Exploring the Real Time Information Center

Crime centers dedicated to full-time surveillance are being used to investigate serious crimes in precincts all over the world. Touted as cutting-edge investigative and preventative crime tools, these centers are also becoming increasingly common in the U.S.

In Oklahoma City, law enforcement utilizes software to collect data from automated license plate recognition devices (ALPRs) and other video and data sources for analysis to support first responders in real-time, which is why it’s called the Real Time Information Center (RTIC). 

These measures can aid in solving crimes and speeding up investigations by providing law enforcement with more resources and eyes on the ground. Those concerned with data privacy and civil rights question the constant surveillance, tracking, and data storage. Ultimately, everyone wants the same thing—safer communities. 

Points of View

The RTIC can tap in to live video feeds of areas where an alleged crime has taken place. Analysts view the scene and other data from various sources to relay information to responding officers before they arrive and while they’re on the scene. They can convey the suspect’s appearance, a general layout of the area, a vehicle description, or an escape route a suspect may have followed. They can also help identify possible threats such as the number of suspects and whether or not they are armed.  

In a video press kit, an officer with the Oklahoma City Police Department detailed how the RTIC helps them respond to crime, “As we’ve learned in the recent active shooters that we’ve had and the ones in the past, seconds matter. Seconds save lives. If we can get that accurate information out to the officers quicker, we can ensure that they respond and stop the threat as quickly as possible.” 

Local law enforcement and proponents also say the connectivity of the RTIC can help supplement police personnel shortages, support during weather-related events, and assist in traffic control.  

Privacy and civil rights advocates argue that surveillance at this level goes beyond crime prevention and infringes upon the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. During an Oklahoma City council meeting discussion on the possibility of purchasing additional drones for the police and fire departments, Ward 6 Councilmember, JoBeth Hamon, spoke about the potential issues.  

“I have concerns about implementing something that has the potential to abuse our residents’ civil rights that then winds up in a legal situation,” she said. “I would prefer that we proactively create policy that is local to us about the usage of surveillance technologies and how they’re used.” 

Opponents argue that alternative approaches like hiring more officers or investing in Community Violence Intervention (CVI) programs, like Peace City, can be more effective in reducing crime and gun violence while also preserving civilians’ Fourth Amendment rights.

Whether we’re ready to use this technology responsibly or not, it’s already live and vast amounts of data are being collected. It can even map out your movements throughout the day, storing a log of where you’ve been even if you’ve done nothing wrong. 

ALPRs are Watching 

ALPRs are high-speed cameras that scan and record every vehicle that crosses its field of view. They are typically used by law enforcement agencies but can also be bought and used by private entities, such as HOA's, businesses, and even private citizens. The software and cameras, commonly purchased from Flock Safety, integrate with the RTIC and can be valuable tools for enforcing the law. 

In Oklahoma, the Compulsory Insurance Law dictates that ALPRs can only be used to aid in detection of offenses involving uninsured motorists. If a law enforcement agency wants to access data captured through an ALPR for the purposes related to an investigation or prosecution of a criminal violation, they can only do so with a duly issued search warrant, subpoena, or order of the court. 

Despite this, there are cases where ALPR data has been used to attempt to pursue criminal charges. In 2016 and 2017, U.S. law enforcement scanned 2.5 billion license plates, 99.5% of which belonged to vehicles unassociated with criminal activity. 

State Representative Tom Gann, R-Atoka, a steadfast critic of the use of ALPRs beyond what is allowed by statute in Oklahoma, led two recent interim studies in 2024 and 2025. These studies examined if additional legislation was needed to regulate the technology for use outside of the Compulsory Insurance Law. During one study, Shena Burgess, a criminal defense attorney from Tulsa County, spoke about how ALPR data has been accessed without a warrant during regular traffic stops, or without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

Plainly, ALPRs allow law enforcement to map the movements of motorists, store a log of where they’ve been, and access that data even if an individual has done nothing wrong. Another presenter during the 2024 interim study touched on the implications of the storage of sensitive data.  

“When ALPRs capture plate information on a particular vehicle over the course of hours, days or more, what started out as single points on the map now become a series of connected dots that can track when and where a person travels and places they visit throughout their day,” said Chad Marlow, Senior Policy Counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “This provides the government with access to some very personal and intimate details of your life, such as what religious institutions you attend, what political meetings you go to, what doctors’ offices, like a psychiatrist or oncologist you visit, where you sleep at night...” 

In New Hampshire, the law dictates that unless a license plate number alerts for certain crimes, the records “shall be purged from the system within 3 minutes of their capture in such a manner that they are destroyed and are not recoverable”. 

Oklahoma law doesn’t dictate how long authorities are allowed to hold on to that data. The law also doesn’t limit who within the police department can access the data, or how that data can be used by agencies outside of the local department where the data was collected.  

While ALPR data can identify a vehicle, RTIC-connected facial recognition software can also identify the people inside it.  

A.I. Facial Recognition 

Recently, a majority of the City Council voted to approve the use of an A.I. facial recognition software by the police department with little discussion. The software, Clearview AI, runs an uploaded photo against its growing database of over 60 billion images to identify a person with a 99% accuracy rate. The images in its database are sourced from “public-only web sources, including news media, mugshot websites, public social media, and many other open sources,” according to the company’s website. 

Facial recognition has aided law enforcement in solving serious crimes, and like ALPRs, is incorporated into the RTIC. It has created leads for identifying victims and perpetrators of human trafficking and child exploitation, suspects of robberies and burglaries, and missing persons.  

While this new technology has proven to be helpful, it is not without its shortcomings. Many people are already leery of AI fallout from hallucinations, inaccurate outputs, and its use in attempting to deceive people with fabricated videos and deep fakes. Programs developed exclusively for law enforcement are also susceptible to these issues and can become more dangerous without boundaries provided by laws. 

“In a state like Oklahoma, there is no regulation for facial recognition technology, or any type of data surveillance,” said Cindy Nguyen with the ACLU, “which means that we are even more at risk of being falsely accused of a crime.” 

Clearview AI has faced criticism from opponents who say they never gave the company permission to gather and store their images, while the company maintains they have a first amendment right to access publicly available information on the internet.  

Despite this, the company has found itself in court in Illinois after violating a state law that says companies who wish to obtain a resident’s biometric data must first obtain written consent.  

The founders of Flock Safety and Clearview AI both say that the responsibility to ensure that the technologies are being used in accordance with local laws lies with the agencies that purchase them.

Locally, law enforcement has assured the city council that the RTIC wouldn’t be used for broad citizen surveillance, but the lack of clear policy and state law on when, how, and by whom its software is used lingers.  

Lack of Regulation 

Unlike other states, Oklahoma lacks statutes that provide guidelines and oversight for use of the many technologies and the data that law enforcement collects. Local law enforcement remains focused on how the RTIC and mass data collection helps decrease the time it takes to respond to crimes as they happen while citizens and local elected officials must navigate a steep learning curve to understand the potential consequences. 

Across the country, municipalities and states are facing similar challenges. While these technologies can be invaluable in solving serious crimes, as stakeholders, community members should have a say in the use of software and data collection methods that could infringe on rights granted through the U.S. Constitution. These discussions are complicated and should balance law enforcement needs with the rights of those they protect and serve.