ladder Trucks. DC Scheetz explained that FD206 was a unit given to us to use by

Skokie. FD206 was built in 1996. It was sent out for assessment, and its condition
was deemed unusable. FD204 was sent out for Hydraulic refurbishment and is
back in service. FD205 is our current reserve apparatus. It needs a hydraulic
refurbishment and has already cost $56,000 in repairs this year.
Staff provided an overview of NFPA standards which state that the fire aerial
apparatus should have a 15-year service on its front-line life and 10 years in its
reserve life. The Village is currently working on a 12.5-year front-line and 12.5year reserve life for these vehicles for replacement in the future.
Staff discussed one of the options, which was a contract for a new McQueen 2026
Pierce Enforcer including all the necessary requirements is shown. This unit would
take 37-40 months to receive the truck in 2029. The payment for the truck would
be at delivery. It would be between $2.4 and $2.5 million.
Staff discussed the second option, which was the purchase of a used unit that was
identified in Medina, York and is a 2025 Pierce Enforcer original purchased in
2023. The unit currently has 1,000 miles and is being sold because it does not fit
in the station. Medina paid $1.7 million upfront and have been paying interest
since 2023. They are looking for $2.4 million but are willing to negotiate. Staff
highlighted the differences between the Village’s standard specifications and the
used unit and noted that the used aerial ladder truck has a 300-gallon water tank
and does not have breathing air in the basket but noted that there is a standard
workaround for the breathing air.
Trustee Smith asked if the 300 gallon is a surplus until we could connect to a water
line. DC Scheetz said yes, it is a surplus and it is a substantial amount of water.
Staff then outlined three scenarios for consideration:
1. Purchase the used New York Tower Ladder. We would move FD204 to
reserve status. It was built in 2009 and would have some time in reserve
status. FD205 would be sold as surplus
2. Sign the McQueen contract for a new unit with our specifications. This
would be a 37–40-month lead-time before the Village receives the new
Tower Ladder. The Village would use FD204 as the front-line unit and
FD205 would go out for hydraulic line refurbishment.
3. Sign the McQueen contract for a new unit with our specifications. The
Village would use FD204 as our front-line unit and then search for another
unit instead of refurbishing FD205.
Trustee Lieber said he would like to start talking with the neighboring communities
to consider sharing frontline and reserve units.
Fire Chief Lambel stated that these discussions have been happening for years.
Each department is different with different needs. He said they have watched
shared resources with other communities end due to difficulties in sharing. He said
that we have a great working relationship with our surrounding communities and
they help each other out as much as possible.

Trustee Leonard asked how the Fire Department has come up with the
maintenance cost estimates.
DC Scheetz said that he has looked at the amounts we have spent on maintenance
for the last 5 years, and he feels like this is a conservative number.
Trustee Smith stated that when they met with Chief Lambel a year ago; he was
spot on with getting on a best practice approach when looking at rotating the fleet.
DC Scheetz went over the cost and the timetable for the three scenarios.
Mr. Hallgren discussed the amounts for each scenario and getting the Fire
Department into a replacement rotation.
Trustee Lieber asked when the New York Tower Ladder went up for sale and if we
know if there were other interesting parties.
DC Scheetz has been in discussion with the broker about the New York unit and
they do have three other inquiries. He said our next step would be to make an offer
and go out with our mechanic to do a thorough check of the truck. The truck will
come with a manufacturer warranty for corrosion and body issues. The broker does
offer a warranty at an additional cost. The broker said it has been stored in a
temperature-controlled warehouse.
Trustee Lieber stated that he thinks there are pluses and minuses in each
scenario. He thinks getting the New York unit would be a big plus. He hopes we
can come up with a good offer.
Trustee Leonard believes Scenario 1 makes the most sense. He agrees with staff
regarding the 300-gallon vs 500-gallon tank. He wants to make sure staff is
comfortable without having air at the top of the tower.
Trustee Smith said that he reviewed the packet and believes that option 1 gets
us the best practice and cycle. He is happy to hear the support of public safety.
He believes option 1 gives us the best set of circumstances to provide safety and
coverage. He stated that he supports option 1.
Trustee Smith asked that the team bring their assessment after they went and
checked out the New York Tower Ladder. Also looking at any warranties or
additional cost for the Tower Ladder.
Trustee Lieber motioned to vote to recommend Option 1; Trustee Leonard
seconded the motion.
Voting yes: Trustees Smith, Lieber, and Leonard.
Voting no: none.
The motion carried

Trustee Lieber made a motion to recommend that if the New York Tower Ladder
in Option 1 is not available, we should move forward with Option 2, to put in an
order with McQueen for a new Tower Ladder and discuss the other option at a
later date. Trustee Leonard seconded the motion.
Voting yes: Trustees Smith, Lieber, and Leonard.
Voting no: none.
The motion carried
III.

Public Comment
Mr. Weyermuller asked why the Public Safety Meetings are not video recorded.
He said he FOIAs for the audio recording, but it is hard to distinguish voices. He
supports purchasing a new Fire truck for public safety reasons. He stated that he
would like the public safety committee to discuss other village Public Safety issues,
including homelessness, panhandling, and retail theft. He also suggested that the
Fire Department does not send the Tower Ladder on EMS calls.

IV.

Adjournment
Trustee Leonard motioned to adjourn the Public Safety Commission Meeting at
6:51 p.m. Trustee Lieber seconded the motion.
Voting yes: Trustees Smith, Lieber, and Leonard.
Voting no: none
The motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted,
Margie Mosele
Management Analyst

MEETING DATE:

September 10, 2026

TO:

Michael Braiman, Village Manager

FROM:

Michael Robinson, Chief of Police
Michael Clark, Deputy Chief

SUBJECT:

Review of the Automated License Plate Reader Program (ALPR)

Recommendation
The ALPR program has proven to be a helpful public safety tool, improving the speed and
effectiveness of criminal investigations, and the Police Department recommends entering
into a Contract Amendment for all twenty-two (22) cameras from January 1, 2027, to
January 16, 2029. The new contract includes upgrading two of the existing cameras to
capture images on multi-lane roadways.
If the Board determines not to extend the contract, funds will not be included in the 2027
Budget for ALPRs, and the program will end on December 31, 2026.
Background
The Public Safety Committee (PSC) will meet on Thursday, September 10 and Thursday,
October 14 to discuss the ALPR program. It is anticipated that the Village Board will
discuss the program at its November 10 regular meeting.
ALPR Operation
ALPRs are mounted cameras that capture computer readable images of license plates
and vehicles. The image collected contains the date, time, and location where the image
was captured. The system is limited to capturing images of license plates and vehicles.
The ALPRs do not identify drivers or passengers, use facial recognition, record
conversations, capture Bluetooth data, monitor private property, or collect personal
information about motorists including cell phone data. An example of a photo capture from
the Village’s ALPR system can be found in the attachments to this report.

The ALPR system then compares the license plate data against a list maintained by the
State of Illinois and the Wilmette Police Department. This list contains license plate
values associated with vehicles such as stolen motor vehicles, vehicles associated with
missing persons, Amber and Silver Alerts, and vehicles entered as being associated with
criminal activity. The information included on the list is from official law enforcement
sources including the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Law Enforcement
Agencies Data System (LEADS), and the Wilmette Police Department’s Internal Alerts. If
there is a match on a vehicle, the system alerts police dispatch and Wilmette Officers in
real-time through the in-car computer system.
In addition to the real-time notification of officers, the ALPR system can be utilized during
lawful investigations. Images of license plates and the associated data are retained for a
set period before deletion and are only searchable for law enforcement purposes.
History of ALPR Implementation in Wilmette
In June 2022, the Police Department introduced the concept of an ALPR program to the
PSC, which then further considered the program in September 2022. Based upon
direction from the PSC, the ALPR program was added to the Village’s Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) and presented at the Village Board’s CIP Committee-of-theWhole workshop at the end of September 2022. On November 21, 2022, the Village
Board approved a contract with Flock for the installation and maintenance of 22 ALPR
cameras, and the contract was extended by the Village Board in February 2024. Camera
installations were phased in as follows:
•
•
•

2023: 7 cameras operational
2024: 8 cameras added; 15 total cameras operational
2025: 6 cameras added; 21 total cameras operational
2026: 1 camera added; 22 total cameras operational

Purpose of ALPR System in Wilmette
When the Police Department introduced the ALPR program to the PSC in 2022, it was
due in part to an increase in criminal activity related to vehicles throughout the Chicago
region. These incidents included auto thefts, auto burglaries, burglaries, and
fleeing/eluding incidents. Below is a table of incidents that was shared with the PSC and
Village Board in 2022:
Auto Thefts
Auto Burglary
Burglary
Fleeing/Eluding
Total

2017
10
100
43
12
165

2018
9
108
62
11
190

2019
7
98
32
11
148

2020
23
130
29
15
197

2021
6
36
32
15
89

Such crimes continue to occur throughout our region, with updated data below:

Auto Thefts
Auto Burglary
Burglary
Fleeing/Eluding
Total

2022
24
84
40
6
154

2023
17
89
44
22
172

2024
3
62
29
24
118

2025
14
79
20
18
131

Often, the above crimes are committed with stolen vehicles or vehicles with stolen license
plates. The ability to detect stolen vehicles and plates in real-time as they enter the
community can aid the Police Department in deterring such activity. Since these crimes
are vehicular in nature, there is an increase in public safety risks associated with offenders
fleeing at high rates of speed. Additionally, officers may be unable to collect and verify
license plate information from the offending vehicles due to the speed and dynamic nature
of these incidents. Note: The Police Department has a very restrictive ‘no-chase’ policy
which makes the use of cameras more important as a tool to identify offenders who may
not safely be arrested during an incident.
Associated with the above criminal activity is an increased potential for violent interactions
with offenders; with the number of armed offenders increasing in relationship to auto
thefts. As an example, an armed robbery occurred in the 400 block of Central Avenue in
the Fall of 2022. The driver fled an attempted traffic stop and rolled the vehicle off the
roadway into a parking lot a short time later. As Wilmette Officers approached the vehicle,
one of the offenders fired a handgun through the windshield in the direction of officers.
No one was struck by the round and officers did not fire their weapons.
ALPR Privacy Concerns & System Abuse- How WPD Safeguards Data
Staff recognize that the usage of ALPR systems has raised concerns regarding privacy
expectations of community members. The Police Department takes these privacy
concerns seriously and has robust policies and procedures in place to prevent the
unauthorized and/or inappropriate use of ALPR data and to ensure proper audits are
conducted on a regular basis.
While many law enforcement agencies allow their ALPR data to be accessed by any law
enforcement agency in the country, and others may limit such sharing to only Illinois law
enforcement agencies, Wilmette does neither. Wilmette ALPR data is only shared with
agencies that have executed the Village’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which
requires outside agencies to abide by Wilmette’s ALPR policy. The following agencies
have executed the Village’s MOU: Glenview 9-1-1 Dispatch, Village of Glencoe, Village
of Lincolnwood, Village of Morton Grove, and Village of Niles. Other nearby agencies
have not necessarily desired to be bound by the Village’s restrictive ALPR policies and
thus have not executed the MOU and do not have access to Village of Wilmette ALPR
data. Agencies that have not signed an MOU with the Village may submit a written request
for WPD to run a license plate through the ALPR system for a specific criminal
investigation and the WPD will consider the request. To date, the Village has not received
any such requests.

Illinois law prohibits using or sharing ALPR technology or data with a jurisdiction for the
purpose of enforcing or investigating reproductive health care statutes in that jurisdiction
or investigation into an individual’s immigration status. Not only is this state law, but the
Village has incorporated these restrictions into its internal policies. In 2025, reports
surfaced that out-of-state jurisdictions were obtaining access to Illinois ALPR networks
and using the data in violation of Illinois statute. Wilmette data was not and has not been
accessed by a law enforcement agency out of Illinois or a Federal Government agency
due to the safeguards WPD has in place for data sharing.
In addition to the state and internal restrictions mentioned above, the Village’s contract
with Flock prevents the sale of any license plate data to any third party for any reason.
In 2022 during program development, the Police Department considered the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recommendations for law enforcement as part of
departmental policy development and the ALPR implementation plan. Measures included
in the departmental policy include the following:
1. Data from license plate readers may be used by law enforcement agencies only.
• Data will only be shared with law enforcement, prosecutors, and others
permitted by law.
2. Captured data should be stored for a limited period of time (30 days).
• Only data flagged for lawful investigations may be stored longer than 30
days.
3. Train users on technology and privacy concerns.
4. Audit and review access and use of data.
• The searchable database creates an audit trail of who searched information
and for what purpose.
• Logins and queries will include username, badge number, date and time,
purpose of query, and license plate(s) reviewed.
5. Annual review process of the ALPR program including system access and usage.
6. Outside law enforcement agencies may request access to our data and must first
execute a MOU, which shall include a condition that the outside law enforcement
agency will abide by the Village of Wilmette’s ALPR policy and guidelines. There
are two methods of data access; full access, which includes communities that will
be able to use the system in the same form and function as the Wilmette Police
Department and limited data dissemination, which includes communities that
request information for specified lawful investigations.
7. Outside law enforcement agency access and use will be captured as part of the
Department audit process.
8. The Department has the ability to restrict the manner of the access by an outside
law enforcement agency.
The Police Department’s internal ALPR policy is more restrictive in regard to not only
internal use, but the external sharing of data than any other known Flock user. The MOU
requirement for data sharing is also a rare requirement among Flock users. The policy

continues to reiterate and reinforce the standard that ALPR data can only be used for
legitimate law enforcement purposes, for purposes not restricted by state law, and that
any abuse of that information will result in the immediate termination of the MOU.
Wilmette Audits
Quarterly and annual audits have been completed to ensure policy compliance and
appropriate program utilization. The audit process has found no policy violations or
unauthorized/inappropriate use of the ALPR system.
The annual audit reviews the top ten most searched plates in the system. This is in place
to identify if a plate is being searched in a manner that could be indicative of possible
misuse. Below is an example of the top ten audit from 2025:
Plate #
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]

# Times
Searched
519
505
343
317
312
277
230
225
209
187

# of
Officers
7
1
1
9
16
3
6
3
11
11

Reason for Search
Stolen Auto
Burglary/Breaking & Entering
Burglary Task Force
Retail Theft
Burglary to Vehicle
Burglary Task Force
Hit and Run
Sex Crimes
Stolen Auto
Stolen Auto

Policy Compliant
(Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

*Policy compliance is determined based upon a review of the officer(s) searching the plate as it relates to their
responsibilities and whether/how the plate is connected to a criminal investigation.

In 2026 Flock implemented new tools to aid agencies in the auditing process. These tools
are meant to recognize and identify potential misuse of the system. The new features
include new automatic flagging tools that identify if a specific plate has been run multiple
times by the same Officer or by the Department. It also flags atypical or abnormal search
patterns for further review by an administrator. These new features have significantly
improved the efficiency of the quarterly audit procedures. An example of the flagged audit
system is as follows:
Audit Assistance flagged that user “[Officer Redacted]” has searched the same
license plate on 19 occasions over several months. Between 06/15/2026 and
08/24/2026, the user performed multiple searches relating to license plate
“[Redacted]” with a reason provided of “Motor Vehicle Theft/Stolen”, and a case
number of “26-07281”. In looking up this vehicle in police databases, I was able to
determine that it is an outstanding offending vehicle in a Wilmette retail theft
investigation. This search is Compliant with Policy.
New labeling features have also been added that require a specific search reason from a
drop-down menu for every search. Note that having a lawful search reason has been part
of the Wilmette policy since the program's inception in 2022. We have found that
consistent entry of both a search reason and associated case number will assist in the

efficiency of the auditing process. This is being addressed through officer training, and
the new drop-down labeling feature decreases typos and errors, allowing for a much more
efficient auditing capability.
Transparency
The Village has maintained information about the ALPR program under the policing
policies section of the website (wilmette.gov/ALPR). This page includes program
information for the public about how ALPR technology works and how data is used and
safeguarded. Individuals can also review the WPD’s policy document as well as materials
from prior public meetings, including the PSC’s annual program review.
Responding to Privacy & Data Sharing Concerns
The ACLU currently has a sample e-mail as part of their “Get the Flock Out” Campaign
that residents can send to local leaders. This sample e-mail highlights four areas of
concern. These concerns, and how WPD addresses each, are listed below:
1. Limiting data retention to hours or days, not weeks, or a month or more.
The 30-day retention period used by the Wilmette Police Department allows ALPR
data to be preserved for meaningful investigative value while limiting the amount
of historical data. There are several reasons why deleting the data too quickly can
decrease the value of the program:
•

Crimes are often not reported right away and witnesses or other
information on vehicle descriptions also are not always readily available.
Not having the ability to access potential evidence for crimes not
immediately reported can be limiting in solving a crime. An example of
this was a string of residential burglaries that occurred in Wilmette in late
2025. The burglaries that occurred over that month were not initially
known to be linked together. Suspect vehicle information was developed
from the later burglaries that was only able to be identified as involved
in the previous burglaries in the pattern by comparing vehicle plate data
that was retained in the 30-day period. Had that data been unavailable,
Investigators would not have been able to connect the crimes.

•

Crimes that are reported initially may be linked to other crimes that may
not yet be known to Wilmette police. A vehicle used in one type of crime
is often used for other multiple incidents. For example, a burglary from
a residence may have the same offending vehicle as a previous reported
auto theft. Without the 30-day data retention period, the ability to link the
same vehicle to multiple incidents is lost.

•

Crime is not bound by jurisdiction. Crime patterns and incidents often
occur within a region or handful of communities. Vehicles suspected of
being used in these other communities are eventually disseminated to
Wilmette Investigators who may be reviewing similar Wilmette crimes.

This process can take time and if the data is deleted too quickly, then
this investigative tool is diminished.
2. Limiting data sharing by prohibiting local law enforcement from providing access
to any other government entity unless they have a warrant for a felony crime that
is recognized under local/state law.
•

The Village’s MOU is intended to ensure that Wilmette’s data is only
shared for purposes allowed by law, deemed acceptable by Wilmette
Police, and only to agencies immediately nearby (as discussed above,
crime does not stop at a border so it makes sense to share data with
nearby communities as we all work together to solve crimes). That MOU
prohibits the sharing of Wilmette data unless for the investigation of
criminal activity and in a manner consistent with the Wilmette Police’s
policy on ALPR access and usage. As stated above, only five local
communities have entered into this agreement. There is no open sharing
of data with other agencies who have not executed the MOU and no
federal agency or out-of-state agency can access Wilmette data.

3. Limiting usage to felony investigations, missing persons cases, identifying
unregistered/uninsured vehicles, and certain limited non-enforcement scenarios,
like electronic toll collection.
•

Our ALPR policy and MOU with other agencies prohibits the use of
ALPR data unless it is connected with the investigation of a crime or
missing persons case, and in the case of Wilmette, for potential internal
employee investigations. ALPR data is not used to enforce traffic
violations, immigration violations, nor to deny or interfere with a person’s
right to choose or obtain reproductive health care services. The ALPR
system does not identify drivers or passengers, use facial recognition,
record conversations, monitor private property, or collect personal
information about motorists including cell phone data.

4. Requiring annual usage reporting and placing limits on the availability of ALPR
data via open records requests so it cannot be used for troublesome purposes like
stalking or embarrassing a person for entertainment value.
•

The Wilmette Police Department reports annually on the ALPR program
in public meetings to the PSC. All meeting materials and minutes are
posted and archived on the Village’s website. ALPR data is deemed
confidential to the fullest extent possible pursuant to the Illinois Vehicle
Code, and is therefore not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). Per those laws, the Village maintains the ALPR
data as confidential and does not release any ALPR data via FOIA
requests.

Operation of ALPRs in Wilmette
While the overall effect on crime is difficult to measure as crime and crime patterns are
not linear, the ALPR program has provided a positive public safety impact. Many factors
affect crime statistics and ALPRs are a useful tool to deter criminal activity, find missing
persons, and aid in criminal investigations.
The Police Department utilizes the ALPRs in two ways:
• Real-time alerts when a flagged vehicle enters the community
• Searches of license plates for missing persons or criminal investigations
Camera placement has continually been evaluated to ensure the best possible outcomes.
The most effective cameras for alerts and criminal investigations remain positioned on
the primary routes leading into the Village.
Real-time alerts
The ALPR system provides actionable real-time information regarding serious public
safety incidents. While many “alerts” might not generate a stop or an arrest, the increased
police attention to a specific area acts as a deterrence to further criminal activity. In
several instances officers were alerted to the presence of vehicles identified with criminal
activity in the area. These offenses range from fraud and retail theft to more serious
crimes such as commercial burglary or vehicular hijacking. Officers were able to saturate
an area in an interdiction attempt which typically resulted in the offender fleeing the area
prior to a crime being committed. From January 1, 2023 to August 27, 2026, there have
been the following alerts:
Stolen Vehicle
Felony Vehicle*
Warrant**
Missing Person
Total

2023
504
N/A
20
11
535

2024
854
21
13
1
889

2025
580
5
89
16
690

2026-Year to Date
374
3
257
12
646

*Felony vehicle category added by vendor as alert category in 2024.
**These are criminal or judicial-issued warrants, no civil warrants (such as a civil immigration warrant) are captured in
the ALPR system.

ALPR alerts may show the same vehicle being captured on multiple cameras or the same
vehicle on multiple days. For example, a stolen vehicle involved in motor vehicle
burglaries may register on several cameras on several days if it is actively involved in a
crime pattern in this area. This would generate a separate alert for each time it is observed
on each camera.
License plate searches
The ALPR search feature speeds up and improves the effectiveness of criminal
investigations. As an example, earlier this year a landscape truck trailer was stolen in
Wilmette. The Department was able to locate the suspect vehicles within one hour of the
report being made whereas without the ALPRs, police officers would be required to

canvass a several block area asking households for camera footage they may be willing
to share.
The chart below identifies the most used search categories to date for 2026. They
represent 12,888 searches or 66.4% of the total 19,410.

Public Safety Outcomes in Wilmette
There have been several notable public safety successes because of ALPR real time
“alerts” or search of data for investigative purposes. The following are a few recent
examples:
•

Armed Robbery – In 2024, a jogger in Wilmette was robbed at gunpoint by two
individuals; the case was solved in part with ALPR cameras when the suspect
vehicle was identified by Investigators searching ALPR image data.

•

Residential Burglaries – In November 2025, several residential burglaries
occurred in Wilmette and another North Shore suburb. Investigators were able to
use the ALPR database to confirm the same suspect vehicle was near all the
burglary scenes. Further analysis of the ALPR database revealed that the suspect
vehicle recently traveled to the Chicagoland area from out of state. The vehicle
visited three additional suburbs in which residential burglaries occurred as well.
The vehicle eventually left Illinois, and an offender was later arrested by a Texas
law enforcement agency while committing an in-progress residential burglary.
Continued investigation identified four total offenders, and evidence confirmed
their involvement in the Wilmette incidents.

•

Stolen Vehicle / Auto Burglary – In April 2026, officers received an alert for a
stolen vehicle. Officers responded to the area and observed the vehicle crash. Two
offenders were arrested on scene and charged accordingly. Further investigation
revealed two additional offenders who were able to escape. Both were arrested
and charged at a later date. Investigation revealed the four offenders to be prolific
auto thieves and burglars suspected in several stolen vehicle and burglary cases
in the North Shore.

•

Residential Overnight “Cat” Burglaries – In April and May 2026, an offender
entered two separate residences while the owners slept and stole various items.
A suspect was developed through investigation, and their vehicle was entered into
the ALPR database by Wilmette Detectives. Detectives received an alert that the
vehicle entered Wilmette. The suspect and vehicle were located in the alerted
area, where the offender was taken into custody and charged accordingly.

•

Missing Person – In June 2026, an elderly resident was reported missing. Her
vehicle alerted on an ALPR camera, and she was eventually located in the alerted
area. She was returned to her family safely.

•

Hit and Run Traffic Crash – In June 2026, a traffic crash occurred where the
offending vehicle fled the scene after the crash. A search of the ALPR database
identified a suspect vehicle. The suspect was located at his home, where his
involvement in the crash was confirmed. He was charged accordingly.

•

Felony Theft – In August 2026, two landscaping trailers were stolen from town.
The trailers contained combined equipment in excess of $54,000. While the initial
reporting officer was still taking the report, two suspect vehicles were developed
using the ALPR database. Detectives were able to locate and recover one trailer
approximately 24 hours later. The trailer originally contained approximately
$40,000 of equipment. Most of the equipment was still located in the trailer and
was reunited with the owner. Investigation is still pending in the matter.

Regional Impact
This technology has proven to be important in serious public safety incidents. Having a
network of cameras in nearby communities has proven to be vital in cases from homicide
investigations to active shooter events. The most public of these incidents in which Flock
cameras played a crucial role was the Highland Park July 4th shooting. Investigators in
that case utilized Northbrook’s Flock cameras to quickly identify the car and disseminate
the vehicle to the public. This led to the quick apprehension of the suspect.
Budget Impact
In 2026, the Village will expend approximately $55,000 for the 22 ALPR cameras in
operation. The contract will increase to approximately $67,000 for the final year of the
proposed term. If the Village extends the contract but at some future point determines

that the ALPR contract should be cancelled prior to the end date, there are two options
for cancellation:
• The Village Board can decide not to appropriate sufficient funds for the system in
the budget for the next fiscal year. No additional costs would be incurred by the
Village.
• The Village can immediately terminate the contract at a cost of $500 per camera.
Attachments
1. Camera location map
2. Example of a license plate/car image captured by the ALPR
3. Emails from residents

Keystone
Ave

Karlov Ave

Wilmette
Cir

Lawndale
Ave
Central
Park Ave

ir k
Cre

t Pl
scen

Linden Ave

Rd

Laurel Ave

Gregory Ave

e

Maple Ave

r

e

La
Av k

an

H
Dr arbo

id

Garrison Ave

Greenleaf Ave

er
Gillso n
Park Dr

Sh

A

3rd St

Forest Ave

n

4th St

Elmwood Ave

ga

5th St

8th St

hi

6th St

11th St

9th St

7th St

Central Ave

ic

Driftwood
Ln
Girard Ave

10th St

13th St

12th St

Sterling
Rd

A

ve
Glend enning
Rd

Greenwood Ave

Golf Ter

15th St

16th St

17th St

18th St

Ridge Rd

Cambridge
Ln

21st St

R

d

W

oo

ds

to

ck

Brier St

Colgate St

M

Dupee
Jenks St Pl

Oakwood
Ave

Broadway Ave

Old iew Rd
v
Glen
Woodbine
Ave

Isabella St

Wood Ct

Catalpa Pl

14th St

Cedar
Ln

Oxford
Pinecrest
Ln
Ln
Harvard
Harvard St
Ln Amherst
Ln
20th St

Knoll
Ln

Cherokee Rd

Pawnee Rd

Ouilmette
Cornell St
Ln

Hunter Rd

Dartmouth St

Princeton Pl

Cleveland St

Middlebury Ln

Grant St

Locust Rd

Ashland Ave

Legend

ALPR Location
Active Location

Noyes St

GIS Consortium

Date: 11/6/2025

ide

Kedvale Ave

Wilmette Ave

Av

e

Tud
Pl or

el
Av ros
e e

M

Fox
Ln

gree

n Ln

Apple
Tree Rd

Spring Ln

Meado w Ln

d

Go l f Ln

High
St

ns

Birch
St

hi

re

Myrtle St

Poplar St

Forest
Ridge St
Ave

Chestnut St

Tempel
Ct

D
Ln evo

Lagoon Dr

Latrobe
Ave

Westview Rd

Ever

m
b
Av erla
e n

Cu

Exmoor
Rd

d

S h e r ida
s
Lake
Ct
n Pl

Tripp Ave

Highland Ave

rt
rd
f o o b s a Robsart
ld
Rd
rfie
Ox R
ste
Pl
We
Dr
Chestnut Ave

Rd

Sheridan
Rd

Keeler Ave

Spencer Ave

rR

Dr

Kildare Ave

Walnut Ave

h

ar

Lowell Ave

Chippewa
Ln

Ottawa
Ln

Ashla nd
Ln

te

ig

pl

Kostner
Ave

Beverly
Brookside Dr
Dr
Wi l s
h
Dr ire
W
Wilsh ire
Dr E
Cove Meadow
Vista Dr Ln
Dr W
Ap ple tre e
Ln
Vine
St

Washington Ave

Rd

es

le

Po

Old
Orchard Ct

Lake Ave

Rd
ic

e

Kenton
Ave

Winfield

Meadowview
Dr

Hibbard Rd Cir
Woodle
y
Woods

h

Ra

er
Upp
Dr

Westmoreland Dr

Seminole
Rd
Mohawk
Rd
Osage Ln

ilw

t
or

k

Av

Peach
Pkwy

Birchwoo d
Ave

n

ic
Le

d

Kin
Ct

Knox Ave
Romona Rd

n
Ke

to

Rd

yR

Skokie
Thelin Ct
Blvd

Pine St

Westwood Ln

Hibbard Rd

ls

Cu
m
R no
ic r
hm R
R o d
d nd

w

rk

Colfax St

d

r
Ea

Rd

x

Oa
C

Bronx
Ave
Lamon
Ave

Skokie Blvd

d

Frontage
Rd

N o rt h
B ra n c h
R

Ter

rd

se

ar

Ba

He
a
Ln ther

Manor
Dr

Kent Rd Wayland
Ave

W

n
ee

ew

oo

e

n

À
¾
P
Ct ark
vi

H
Ct olly
w

Av

gL

41
Highcre st Dr
ie

Vine
Ct

Wilmette
Ave

Park
Kenilworth Dr

fo

yn

Pa

Meado w
Dr N
Hunter
Ct

lin

Le Claire
Ave

Laporte Ave

Lavergne Ave

Lawler Ave

Leclaire Ave

Leamington Ave

Pomo na Ln

Thornwood
Ave

er

Long
Lockw ood
Rd
Ave
Locke rbie
Ln

Laramie Ave

Birchwood Ln

Beechwood Ave

St

Payne St

d
ts

Es

Gr

Wilmette Ave

ill R

P in e
r
Manor D

Woods Dr

rk Dr

Ro ge r Av e

bo

sl

air

Forest Rd

Ma

Cummings Ave
Ab

Ro

Pr

Juniper Rd
E Glenwood Rd

Indian Hill Rd

Winnetka Ave

n
ee d
Gr y R
Ba

Glenview
Rd
Card
Ln inal

Rd

Dr

ac

Ha r t ze l l S t

C t Sunset

Laurel
Ln

nti

Valley
View Ct
Lincoln Ln

M ia m i
Rd

Sk
e
oki

Es sex
Pl

1
Miles
Hil l St
Hawthorn Ln
A
lis
on
Ln

d

Temp le Ln Nina
Av e

Seger
S t Crabtre e
Ln

Blackhawk
Rd

Po

Hill Ln
In

is R

Barclay
Ln
Iroquois Rd

ca Rd

Indian Rd

Country
Ln Cranston

no

L

lvd

ok
bro n
L

Laramie
Ln

r
Bria r
D

Central
St
Ct
Melrose Ct

Wood Rd
an
di

B
kie

Mill

Ardmore
Ave

o
Sk

Glenview
Rd
ve

Lotus
Ter

Sherwood Rd

W
Ln alde
n
Rom
ona
Ct

Mea dow Rd
Maclean
Ave

Ln

Winfield
Dr

She
Rd ridan

Hill Rd
ler

Illinois
Rd

Woodley
Woodley Rd
Mnr

Indianh

Hill
Ter

Elder Ln

Ful

Fai
r
R

Garland
Ave

Ct

ow
d

Sunse t Rd
Hi
g
Ln ginson
Alles
Rd

y

m

eA

Culver
Ter
ng

ss

Beverly
Ln
Mulberry
Ct

ro

0.5
94

§
¨
¦
ac

Central Rd
t
Wes
Dr
Park

Hager
Ln
Taft
Ct
Jun ipe r
Ter

ea
M d
R

Illi

Ferndale
Rd

Illinois
Rd
Lo
d
ea

ew

Sene

Beech
Dr
e Dr
i va t

vi

e
dt it n
in h L
W W ak
De Rd O

Iv

Becker Rd

w
do

e

Pr

Linden wood Dr

Thorntre
Ln

New
Ct

Heatherfield
Ln

Beaver Ln

Queens
Ln

La
go o n Ln
d
eR
Rd
tag age
ron ont
E F W Fr

Trier

k

0.25
Echo Ln

Nort hfiel d
Sq
Colonial
Ln
Harding
Rd

rk
e
Th ndma
La
Arbor Ln

"
)
o
Bro
Ln

A59
Rd

Gr ov e Dr
Stockton Dr

d
hfiel
id e

Beaver Rd

Bristol
B r i s t o l R d St
Avon
Ave

Meadowood
Ln

Nort

nk

Woo dme re Ln

±
0
way
Dr r L n
e

Bu

and y
rm
No
Ln

R iv e r s
Dr

Pleasant
Ln
s Rd

Del
Ogier Dr
Dicken

Coronet Rd

Attachment #1

Current ALPR Locations

Rd

ve

Overlo

ok Dr
M
id d
le Dr

Attachment #2

Attachment #3
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Comment, Public
Braiman, Michael
Fw: Cancel surveillance contracts
Thursday, August 27, 2026 3:08:02 PM

From: Cindy Fey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 8:10 PM
To: Comment, Public <[email protected]>
Subject: Cancel surveillance contracts

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling it.
Dear trustees,
This month the ACLU, the Brennan Center, and others held a week of awareness about
Flock cameras and other surveillance tools owned by third parties and leased to municipalities.
I also learned from a Record article of 2022 that Wilmette has contracted with an organization
rife with constitutional issues and misuse of our data.
Cancel the Wilmette surveillance recording contract now. I do not consent to my likeness nor
that of any member of my family being used by law enforcement or the Flock organization or
any third-party surveillance company.
Commercialized surveillance by for-profit companies does not make us safer. Surveillance is
not safety; surveillance is not SECURITY.
I invite the community to a public meeting on Wednesday, September 2 at Panera at 7:00 PM
to discuss these issues. I would appreciate the presence of trustees. Law-enforcement, with a
vested interest in maintaining these contracts, is not invited.
With respect,
Cindy Fey, resident

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Comment, Public
Braiman, Michael
Fw: Flock Camera contract
Thursday, August 27, 2026 3:08:04 PM

From: Lynn Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 8:16 PM
To: Comment, Public <[email protected]>
Subject: Flock Camera contract

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling it.
Dear Wilmette Trustees,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the use of Flock safety cameras in our
community. I believe this technology infringes upon our constitutional rights and constitutes
an unacceptable level of surveillance.
Consequently, I request that the contract for these cameras not be renewed. Thank you for
your time and consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Wilmette Resident

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Comment, Public
Braiman, Michael
Fw: Flock Cameras
Thursday, August 27, 2026 3:08:18 PM

From: Sue Kaiser <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 10:06 PM
To: Comment, Public <[email protected]>
Subject: Flock Cameras

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling it.
Dear Trustees,
Here are some facts about Flock from the ACLU.
FAST FACTS

120,000
Flock cameras are currently
installed in both urban and
rural areas on highways, in
neighborhoods, and outside
your local hardware store.

< 1%
of cars scanned by ALPRs
are connected to any crime
or wrongdoing.

1-in-10
license plates scanned by
Flock license plate readers
misread the state.
Flock's ALPR cameras aren't like your normal traffic cameras. This surveillance
technology records and tracks every car that comes into view, and then an AI
algorithm catalogs the make, model, color, license plate number, bumper stickers, and

even scratches. This personal information is then uploaded into a nationwide
database that any law enforcement agency with a Flock contract can search — with
few regulations or oversight on how they use what they find.
Cancel the Flock Contract!
Thank you,
Sue Kaiser
1925 Lake Ave., Unit 107
Wilmette

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Comment, Public
Braiman, Michael
Fw: FLOCK OUT
Thursday, August 27, 2026 3:08:14 PM

From: Carli Gernot <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 9:36 PM
To: Comment, Public <[email protected]>
Subject: FLOCK OUT

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling it.
Dear trustees,
I am a concerned citizen, resident of Wilmette, and passionate parent of two school aged
children in district 39.
This month, the ACLU, the Brennan Center, and others held a week of awareness surveillance
tools, including Flock cameras and others owned by third parties, leased to municipalities. I
am aware that, in 2022, Wilmette contracted with an organization rife with constitutional
issues and misuse of our data.
Cancel the Wilmette surveillance recording contract now. Do not replace it with a different
surveillance contract. I do not consent to my likeness nor that of any member of my family
being used by law enforcement or the Flock organization or any third-party surveillance
company.
Commercialized surveillance by for-profit companies does not make us safer. the data show
this. Surveillance is not safety; surveillance is. not SECURITY.
There is a public meeting on Wednesday, September 2 at Panera at 7pm to discuss these
issues. I would appreciate the presence of trustees. Law enforcement, with a vested interest in
maintaining these contracts, is not invited.
With respect,
Carli Gernot, resident

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Comment, Public
Braiman, Michael
Fw: Flock
Thursday, August 27, 2026 3:08:23 PM

From: Simeon Peebler <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 9:36 PM
To: Comment, Public <[email protected]>
Subject: Flock

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling it.
“At no time has the Village's ALPR data been shared with agencies outside of Illinois
or the Federal government.”
Compare this with data usage on the Flock “portal” for Wilmette. The statement above
seems to be possibly incorrect.
For OCR system and intelligent camera systems to detect cars, of course digital
images and video are sent to some Flock cloud system. Pictures of children. If this
system is remote and not within the confines of Wilmette, you have already violated
the statements regarding sharing of these materials don’t you agree?
Also the policy dated January 2024 seems outdated and the web page bullet points of
policies do not appear to match the WPD document, so the combination platter of
reference items do bot instill trust.
What audit has taken place to verify stated claims? Flock has been notoriously nonsecure, and claims of benefits for crime investigation have not been advertised.
Can the contract be cancelled?
Thank you for hearing my comments.
Simeon Peebler
908 Pontiac Rd

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Comment, Public
Braiman, Michael
Fw: No Flock cameras, please
Thursday, August 27, 2026 3:08:09 PM

From: Valerie Chalcraft <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 8:43 PM
To: Comment, Public <[email protected]>
Subject: No Flock cameras, please

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling it.
Hello,
I am against Wilmette adding Flock cameras to surveil village streets.
Please vote against the Flock cameras.
Sincerely,
Valerie Chalcraft
1838 Isabella St.
Wilmette, IL 60091
Cell 312-391-5537
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Plunkett, Senta
Braiman, Michael
Fwd: Flock Cameras
Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:56:50 AM

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: MARY LYMAN <[email protected]>
Date: September 3, 2026 at 11:48:21 AM CDT
To: "Plunkett, Senta" <[email protected]>
Subject: Flock Cameras

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling
it.
President Plunkett:
I support Flock cameras in Wilmette. Especially the ones near Plaza del Lago.
With so many new shops in our Village I think it is wise to protect them.
Especially with the Safety Act in place in Illinois.
Did you see that Bennisons Bakery and several nearby businesses in Evanston
were broken into early this morning?
Sincerely
Mary Lyman
630 8th Street
Wilmette

Braiman, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Kim Crehan Dupuis <[email protected]>
Monday, August 10, 2026 2:04 PM
Braiman, Michael
[email protected]
Opposition to flock safety contract renewal

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling it.
Dear Micheal Braiman and the Trustees of Wilmette,
My name is Kim Dupuis and I am a resident of Wilmette. I am writing to oppose the renewal of the village of
Wilmette’s contract with Flock Safety. While safety is a top priority I do feel that these Flock cameras have gone
too far and I have concerns with privacy, the abuse of power (continue to see news reports on this) as well as
overall moral concerns with Flock as a company and how it goes against what Wilmette stands for (Flock cameras
aiding ICE when our community has stood with immigrants). Thank you for your time and consideration
Kim Dupuis

1

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Plunkett, Senta
Braiman, Michael
Fwd: Get Flock Out of Our Community
Monday, August 24, 2026 11:05:26 AM

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Victoria Kluss <[email protected]>
Date: August 24, 2026 at 11:04:45 AM CDT
To: "Plunkett, Senta" <[email protected]>, "Kennedy, Gina"
<[email protected]>, "Leonard, Steve" <[email protected]>,
"Lieber, Michael" <[email protected]>, "Sheperd, Justin"
<[email protected]>, "Smith, Gerry" <[email protected]>, "Steen,
Mark" <[email protected]>
Subject: Get Flock Out of Our Community

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling
it.
Village Board Members,
As a Resident of Wilmette, I urge you to revisit Wilmette's use of and
pass legislation that reins in the use of Automatic License Plate Readers
(ALPRs).
ALPRs are being used to track our movements, spy on our communities,
and compile detailed databases on everywhere we travel in our vehicles.
And it's far too easy for this data to be abused and misused.
You have the power to protect us from this Big Brother surveillance, and
that starts with passing legislation to either ban ALPRs or create strict
regulations that include the following guardrails:
Limiting data retention to hours or days, not weeks or a month or
more
Limiting data sharing by prohibiting local law enforcement from
providing access to any other government entity unless they have a
warrant for a felony crime that is recognized under local/state law
Limiting usage to felony investigations, missing persons cases,
identifying unregistered/uninsured vehicles, and certain limited nonenforcement scenarios, like electronic toll collection
Requiring annual usage reporting and placing limits on the
availability of ALPR data via open records requests so it cannot be
used for troublesome purposes like stalking or embarrassing a

person for entertainment value
Each day these cameras remain active, they collect sensitive data that
could be used to violate our rights. Please act now.
Sincerely,
Victoria Kluss
107 Garrison Ave

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

curt horvath
Braiman, Michael
Lilly Lipford
Opposition to Flock safety contract renewal
Monday, August 3, 2026 8:47:34 AM

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling it.
Dear Micheal Braiman and the Trustees of Wilmette,
I am Curt Horvath, a 20+ year resident of Wilmette. I am writing to strongly oppose
the renewal of the Village of Wilmette’s contract with Flock Safety.  
I am opposed to this and any other mass surveillance programs you may be
considering in the future, primarily because it violates our rights under the fourth
amendment to the US Constitution as well as expectations of privacy in our
community.
The constant AI-enabled tracking cameras capture the license plates, vehicle
features, bumper stickers, and travel schedules of everyday citizens who have
committed no crimes and are going about their daily activities.  More, this surveillance
is carried out without and warrants required.  Police can search the nationwide
database and pool data, even across state lines, without needing judicial approval.
Collected location data is often stored for 30 days or more, building an ongoing digital
footprint of people's daily whereabouts.
This type of activity against citizens carries the risk of abuse of power, and there are
several examples where police have used the data collected for personal stalking
vendettas, and it has been used illegitimately to help ICE agents, or track those
seeking abortions. This is a striking lack of morality, and while it may be argued these
are exceptional cases, even one such incident is sufficient to eliminate the entire
program.
Security flaws in the camera software have raised fears that the feeds could be
hacked or accessed improperly, and even more simple technical errors (like
misreading a 7 for a 2) have caused innocent drivers to be falsely accused of driving
stolen vehicles, leading to terrifying and aggressive police stops.
Finally, accepting this one type of public surveillance can create a general
acceptance of illegal observation, establishing a slippery slope to future uses of
surveillance technology. For example, Flock is currently selling devices that track
Bluetooth usage and facial recognition is already in use for monitoring citizen
activities.
In summary, this program, while motivated by the admirable goal of crime prevention,
fails to protect the citizens of Wilmette by exposing us to a greater risk of unregulated
extrajudicial privacy violations.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Curt Horvath
2006 Beechwood Avenue
[email protected]

Braiman, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Susan Landwer <[email protected]>
Thursday, August 13, 2026 11:31 AM
Braiman, Michael
Conditional Opposition to Flock Safety Contract Renewal

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling it.
Dear Micheal Braiman and the Trustees of Wilmette,
First, I would like to thank you for your service to our community. Your efforts are very much appreciated.
I am a resident of Wilmette, and I am writing to oppose the renewal of the Village of Wilmette’s contract with Flock Safety
under the current condition that a private company, Flock Safety, is storing our neighborhood information. I would be open
to discussions on Wilmette owning this storage information with oversight and governance from our community.
The private company, Flock Safety, has shown questionable judgement when it comes to advocating for their product.
CEO and co-founder, Garrett Langley, has compared people who oppose Flock cameras due to privacy concerns as
"activist groups." In one interview, he compares those that wish to have privacy protected as part of "antifa" - a tagline
used to enrage the far right Republican base. I am not comfortable with a company such as Flock having access to our
community data, and therefore, under the current renewal conditions, I oppose the Flock Safety contract renewal.
Thank you for your time,
Susan Landwer, PhD

1

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Colleen Nathan
Braiman, Michael
The Flock Cameras throughout WIlmette
Tuesday, September 1, 2026 7:22:21 PM

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling it.
Im emailing you to express my dissatisfaction with ALL of the flock cameras that have gone
up throughout WIlmette.
It violates my 4th amendment right to Privacy, and for ALL of those who pass by them.
None of us have agreed to this! Why did the village think that this was a good idea?
I object.
Get RID of all of them. Immediately. This is supposed to be a free country. You are showing
me it is not.
Colleen Nathan
1630 Sheridan Road Unit 7C wilmette
Sent from my iPad

1200 Wilmette Avenue

WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091-0040

(847) 251-2700
TDD 7-1-1
EMAIL [email protected]

September 8, 2026
ADDITIONAL AGENDA MATERIAL
ITEM:
IV.

Presentation materials and additional public comment
communications regarding the Automated License Plate
Reader Program.

Public Safety Committee
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR)
SEPTEMBER 10, 2026

Background
HISTORY

RECOMMENDATION & TIMING

◦ PSC first reviewed in June 2022
◦ Original contract executed Nov. 2022

◦ WPD recommends extending contract
for all 22 cameras to terminate Jan. 2029
◦ PSC will meet on Sept. 10 and Oct. 14
◦ Village Board anticipated to discuss at
Nov. 11 meeting

◦ Extended Feb. 2024

◦ Installations phased over 4 years
◦ 22 total cameras in operation

◦ PSC has reviewed program annually

ALPR Operation
◦ Mounted cameras that capture images
of license plates and vehicles
◦ Image contains date, time, and location
◦ No personally identifiable info, no facial
recognition software, no audio recording, no
cell data or Bluetooth access

◦ Compares license plate data to list of
flagged vehicles including:
◦ Stolen vehicles
◦ Missing persons or Amber/Silver alerts
◦ Association with criminal activity

◦ The system is utilized in two ways:
◦ Real-time alerts for flagged vehicles to deter
criminal activity/find missing persons
◦ Searches for plates in response to criminal
activity/missing persons

Public Safety Benefits & Transparency
PUBLIC SAFETY BENEFITS

◦ Vehicles traveling very fast and
increase in fleeing vehicles
◦ WPD restrictive chase policy

◦ Officer presence can deter
crimes when flagged vehicles
enter community
◦ Improves crime pattern
identification and
speed/effectiveness of
investigations

TRANSPARENCY

◦ Program page:
Wilmette.gov/ALPR
◦ How ALPR tech works and how
data is used and safeguarded
◦ WPD policy
◦ Materials from prior public
meetings including annual
reports

Location of ALPRs in Wilmette

Data Safeguards, Audits,
& Privacy Protections

How WPD Safeguards Data
◦ Robust policies and procedures prevent
unauthorized and/or inappropriate use of data
◦ Regular auditing and PSC annual review
◦ Access to Wilmette data limited to agencies
with MOU
◦ MOU requires agencies to abide by WPD
policies
◦ Wilmette data has never been accessed by
any agency outside of Illinois or federal
agencies
◦ Contract prevents sale of license plate
data to third parties

AGENCIES WITH MOU
◦ Glenview 9-1-1 Dispatch
◦ WPD is member

◦ Glencoe
◦ Lincolnwood
◦ Morton Grove
◦ Niles

WPD Policy
ACLU INCORPORATIONS
1.

Data for use by law enforcement only

2.

Data storage limitation (30 days, exception for data flagged for
lawful investigations)

3.

Training on tech and privacy concerns

4.

Audit and review data access and use

5.

Annual review process including system access and usage

6.

Outside agencies must execute MOU for data access – must
abide by WPD policy

7.

Outside agency access and data use captured as part of audit

8.

WPD has ability to restrict manner of access by outside agency

ADDITIONAL DETAILS
◦ WPD policy incorporates State
prohibition on use and sharing
of data for enforcement or
investigation of an individual’s
reproductive health care status
and/or immigration status
◦ Most restrictive policy of any
known Flock user
◦ Abuse will result in termination
of MOU

WPD Audits
◦ Regular audits have found no
policy violations, unauthorized
use, or privacy concerns
◦ Audits are conducted quarterly &
annually
◦ New flagging tools that identify
potential misuse:

TOP 10 SEARCHES - 2025
Plate #

# Times
Searched

# of
Officers

Reason for Search

Policy
Compliant
(Yes/No)

[Redacted]

519

7

Stolen Auto

Yes

[Redacted]

505

1

Burglary/Breaking & Entering

Yes

[Redacted]

343

1

Burglary Task Force

Yes

[Redacted]

317

9

Retail Theft

Yes

◦ If a plate has been run multiple times
by same officer or department

[Redacted]

312

16

Burglary to Vehicle

Yes

[Redacted]

277

3

Burglary Task Force

Yes

◦ Abnormal search patterns

[Redacted]

230

6

Hit and Run

Yes

◦ New labeling features aid in
auditing efficiency

[Redacted]

225

3

Sex Crimes

Yes

[Redacted]

209

11

Stolen Auto

Yes

[Redacted]

187

11

Stolen Auto

Yes

Audit Example- Flagging Tool
Audit Assistance flagged that user “[Officer Redacted]” has searched the
same license plate on 19 occasions over several months. Between
06/15/2026 and 08/24/2026, the user performed multiple searches
relating to license plate “[Redacted]” with a reason provided of “Motor
Vehicle Theft/Stolen”, and a case number of “26-07281”. In looking up
this vehicle in police databases, I was able to determine that it is an
outstanding offending vehicle in a Wilmette retail theft investigation. This
search is Compliant with Policy.

ACLU Recommendations
1. Limit data retention to hours or days
2. Limit data sharing by prohibiting access without warrant for felony
crime recognized under local/state law
3. Limit usage to felony investigations, missing persons,
unregistered/unidentified vehicles, limited non-enforcement
scenarios
4. Require annual reporting and limit availability of ALPR data via open
records requests

WPD Response
Limit data retention to hours or days
Deleting data too quickly can decrease value of the program – investigations
and linking crime patterns take time
◦ Timing of reports: crimes often not reported right away, and vehicle
descriptions may not be readily available
◦ Identifying crime patterns: ability to link same vehicle to multiple
incidents

◦ Crime not bound by jurisdiction: same vehicle may be suspected of
similar crimes in other communities

WPD Response
Limit data sharing by prohibiting access without warrant for felony crime
recognized under local/state law
Wilmette’s MOU intended to ensure data only shared for purposes allowed by
law, deemed acceptable by WPD, and only to nearby agencies
◦ MOU prohibits sharing of data unless for investigation of criminal activity
◦ MOU requires agencies to abide by WPD policy
◦ Auditing procedures monitor outside agency usage
◦ No federal or out-of-state agency can access Wilmette data

WPD Response
Limit usage to felony investigations, missing persons,
unregistered/unidentified vehicles, limited non-enforcement scenarios
WPD policy and MOU prohibits use of data unless connected with investigation of a
crime or missing person's case
Data not used:
◦ To enforce traffic or immigration
violations
◦ To deny or interfere with a person’s
ability to obtain reproductive heath
care services

Cameras do not:
◦ Identify vehicle occupants
◦ Use facial recognition
◦ Record conversations
◦ Monitor private property
◦ Collect personal info including phone
data

WPD Response
Require annual reporting and limit availability of ALPR data via open
records requests
◦ WPD reports annually on program in public meetings to PSC
◦ Materials are archived and posted at Wilmette.gov/ALPR
◦ ALPR data is deemed confidential to fullest extent possible pursuant to Illinois
Vehicle Code, not subject to disclosure under FOIA

ALPR Operation in
Wilmette

Real Time Alerts- Operation in Wilmette
◦ Actionable, real-time
intelligence
◦ Allows increased police
attention to specific areas
to deter criminal activity
◦ Alerts may show same
vehicle captured on
multiple camera or multiple
days (generates separate
alerts)

2023

2024

2025

2026 - YTD

Stolen Vehicle

504

854

580

374

Felony Vehicle*

N/A

21

5

3

Warrant**

20

13

89

257

Missing Person

11

1

16

12

Total

535

889

690

646

*Felony vehicle category added by vendor as alert category in 2024
**These are criminal or judicial-issued warrants, no civil warrants (such as a
civil immigration warrant) are captured in the ALPR system

License Plate Searches
◦ Speeds up and improves
effectiveness of
investigations
◦ Chart represents 12,888
searches or 66.4% (of
19,410) from Jan. 1, 2026
to Aug. 31, 2026
◦ The 19,410 searches were
for a total of 1,949 different
license plates

Public Safety Outcomes
NOTABLE WILMETTE CASES

REGIONAL IMPACT

◦ Armed robbery (2024)
◦ Highland Park July 4th active shooting
◦ Residential burglaries (Nov 2025)
◦ Investigators utilized Northbrook
cameras to quickly identify vehicle
◦ Stolen vehicle/auto burglary (April 2026)
and disseminate info to public
◦ Residential overnight burglaries (April/May 2026)
◦ Directly led to shooter’s arrest
◦ Missing person (June 2026)
◦ Hit and run (June 2026)
◦ Felony theft (August 2026)

Budget Impact
and Next Steps

Budget Impact
◦ 2026: $55,000
◦ If contract extended, cost would increase to
$67,500 by 2029
◦ If contract not extended, program would end Dec.
31, 2026
Next Steps
◦ October 14 – 2nd Public Safety Committee meeting
◦ November 11 – Regular Village Board meeting to
discuss ALPR program

Norwood, Karen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ronald Meyer <[email protected]>
Friday, September 4, 2026 5:18 PM
Comment, Public
License Plate readers

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling it.
Dear Village Board and Administration,
I follow the recent news about Flock cameras and automatic license plate readers in general in the
NYTimes and on some quality podcasts, also in the Sun Times.
I have long experience with the Wilmette Police Department, its leaders and staff. I trust their discretion
and that they follow policies and Constitutional safeguards.
We are fortunate to have a superb Police Department.
I have also read about crimes, some local and violent, for which suspects have rapidly been
apprehended thanks to license plate readers.
For these reasons, I am strongly in favor of keeping automatic license plate readers in the Village at this
time.
Thank you for considering my opinions,
Ron Meyer
610 8th St
for 37+ years

1

1200 Wilmette Avenue

WILMETTE, ILLINOIS 60091-0040

(847) 251-2700
TDD 7-1-1
EMAIL [email protected]

September 10, 2026
ADDITIONAL AGENDA MATERIAL 2
ITEM:
IV.

Additional public comment email regarding the Automated
License Plate Reader Program.

Norwood, Karen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Thomas Gniot <[email protected]>
Wednesday, September 9, 2026 4:56 PM
Comment, Public
Flock Cameras in Wilmette

This message originated from an external source. Please use caution in handling it.
Dear Village Board of Trustees:
I recently learned about the vandalism of a Flock Camera at the intersection of Old Glenview Road and
Hibbard. As a resident in the area, I’m hoping you can answer the following questions:
1. What prompted the need for the camera at this particular location (as compared to other, busier
intersections/locations throughout the Village)?
2. Is the Village re-considering its contract with Flock given the potential for abuse that’s come to light
recently about these cameras?
3. Are the maintenance costs/time these cameras seem to invite worth it?
4. Have other Village residents voiced concerns about these cameras?
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom Gniot

1