Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Open Records topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident says city is withholding Flock camera audit logs and urges transparency

College Station City Council · May 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

John Hamilton told the College Station City Council his open-records requests for Flock camera audit logs were denied under Texas Public Information Act §552.108; he said he has 1,763 query records and urged the council to allow access and work with the public on camera use and redaction practices.

John Hamilton, a registered visitor speaker at the College Station City Council meeting on May 28, said the city has repeatedly denied his open-records requests for audit logs from the Flock camera system and that the legal department announced the logs would be withheld under Texas Public Information Act §552.108 (law-enforcement-exemption). Hamilton told the council he began seeking the audit logs on April 27 and that his requests were redirected between the police department and the private vendor before the city cited exemption A1/A2 for withholding records related to criminal investigations.

Hamilton said he obtained audit data through other sources and presented summary counts to the council, including 1,763 records of Flock queries attributed to the College Station Police Department, with 614 queries logged in April 2026 and specific daily counts he described. He also told the council that the vendor Flock provides administrative redaction tools that could remove license-plate data or ongoing-case information, and he urged the city to use those redactions rather than deny the records outright. "I'm not asking you to agree with me on the use of this technology or Flock in general. I'm asking you to stop fighting me and to just care like I care," Hamilton said.

City staff did not produce a response on the record during Mr. Hamilton's public comment; the item proceeded to routine consent and business items. The record of Hamilton's remarks and his stated open-records complaint were entered into the minutes. If the council or police department takes a follow-up action regarding the audit logs, that would be subject to separate notice or future agenda items.

The council did not deliberate or vote on Hamilton's request during the meeting; the matter remains a public-records and law-enforcement disclosure question under state statute.