CLARKSVILLE, TN (CLARKSVILLE NOW) – After a long discussion weighing the pros and cons of installing license plate readers (LPRs) in Clarksville, the City Council has agreed to support the initiative. The resolution passed with a narrow 7-6 vote.

While the equipment will initially be funded with state grant dollars, there was still concern about the long-term cost and matters pertaining to privacy that were addressed at the executive session on Dec. 29. However, other members of the council saw LPRs as a benefit for Clarksville, serving as a way to deter crime and respond to it more quickly.

Opposition to LPRs

Councilmember Wanda Smith was one of the most outspoken opponents of the LPRs, citing concerns about invasion of privacy as well as potential facial recognition.

“When I asked the question, ‘Are there any statistics (or) evidence that it has decreased crime?’ I didn’t get the answer, so I’m still trying to find that answer,” Smith said. “I’m not against what the police officer is trying to do, but I need some statistics. I need something to show me that people are not going to be harassed, that people are not going to be falsely identified.”

Councilperson Karen Reynolds previously said she was concerned that LPRs would violate Fourth Amendment rights. At the meeting on Thursday, she read concerns she had received from a citizen in Clarksville.

Police Chief David Crockarell addressed many of the concerns last week; however, the citizen referred to those comments as “vague.” Additionally, the citizen was concerned the data could be used for stalking, claiming such cases were documented in other systems.

“I don’t think we’ve thought out the details of the audits and access correctly,” Reynolds said. “These are very high-level concerns that I don’t think have been addressed adequately for my vote to say yes.”

Councilperson Trisha Butler said she had received six emails, five against LPRs and one supporting them.

“In regard to this whole program, I think that it would absolutely be just as helpful as Chief (Crockarell) stated. I think it would do all of the things that it’s supposed to do. I think it would be great, but the fact of the matter is I don’t think it is worth the cost. I don’t think it’s worth sacrificing liberty for security.”

Councilperson Wallace Redd noted he had also received emails from constituents who were “adamantly opposed” to the LPRs.

Support for LPRs

Several other council members said they thought LPRs would be beneficial to the city.

Councilperson Stacey Streetman said half of the emails she received were for it and half were against. “But I also had other residents within Ward 10 that reached out to me, not via email, and talked to me about it and said they were in favor of this,” she said.

Councilperson Dajuan Little also expressed support for LPRs, explaining they would be especially useful when tracking down dangerous criminals fleeing police in a vehicle.

“I do feel as though this will increase our safety,” he said. “It helps with kidnappings, Amber Alerts, robberies, tracking dangerous vehicles (and) missing persons.”

LPRs saw further support from Councilperson Brian Zacharias, who said he didn’t think it was a Fourth Amendment issue. He explained that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to information that is publicly displayed to others, such as license plates.

“This is something that I am in favor of as a tool to solve crimes. If there was some question about whether or not this was a Fourth Amendment issue, then I would have some reservations,” Zacharias said, citing a letter from District Attorney General Robert Nash supporting the initiative.

Councilperson Travis Holleman said Nashville has begun a pilot program for license plate readers, which he noted could bring more outside crime into the city if Clarksville does not follow suit.

Councilperson Deanna McLaughlin also referenced the lack of officers and said LPRs could help.

“Technology is evolving in every aspect of the work force, and this one would be a tool that would help us to put resources where they can be beneficial. 40 officers down is a lot. That’s not new positions, that’s positions that are open,” she said. “It’s only going to get worse, and this is a way to combat that,” McLaughlin said.

Other discussion

Councilperson Ambar Marquis noted concerns about eventual facial recognition, but she talked too about the positive effects it could have for CPD. Further, she provided clarity as to when the city would pick up the bills.

“This is a grant that we are getting from the state that will last us three years. After the third year, then the city is supposed to be picking up the maintenance and upkeep and funding of these cameras,” she said, explaining that the plan is to have 12 cameras along state routes.

Several councilmembers who expressed opposition to LPRs said they were not anti-police or against decreasing crime. Rather, they wanted what was best for their constituents.

“Not supporting license plate readers does not say that you do not support the Police Department. I need to say this very clearly because I am a staunch supporter of our Police Department and I don’t agree with this,” said Councilperson Wanda Allen.

Smith echoed similar sentiments.

“If I vote against this, it does not mean that I don’t like the police. I love the police. If I vote against this, it doesn’t say that I don’t want crime decreased, because I do,” she said.

The vote

A motion to postpone the vote was made by Allen, who said she was ready to vote but that postponing would give others a chance to bring forward their concerns before policy was written.

“I don’t think we should postpone it. I came here to vote, and I’m ready to vote,” said Councilperson Joe Shakeenab. “There’s been no discussion of out-of-year funding. We know who would have to start paying for this in FY26, and we’ve not even thought about a budget for FY26.”

The motion to postpone failed 8-5. The resolution to support LPRs in Clarksville narrowly passed 7-6.

Voting yes for LPRs were Zacharias, McLaughlin, Little, Holleman, Streetman, Shakeenab and Mayor Joe Pitts. Voting no were Redd, Marquis, Smith, Allen, Reynolds and Butler.