Mountlake Terrace pauses Flock camera install after hours of public testimony; council tables advisory-board ordinance

Mountlake Terrace officials told residents Wednesday night they have paused installation of Flock license-plate–reading cameras after an extended public hearing that featured multiple speakers urging the city to cancel the company—s contract.

The pause was announced by city staff, who said the cameras "have not been installed here in Mountlake Terrace, and we are pausing the installation of those cameras until the currently legal situation sorts itself out." Council members then debated an ordinance to reestablish a Community Policing Advisory Board and related resolution and policy language intended to govern any future use of the Flock system.

Why it matters: Dozens of residents testified that Flock is untrustworthy and could expose the city to lawsuits or inappropriate federal data requests. Speakers named litigation in other jurisdictions and raised constitutional and civil‑liberties concerns. City staff proposed audit and MOU safeguards including quarterly audits of 20 randomly selected inquiries and a requirement to record unique IDs and requester names for external data requests.

Public testimony and key claims: Adam, an online speaker, urged the council to cancel the contract before cameras are installed and asked, "Do you support leaving Mountlake Terrace open to costly lawsuits?" Jill, Theo Moriarty and other residents cited litigation against Flock in other cities and said the system amounts to warrantless mass surveillance. Moriarty stated plainly: "Flock is unconstitutional on its face." Other commenters urged a public vote before installation and warned that data-sharing with federal agencies could endanger residents.

Council action: Council debated whether a "pause" was sufficient and whether advisory-board language should cover "new technologies including but not limited to Flock." A motion to accept the ordinance as presented failed. A subsequent motion to table the ordinance and direct the city manager to revise the draft based on the night's discussion passed; the council also directed staff to remove a subcommittee paragraph from the resolution and to return with revised language at a future meeting.

What staff said next: City staff said they would gather input from other jurisdictions and return with revised ordinance text. The pause on installation was framed as a temporary, legally cautious step while other cases and policy questions remain unresolved.

Next steps: The council asked staff to draft revised advisory-board language, clarify what will be published in quarterly audit logs and identify whether the board—s duties should be narrowly focused on license-plate readers or broadened to cover emerging technologies; staff will return with updated language at a future meeting.

At the close of the meeting the council had not voted to cancel the Flock contract; instead it paused implementation and sent the ordinance back to staff for rework.