Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews two-year pilot to install Flock Safety license-plate readers; privacy and audit safeguards discussed
Summary
Police proposed a two-year, four-location pilot with Flock Safety for license-plate readers and video, funded from asset-forfeiture funds (~$28,000 over two years). Staff emphasized audit requirements, limits on searches tied to active criminal complaints, and a 30-day vendor data retention default, with the state's court rule requiring 60 days for license-plate features noted.
Lede: Police presented a proposal to install four automatic license-plate-reader (LPR) and video systems from Flock Safety at key entry corridors to East Grand Forks as a two-year pilot funded from asset-forfeiture funds.
Nut graf: Chief Hedland and Corporal Rue said the four systems would cost about $14,000 per year ($3,500 per location), for a two-year total of roughly $28,000, to be paid from the city's asset-forfeiture account. The systems are presented as investigative tools that can return "hits" on stolen vehicles or Amber Alerts and can be searched only under Minnesota statute's restrictions tied to active criminal complaints and auditable logs.
Body: "It's not necessarily a crime prevention program so much as it is a crime-solving program," Chief Hedland told council. He described the system's operation: cameras capture rear license-plate images and compare them to hot lists and national databases, producing automatic alerts for matches.
Chief Hedland said Flock's default policy is to delete non-hit data after 30 days, which is shorter than the 60-day retention the chief said state court order requires if LPR features are in use. He said the city could request a shorter retention period if desired. Hedland described statutory safeguards: searches must be tied to an active criminal complaint and identify the requesting officer, and the city would undergo audits (Minnesota requires audits every two years similar to body-worn-camera audits).
Council members asked about cost, duration, who would have access and user permissions, signage, camera longevity, relocation fees and whether neighboring agencies (Fargo, Grand Forks) use Flock. Staff said the initial two-year term was proposed to match available asset-forfeiture funding and to enable a trial; if the city wants to continue after two years it would return to council with funding recommendations.
Ending: Council discussion was exploratory; no contract award or vote took place. Staff said they expect installation later in the summer if authorized and planned to return with a six-month operational report and proposed access and search policies.
