Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Des Moines to suspend Flock Safety license‑plate cameras, citing new state law and data-control concerns
Summary
Several Des Moines residents urged the council to suspend the city’s Flock Safety license‑plate readers, saying SB 602 (signed March 30, 2026) restricts their use in sensitive locations, alleging some local units remain active, and asking the council to verify retention settings and data control.
Residents pressed the Des Moines City Council on April 9 to deactivate the city’s Flock Safety license‑plate readers, citing a recently enacted state law and concerns about data control and surveillance.
Crystal LaRosa, a Des Moines resident, told the council she audited 15 cameras in the area and identified four to five cameras she believes are operating in or pointing at sensitive locations, including near Holy Trinity Lutheran Church and Highline College. She said SB 602, signed March 30 by Gov. Jay Inslee (referred to in testimony as “SB 602”), explicitly prohibits license‑plate reader use in sensitive locations and urged the council to suspend the city’s Flock cameras immediately and confirm that a 21‑day automatic purge has been implemented in vendor software.
Judy Grandy, another resident, said she filed a public‑records request with the city in January seeking information about the cameras and has since learned that the city and police department do not directly control the Flock Safety camera data for the 15 cameras the police department is paying for. Grandy raised concerns about mass surveillance and possible data aggregation by third parties; she asked the council to vote to decommission the 15 Des Moines Police Department Flock cameras.
The commenters named locations, raised legal and privacy concerns, and requested specific follow‑up: verification of data‑retention settings and clarity about who controls access to footage and plate reads. Neither speaker reported a formal city action during public comment; they asked the council to consider and vote on suspension or decommissioning.
The council did not make a decision on the record during the meeting; the matter remained in the public‑comment record for council consideration. Next procedural steps would include staff follow‑up to confirm the number and status of cameras, the city’s contractual and technical control over data, and any necessary legal analysis to comply with SB 602.
