Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents tell Klamath Falls council Flock Safety cameras risk privacy
Loading...
Summary
Two residents told the Klamath Falls City Council that the police department’s use of Flock Safety automated license-plate readers raises constitutional and data‑stewardship concerns, citing Carpenter v. United States and alleging corporate access to images stored out of state.
Two residents urged the Klamath Falls City Council on April 20 to scrutinize the police department’s use of Flock Safety automated license‑plate readers (ALPRs), saying the cameras create a continuous warrantless location trail and that the private vendor’s custody of images raises privacy and transparency problems.
Warren Shockey told the council that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 Carpenter v. United States decision — which restricted warrantless collection of long‑term cell‑site location information — supports his view that continual ALPR tracking amounts to a Fourth Amendment search. “This ruling is Carpenter versus United States,” Shockey said. “No probable cause, just continuous.” He accused the police chief of misrepresenting how often data was shared and said the company “has no real concern for how they steward this data.” He added bluntly, “He’s lying,” in reference to the chief’s comment about data‑sharing counts.
Later in the meeting, Niles Walter, who identified himself as a resident, thanked the council for inviting the police to present on the cameras but said his main concern is where captured images and ALPR data are stored and who can access them. Walter said Flock retains possession of every image and stores data in out‑of‑state cloud databases that other law enforcement agencies can access, and that private firms are not subject to the same public‑record transparency as government data custodians.
Both speakers cited news reports and previous council discussion as context. Shockey and Walter urged the council to seek greater clarity on data custody, access controls and whether the city or the vendor is the legal data owner.
The public comment period closed with no council action recorded on restricting or changing the city’s use of the Flock system; the council later adjourned into executive session under ORS 192.660(2)(e) and (h).
