Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges removal of Flock cameras; council hears state bill to limit their use
Summary
A Normandy Park resident urged the council to remove two Flock license-plate cameras installed in August 2024, alleging federal immigration enforcement access; the council discussed a state bill that would limit retention, bar public-records access, require warrants for privately held data and prohibit sharing with federal agencies.
A Normandy Park resident told the City Council she wants two Flock license-plate cameras removed, saying the data is being used by federal agencies to target immigrants and protesters.
Lila Hawkes, who gave her name and address at the podium, said the city installed two Flock cameras in August 2024 “with the objective of obtaining license plate data to fight crime.” She told the council she believes the same data “is now being used by DHS/ICE to target immigrants as well as protesters in violation of our constitutional rights of due process and freedom of speech.” She asked the council to remove or deactivate the cameras and to adopt policies limiting federal immigration enforcement on city-owned properties.
The comment came during the public-comment period; no immediate council action was taken. City Manager Arrington later noted a bill moving through the state legislature seeks to restrict Flock camera use and set new requirements for retention and access. Chief Dan Yerkowski described current practices and the negotiated bill terms being discussed in Olympia: a 21-day retention period, limits on which crimes permit data review, a prohibition on sharing city-held Flock data with federal agencies, and a requirement that privately held camera data be obtained by search warrant rather than by informal request.
Chief Dan also referenced a university study and a vendor software upgrade that had previously reset privacy settings unintentionally. He said the proposed legislation would require vendors to prevent such reversion of privacy settings and would make Flock data ineligible for public-records requests.
Why it matters: the discussion paired a resident’s civil‑liberties concern with staff and the police chief’s explanation of technical and legal safeguards being negotiated at the state level. If the bill passes with the described provisions, local residents would have stronger statutory limits on retention and on who can access license‑plate data held by governments and vendors.
What’s next: councilors signaled interest in the outcome of the legislative process; no formal city policy change was adopted at the meeting.
