Laredo police defend Flock license‑plate readers; residents and researchers urge limits and transparency

The City of Laredo heard competing accounts Wednesday night about the police department’s expanding use of vehicle‑identification technology and associated systems.

Mayor Victor de Trevino asked the chief of police to describe how the department uses Flock license‑plate readers, drones and an upgraded real‑time crime center. In a 40‑minute presentation the chief said the technology is a targeted investigative tool used to find stolen vehicles, support missing‑person and violent‑crime inquiries and deploy drones as “first responders.” The chief said the systems are intended to enable “prevention‑first” policing and stressed that “Flock does not do facial recognition,” adding, “It does not identify drivers. It does not record conversations.” He told council the city has secured roughly $6.5 million in grant funding over recent fiscal years to buy cameras, drones, a chemical/biological detector and support specialist staff.

The presentation prompted an extended public‑comment period in which privacy advocates, immigrant‑rights groups and a cybersecurity researcher said the city should halt or severely limit use of Flock cameras. Max Verado, who identified himself as representing the Laredo Immigrant Alliance, said records his group reviewed show thousands of searches in a single month and questioned why many searches lacked case numbers or clear probable‑cause justifications. He said one set of records included 5,274 individual searches in January and that searches were routed to hundreds of external networks.

Security researcher Tommy, who said he had prior DOJ experience, told council he had been able to demonstrate systemic security flaws in some ALPR deployments elsewhere and warned staff to assume the data could be exposed or misused. “Anybody that has access to the system can access it,” he said, urging regular independent audits and stronger authentication controls.

Residents and advocacy lawyers raised additional concerns about cross‑agency sharing. Karen Munoz of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center told council that records obtained through open‑records requests indicate some searches were labeled with reasons like “immigration (civil/administrative),” and argued that sharing plate searches with federal partners can amount to immigration enforcement. Elizabeth Salazar said the surveillance rollout creates a ‘‘slippery slope’’ toward mass tracking and urged the council to protect civil liberties.

Councilmembers pressed the chief on data access, retention and contractual limits. The chief said the city’s contract restricts resale or third‑party ownership of the data, that searchable data is retained for a limited period in cloud servers (described by staff as 30 days) and that law‑enforcement queries are subject to open‑records rules. He acknowledged that other agencies—state and local—can and do request assistance and said the department shares data with cooperating agencies for legitimate investigations while implementing internal policy controls.

The presentation and public comments underscored sharply divided views in Laredo: police staff argued the technology has produced leads and prevented or reduced crime, while opponents pointed to records, documented breaches elsewhere, and the system’s potential to be used for immigration‑related searches and non‑law‑enforcement tracking. Several callers asked the council to postpone any approval of additional hardware until independent security audits, clearer public‑education efforts and stricter guardrails are in place.

Council did not take a final action on new ALPR deployments at the meeting; city staff said the item would return for further discussion and that they planned to publish a transparency portal (accessed via a QR code) detailing device deployments and the reasons for drone flights.