Mill Creek police defend Flock camera program as residents raise privacy and data-sharing concerns
Loading...
Summary
At a council meeting, residents pressed Mill Creek officials over Flock Safety license-plate readers; Police Chief White and a Flock representative said the city limits retention to 24 hours, restricts sharing to three county agencies and has audit controls, while opponents warned of outside access and constitutional risks.
Mill Creek — Residents pressed the City Council on Jan. 27 over the city’s contract with Flock Safety, a vendor that provides automatic license-plate recognition (ALPR) cameras, and Mill Creek Police officials defended the system’s safeguards and local controls.
“ALPR data retention in Mill Creek is actually currently set at 24 hours,” Police Chief White said, describing a city policy that limits how long plate images are kept. The chief said the department negotiated additional restrictions, including a signed data-sharing agreement that currently allows searches only by Everett, Lake Stevens and Mukilteo police departments.
The presentation included technical details and legal context. Chief White told the council the department entered a service agreement in November 2024 and installed its first camera on Sept. 29, 2025. He said the city disabled the system’s national lookup feature prior to collecting data and that the city performs audits of searches and access.
Trevor Chandler, a Flock Safety representative, told the council, “Flock does not sell data, period,” and described encryption, CJIS-compliant hosting and network audit logs that show which authorized users perform searches.
At public comment, longtime Mill Creek resident Jim Jacoby urged the council to end the contract, citing national reporting and academic work he said showed federal agencies had accessed ALPR networks elsewhere. “I could really urge the council to… seriously consider ending that contract with Flock immediately,” Jacoby said.
Chief White and Flock disputed the broad claim of ongoing federal access to Mill Creek’s network, pointing to the disabled national lookup and the city’s indemnity and data-sharing terms. The chief added that federal legal requests remain a possible legal avenue, but said the city would resist inappropriate requests and seek assistance from the attorney general’s office if necessary.
On legal issues, Chief White noted that courts have reached different decisions about ALPR and public-records requests; he referenced recent rulings in Pierce and Skagit counties and the Supreme Court’s Carpenter decision while cautioning that litigation and proposed state legislation (including bills discussed as Senate Bill 6002 in staff remarks) are shaping future rules.
Mill Creek police also disclosed operational statistics presented as success stories: since Aug. 2024, the network contributed to 66 incidents across jurisdictions with 56 arrests reported and several stolen-vehicle recoveries and an active shooting investigation aided by an ALPR hit.
Council members asked about thresholds for searches, sharing safeguards, and whether private business customers using Flock could link into city systems. Chief White said searches on the city network require a criminal nexus and an incident number and that private businesses do not have access to the city’s law-enforcement system.
The presentation left several questions unresolved: some council members pressed for visible MOUs and copies of the data-sharing agreements; others asked for third-party audits and an explicit path to notify council or the public when policies change. Staff said the department will move forward with a transparency portal to publish usage snapshots and success stories and will continue to monitor evolving legislation.
Next steps: councilmembers requested follow-up materials including copies or summaries of MOUs, an explanation of audit-log redactions, and options for independent audits or additional transparency measures.
