Brookline police officials urged the Select Board to accept a memorandum of understanding that would give the department timely access to license‑plate reader data from cameras installed on Chestnut Hill Realty property, saying alerts tied to warrants or stolen vehicles could help investigators and prevent crimes.

Chief of Police (Acting) Rebecca Pastor told the board the department has used fixed and town‑owned camera systems since 2009 and described several internal protections and a draft policy limiting uses and retention. "These cameras will not capture facial images, and our department will not use them for facial recognition or any other unauthorized surveillance," Pastor said during the board meeting.

The vendor, Flock Safety, described the technical approach: cameras record plate text and short video clips; a cloud service generates alerts when a plate matches a law‑enforcement hot list, and images older than the vendor’s default retention period are deleted unless retained for an investigation.

But more than two hours of public testimony and questions from board members focused on data control, oversight and the potential for outside access. Residents and civil‑liberties groups urged the board to require stronger contractual limits and to get Chestnut Hill Realty in the room to explain its sharing practices. "This creates a target for federal authorities to try to coerce us into using those data," said Michael McGraw Hurdig, a town meeting member, citing concerns about Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Flock representatives said customers control which law‑enforcement agencies can access their camera networks; the vendor retains aggregated, de‑identified data for product improvement, they said. Kristen McLeod, Flock’s public‑affairs manager, told the board that commercial customers do not receive the same investigative tools as law‑enforcement agencies and that customers must comply with Flock’s terms, which prohibit unpermitted uses.

Police and Flock both said Chestnut Hill Realty — which purchased and installed the cameras on private property — controls who has access to its cameras. The board heard that Chestnut Hill Realty is offering temporary access to the police; the town would not pay for the provider’s subscription costs. Several select board members and attorneys asked for written proof of Chestnut Hill Realty’s terms with Flock, the vendor’s data‑sharing rules, and a legal opinion about whether third‑party access (for example, by out‑of‑jurisdiction agencies) could occur without the town’s knowledge.

The Select Board did not vote on the MOU. Members asked town counsel to review the draft MOU and said they wanted Chestnut Hill Realty to appear and to provide the vendor contract and any third‑party access rules before the board takes further action. They also asked Flock and police to clarify routine data‑retention periods, subpoena practices and emergency or automated‑alert procedures.

What’s next: The board directed staff to collect the vendor and landlord agreements, seek a written town‑counsel assessment and arrange follow‑up briefings. Public commenters requested the board delay action until those materials were public and until town counsel confirms the proposed safeguards.

Ending: Select Board members acknowledged a trade‑off between investigative usefulness and privacy risks and said they would not approve the MOU without clearer, documented limits and a direct appearance by Chestnut Hill Realty.