Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears privacy concerns but moves to support state police Flock cameras on Route 24
Summary
After a presentation by Chief Costa and state police representatives about Flock automated license‑plate cameras, councillors urged written policies and public transparency; a motion to support installation of two state‑provided cameras on Route 24 was made and seconded and the solicitor was directed to prepare the drafting resolution for the next meeting (tally not recorded in the transcript).
Chief Costa and state police representatives briefed the council on a request from the Rhode Island State Police to install two Flock safety cameras on Route 24 (one northbound, one southbound). The chief said the department already operates two Flock cameras in town and that she budgeted to increase the town’s owned cameras from two to six.
Chief Costa described how the system is used operationally: “by policy, the Flock cameras only hold on to the data for 30 days and then it’s a data dump, if you will,” she said, and added that the cameras capture a snapshot of the back of a vehicle (license-plate image) for investigative use. She and other officers cited local cases where camera data helped identify vehicles connected to violent crimes, a hit‑and‑run and a stolen vehicle, and said the tool was also useful in locating a missing person with Alzheimer’s disease.
Multiple councillors and public speakers expressed civil‑liberties concerns: who can access the data, whether federal agencies might obtain it, and how long images are retained. Chief Costa said access is restricted in her department to supervisors and detectives, that she directs monthly audits of Flock queries, and that the department does not share with agencies such as ICE; a Flock representative attending the meeting answered technical questions about the system.
Councillors said they want written public policies and transparency. Several asked the chief and solicitor to post the department’s Flock policy and the results of routine audits on a public portal; the chief said a public portal exists and the department conducts monthly internal audits beyond Flock’s annual requirement.
Councillor Committ moved to support the state police installation of two state‑purchased cameras on Route 24, with Councillor Paul seconding the motion. The motion was debated and put to a vote during the meeting; the meeting record includes the motion and second but does not record a roll‑call tally in the transcript. Several councillors said they would vote only after seeing written policies, but others cited public‑safety benefits and local casework that led them to back the cameras.
The immediate outcome recorded in the meeting minutes is that the council instructed staff to prepare the necessary resolution language; councillors also requested that Flock and the police department publish policies and audit practices for public review before or when the matter returns for formal approval.
