Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Camera Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Warren council rejects state police request to install Flock ALPR camera after heated public comment
Summary
After a state police presentation on automated license-plate readers, the Warren Town Council declined to allow a Flock camera in town following extensive public concern about privacy, lack of a finalized MOU and contract transparency. The council voted to deny the installation after debating a motion to continue for further review.
The Warren Town Council voted to deny installation of a Flock automated license‑plate reader (ALPR) after a Rhode Island State Police presentation and extended public comment.
The state police representative told the council the contract would be between Flock Technologies and the Rhode Island State Police and that the State Police would cover deployment costs for participating towns. The presenter described capabilities including automated vehicle recognition, real‑time alerts and a standard 30‑day retention period and said the system “does not use facial recognition” and that investigators would be accountable through a documented search history and access controls.
Many residents pushed back. “I am opposed to the block camera system for a number of reasons,” Anne Raver said, citing press and ACLU reporting and warning of surveillance and hacking risks. Madeline McGonigal of the ACLU urged the council to reject the proposal, noting that other municipalities have canceled Flock contracts and that retention and sharing policies vary by location.
Council members pressed the presenter and the town solicitor on legal and operational safeguards. The solicitor flagged unresolved questions about whether ALPR data could be treated as a public record under the state Access to Public Records Act (APRA), and several council members said they wanted to see a finalized memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the executed contract before voting. One council member cautioned that state policy could change after a local vote, limiting the town’s control.
Councilman William Hanley moved to continue consideration until the contract and MOU were supplied for solicitor review. That motion was seconded and debated; a later motion to deny the installation was offered and passed by voice vote. The council president announced, “Motion carries.”
The denial does not change the fact that nearby communities may deploy similar cameras; speakers noted that cross‑jurisdictional access can reduce a single town’s ability to prevent regional surveillance. The state police representative said the statewide system was intended to assist investigations and would, in his view, provide investigative leads while respecting civil liberties.
What happens next: Council members said they expect to receive the policy and MOU documents when they are finalized. The council’s decision was a local policy choice and does not prevent the state police from deploying cameras elsewhere in Rhode Island.
