Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Lpr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears pitch for Flock Safety license-plate readers as privacy concerns surface
Summary
Vermilion police and a Flock Safety representative outlined a plan for 10 license-plate–reading cameras (initial install ~$6,000, $3,000 per camera annually), while council members and a resident raised privacy, data-retention and interjurisdictional-sharing concerns. The vendor said images are stored 30 days by default and agencies own downloaded evidence.
Vermilion police hosted a presentation on Flock Safety’s license-plate–reading (LPR) cameras and a potential 10-camera deployment to cover main city entrances and school corridors.
Kyle, introduced to the meeting as a Flock Safety representative, told the council the company’s solar, cellular cameras read only rear license plates and are not facial-recognition devices. He said the system is networked across jurisdictions so detectives can run vehicle-based searches, run hot lists, and receive alerts when a listed plate appears elsewhere.
“Each of the individual officers will have their own login,” Kyle said, describing a role-based permission model and an audit trail that logs the case number and reason for every search. He added that Flock retains imagery in its cloud for 30 days by default and agencies can download images to their own servers for longer retention in active cases.
Police and vendor representatives outlined cost and procurement details: initial installation for a 10-camera deployment was estimated at about $6,000 and the vendor quoted an annual subscription of $3,000 per camera—roughly $30,000 per year for ten cameras. The vendor said Flock handles maintenance, software updates and troubleshooting as part of the subscription.
Several council members and members of the public pressed the administration and vendor on privacy and governance. One council member cited American Civil Liberties Union reporting and warned that data collected by private vendors can be shared beyond local needs. “Big Brother is watching,” the council member said, and urged a cautious approach with robust safeguards and public transparency.
A resident, Russ Owens, asked whether county and state agencies operate similar systems; the vendor and police confirmed Lorain County and other nearby jurisdictions use networked cameras and said deployment plans are coordinated to avoid unnecessary duplication and to maximize investigatory value.
Police Chief Hartley and Sergeant Griffin of Amherst PD described operational benefits. Griffin, who said Amherst has used Flock for more than two years, said the system cut investigator search times in cases such as hit-and-run crashes, robberies and missing-person investigations and can deliver notifications to dispatch and patrol within seconds when a hot-list plate is observed.
Vendor and police officials emphasized policy controls: searches require an associated case number and a stated investigative reason, administrators can grant or deny cross-jurisdiction access, and the vendor offers a public-facing transparency portal and assistance drafting an LPR policy for public disclosure. The council directed staff to review the proposal and policy options before any final action.
Next steps: staff said they will produce a more detailed deployment plan and draft LPR policy for council review.
