I attended the August 10, 2023 Camden County Commission meeting at 10:00 a.m.
Commissioners Gohagan and Skelton were present.
The first agenda item was Sheriff-Seeking Vote of Approval – Asset Forfeiture – Equitable Sharing Agreement & Certification.
Presiding Commissioner Skelton mentioned that he was concerned about this item because he felt that federal agencies often come in to take the lead on investigations so they can share the seized assets. Skelton had quite a few questions, but there wasn’t anyone present at the meeting from the Sheriff’s Office who could explain the details. A representative from the Sheriff’s Office said he would contact a member of the drug task force (LANEG) who could explain the asset forfeiture to the Commission. This item was moved to the end of the agenda.
The second agenda item was New Prescription Plan for County Employees – Script Care Contract.
This agenda item addressed the county’s efforts to change its prescription plan to allow county employees to have more affordable access to certain diabetes prescriptions. Commissioner Gohagan stated that County Attorney Jeff Green needs to review the new contract.
This item was unanimously tabled for review by the County Attorney.
The third agenda item was Discuss Consideration of Traffic Revenue Ordinance.
Presiding Commissioner Skelton explained that under the current system, traffic tickets written on county roads generate revenue that goes directly to the State of Missouri. Camden County doesn’t receive any revenue from those tickets.
County Attorney Green said that Camden County’s situation is unusual because such a large percentage of the county’s population lives in unincorporated county areas. In order to retain the revenue from traffic citations, the county would have to establish a county system that would record and track them to determine if a violator has committed multiple offenses. This is especially important for DWI violations. Green has already coordinated with the Prosecuting Attorney on this matter.
A representative from the Sheriff’s Office mentioned that their department would benefit from county ordinances that clearly established the speed limits and guidelines for disturbing the peace in the county areas.
The Commission directed the County Attorney to draft a traffic ordinance by September 12.
The fourth agenda item was Discuss Consideration of Banning Static Plate Reader Ordinance.
Presiding Commissioner Skelton led off the discussion with a description of how license plate readers (LPR) work. He was opposed to the idea that these LPR’s are gathering and recording information about the citizens of the county. He was concerned that the companies that provide these LPR systems keep their own databases of license plate data.
Skelton did not have a strong objection to LPR’s that are mounted on moving patrol vehicles. This was a law enforcement tool that he could tolerate. The majority of his ire was focussed on the static LPR systems that are posted, unmanned, and record all of the license plates that pass by them. He also was opposed to the placement of LPR systems on private property. Skelton was inclined to consider an ordinance that would ban static LPR’s from Camden County.
County Attorney Green discussed the topic of LPR’s and felt that he could argue either side of this privacy issue. He stressed that LPR’s were different from red light cameras because red light cameras issued traffic summons based on the traffic images. Green explained that there might not be much of a legal distinction between an unmanned LPR and an LPR that was attached to a manned, operating police vehicle. Does the benefit for law enforcement outweigh the expectation of privacy while driving in public? Green also questioned who would enforce a county ordinance that forbids the use of LPR systems?
Commissioner Gohagan said that he saw both sides of the LPR issue and acknowledged that the captured data could solve some investigations. He stated that the ATF already has a few LPR cameras in Camden County.
Some representatives from the Camden County Sheriff’s Office acknowledged that there were already some LPR systems set up in Osage Beach through a state grant. They said they did not know where the ATF’s LPR cameras are located in Camden County. Could Camden County force the removal of LPR systems in municipalities with a county-wide ban? Commissioner Skelton seemed confident that they could.
There was a lot of discussion between the commissioners and various members of the audience. The commissioners discussed inviting an LPR vendor to a meeting to get more information about how the collected data is stored.
The meeting then switched back to the original first item regarding asset forfeiture because one of the supervisors from the drug task force (LANEG) showed up to answer questions.
He explained that this item was an annual certification report for asset forfeiture that LANEG has to send to the federal government. Their share of the forfeiture amount was based on the agency’s participation in the investigation. It sounded like the majority of the money coming to Camden County was from some sort of bath salts and chemicals investigation. This money was held by Camden County, but earmarked for LANEG. The current balance of the account containing that forfeiture money was $107,383.43.
Commissioner Skelton said he felt that asset forfeiture was tantamount to theft, but he wasn’t going to let his personal opinion influence his decision. Despite his personal misgivings, both commissioners voted to accept the money.
The final agenda item was Discuss Adding a Wastewater Layer to the County GIS System.
Camden County is considering adding a layer to the GIS system that would provide basic permit numbers and other information for wastewater permits. They’ve also discovered they might be able to add wastewater information to an existing layer. They are going to explore their options and see how easy it will be to add the data.
Finally, Commissioner Skelton announced that Camden County will merge Planning and Zoning with Wastewater into one office so all permitting can be handled in one department. They hope this will make the permitting process easier for customers.
And that was that.
Asset forfeiture has always been a contentious aspect of law enforcement. The idea that agencies can seize the assets of a criminal enterprise to fund law enforcement operations has a certain appeal, but there is always the danger that law enforcement agencies might be tempted to start picking those criminal targets that would generate the most revenue from seizures. You might find it hard to believe that something like this could ever happen, but California offers a cautionary tale about asset forfeiture.
The Donald Scott case was an example of how pressure to increase asset forfeiture revenue can lead to tragedy. This case is one of the reasons that California asset forfeiture rules now focus the revenue from asset seizure toward victim restitution instead of salaries and overtime. I’ve provided some links to this sad story below:
Among the Dogwoods 
How many meetings does Williams miss?
LikeLike
He’s missed quite a few. I should go back and count up the attendance.
LikeLike
Do you know why it says “ https://amongthedogwoods.blog/2023/08/16/august-10-2023-camden-county-commission-meeting-at-1000-a-m/comment-page-1/#comment-850 In response to jimdavisconstruction:” He is a buddy but I’m Rick Goos, the Morning News email guy.
LikeLike
What a tragic sad story. Thanks for being our ears for these meetings.
LikeLike