Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance And Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newport officials present Flock license-plate reader pilot as residents raise privacy concerns
Summary
City staff and police presented a Flock license-plate reader pilot and associated policies; officials said the system captures still images, not video or facial recognition, retains most data 30 days, and will not be shared with federal immigration authorities without court orders. Residents urged strong audit, short retention, and a public vote before any contract.
City officials presented a months-long pilot of license-plate reader (LPR) cameras and options for a limited deployment as the Board of Commissioners heard sharply divergent views on privacy and public safety.
The city manager said the pilot equipment was provided free by the vendor and emphasized that the city does not plan to use facial-recognition features. "This is strictly license-plate readers only," he said, and added the city will not share LPR results with federal immigration authorities absent a court order. He described audit trails and state and local policy obligations required by a recently passed House bill.
Police Chief (name not provided) described cases where vehicle imagery helped investigators. "Because there was a witness on the scene that knew the color and the make of this vehicle, by going on to the Flock system we were able to identify almost immediately what this vehicle was, and then we were able to see the license plate and find the suspect," the chief said, arguing LPRs are a tool to accelerate investigations and solve violent crimes.
Captain Drellan demonstrated the vendor interface and explained technical safeguards. He said the system captures still images (snapshots) and vehicle "fingerprints," not continuous video; standard retention through the vendor is 30 days, and the state law allows up to 90 days but requires agencies to publish policies and maintain audits. He added the vendor does not receive owner registration data and the department remains responsible for linking plate data to investigative records.
Board members asked how officers’ searches would be audited, whether toggles that filter searches (for immigration or reproductive-health related queries) function as described, how many cameras would be deployed and at what cost. Staff said the police request would be for roughly six Flock cameras, with an operating cost of about $3,000 per camera per year; the city currently has more than 30 pilot LPR hits across a wider regional network but would limit the formal request.
Several residents told the board they were uncomfortable with any third‑party involvement and urged the city to require strict public reporting. "I am tired of being an unwilling product for somebody else's profit," said Mike Curtis, a resident, who urged stronger guardrails and transparency. Another resident asked whether images are only stills; the chief and captain said yes. Other public commenters raised Fourth Amendment concerns and asked how the city will demonstrate audits and who can access the system.
City officials repeatedly said no contract would be signed tonight and that a formal proposal and vote would return to the board with contract language and related policy before any procurement occurs. The mayor and city manager promised the board would consider public input and that city policies would be posted as required by state law.
