09/05/2026
Question:
Do you support the police? Why oppose a tool that can make us safer?
My response:
I support law enforcement. Full stop.
Brenham is fortunate to have outstanding professionals at the Brenham Police Department and a city staff that works hard every day to keep this community safe and well run. This is not a criticism of them. They are being asked to operate in a space where Texas law has not caught up to the use of such technology.
Automated license plate readers (ALPRs) photograph plates as vehicles drive by. Your plate is already on the back of your vehicle. That is not the controversy. The controversy is what happens after the photo: plate, time, location, and vehicle details can be stored and searched later. Do that at enough points on the road and you do not have a simple traffic tool. You have a movement history of ordinary Texans who were not suspected of anything.
Texas has no clear statewide ALPR framework. Cities and vendors are filling that gap with contracts, settings, and oversight at a local level. That is the wild west. A multi-billion-dollar company’s privacy dashboard is not the same thing as enforceable Texas law. The result is a patchwork of local contracts with no consistent rules on how long data is kept, who can search it, or how far it can be shared etc,
Recent press coverage has made the problem hard to ignore. A Central Texas city that used these cameras for years later learned that hundreds of outside agencies had been searching its data, far more than its own police department. Local leaders thought sharing was limited. The logs said otherwise. Officers in Texas have been charged or fired for using these systems for personal reasons. That is not a reason to attack police. It is a reason to admit the current setup is not adequate.
There is a legitimate public safety case for limited use; for example, a live alert when a plate already tied to a stolen vehicle, an Amber or Silver Alert, or a violent-felony warrant moves through a high-crime area or a known trafficking corridor like US 290. Targeted tools that help officers do their jobs are worth discussing. A searchable diary of every lawful trip through town, sitting inside a vendor network the public cannot see, is a different question.
Some Texas lawmakers have called this warrantless mass surveillance. Others have talked about an outright ban. Senator Kolkhorst warned in her post about digital surveillance and government overreach. Governor Abbott has already moved to stop state agency funding for one major vendor but DPS continues to use the existing camera network. Cities across Texas are canceling or pausing contracts.
I am not here to write the state Legislature’s bill. Ban, tightly regulate, or something in between - that is their job. What I am saying is simpler: The City of Brenham should not enter an ALPR contract until the Texas Legislature issues clear guidance and an appropriate legal framework for the whole state.
Continuous reporting on data sharing failures, misuse, and collapsing public trust is the evidence. Regulation needs to come first. We should not expand this technology further while the rules are still being written. The curent patchwork of local municipal contracts are not enough.
Public safety and public trust have to travel together. I will keep backing the men and women who protect this city. I will also keep asking Austin to do its part so those professionals are not left to negotiate the Fourth Amendment with a commerical vendor.
I support our Police Department. I will vote to protect Brenham families from crime. I will not vote to enroll every resident in Brenham in a system the State of Texas has not bothered to regulate. If the Legislature puts real limits on data collection, retention, sharing, and abuse, then we can have that conversation again. Until then, the answer is no for me.
Do your own reading, look at recent events, and tell your state leaders what you think the balance should be. As always, I am open to conversation, learning more, and hearing from residents.
