Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves two-year contract for license-plate cameras after privacy questions
Summary
The Snohomish County Council approved a two-year, $87,150.70 contract with Flock Group Inc. to deploy license-plate reading cameras. Council members asked about privacy safeguards; a vendor representative said data are controlled by the county and retained 30 days unless pulled for an investigation.
Snohomish County Council on Jan. 22 approved a two-year services agreement with Flock Group Incorporated to implement license-plate reading cameras, with a not-to-exceed price of $87,150.70.
The motion (25-007) was introduced by staff and moved and seconded during the meeting; the council approved the contract by voice vote with a tally of four yes, zero no. A staff report said the two-year term begins upon hardware installation.
The item generated questions from council about privacy and data handling after staff noted a recent article about a different vendor. Nicole Gourley, council staff, told the council that both Flock and the county IT department had been contacted and had provided written responses to members of the council.
Kristen McLeod, identified in the record as community engagement manager with Fox 50 and speaking for the vendor online, said the county and its law-enforcement customers retain ownership of all data. "All of the data belongs to our law enforcement customers, the county, the municipality. Flock will never sell or share that data, and that will be clearly outlined in the services agreement in the contract," McLeod said.
McLeod described a default 30-day retention policy: images and data are retained for 30 days and then are "hard deleted and unrecoverable." She said searches made by deputies as part of criminal investigations create an audit trail, that a search reason is required, and that downloaded material is typically placed into an agency's evidence repository and retained according to records law.
A council member noted having attended a vendor seminar and said the system appears to have public-safety benefits but that constituents raise privacy concerns. The council received the vendor and IT responses before taking the vote.
The contract was approved as presented; the motion record shows the council authorized the agreement but does not include additional restrictions or changes to data-retention terms recorded on the public transcript.
The council then moved to the next agenda items and closed the session.
