CCSO raises Leavenworth law enforcement costs, sparks discussion of surveillance technology

LEAVENWORTH — Chelan County Sheriff Mike Morrison and County Administrator Cathy Mulhall visited Leavenworth City Council on Jan. 27 to address the recent hike in law enforcement contract rates.

The four-year Interlocal law enforcement service agreement was approved by the City of Leavenworth in Nov. 2025 and went into effect this year. The new contract includes a 15 percent increase in rates per deputy, with a 5 percent increase scheduled each year.

Mulhall and Morrison clarified that the cost increase was not related to the county’s budget shortfalls, but largely due to increases in labor and vehicle costs. 

“I'd say the majority, if not all of it, is the cost of labor,” said Mulhall.

Sheriff Morrison noted that the department has tried to stay competitive regionally, but it continues to be a challenge as other agencies offer higher pay and sign on bonuses. With limited staff, Chelan County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) has had to mitigate coverage gaps when deputies take leave. However, CCSO has had strong retention overall, and the last open position was recently filled, which Morrison called a “good start.”

While regional law enforcement agencies have historically assisted one another, Morrison told the council that discussions were in place about expanding this coordination with a potential unified contract. Morrison also credited the use of Flock cameras in giving CCSO an “expanded footprint throughout the county,” as the cameras “do not take time off.” The cameras have Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), which can capture vehicle data such as plate number, make, model, color, and notable features.

“It is a great piece of technology. It 100 percent solves crimes. Within the first couple weeks that we were utilizing it, we had located and stolen vehicles, missing and endangered people, solved a burglary,” said Morrsion. “I would much rather have that technology out there.”

Morrison acknowledged concerns of privacy and transparency, noting the conflicting stances on the technology among county, state and federal officials. Morrison affirmed that CCSO had authority over the data, but admitted that Flock was initially “deceptive” by not notifying agencies that a default setting would share data with federal agencies.

“We were aware of it before we activated our system, simply because two other agencies had already fell victim to it,” said Morrison.

In October 2025, the University of Washington Center for Human Rights found that at least 8 Washington state law enforcement agencies enabled direct sharing of their networks with U.S. Border Patrol; the federal agency also had “back door” access to network data of at least 10 Washington police departments who did not explicitly authorize searches.

Washington cities and counties have also debated whether data collected by Flock ALPRs is subject to public records disclosure, leading some police departments to pause their use of the technology. A senate bill is currently moving through the state legislature, proposing guardrails on ALPRs such as narrowing its purpose, limiting data retention, and requiring registration and audits.

“I would like to see the technology of course be supported by the courts, [with] more clear, defined guidelines of how we want to utilize it moving forward. If you give us the restrictions and conditions of usage, our agency will comply with it,” said Morrison.

Taylor Caldwell: 509-433-7276 or taylor@ward.media