Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Lpr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police outline Flock license‑plate reader safeguards as residents raise privacy and misuse concerns
Summary
Lewiston police summarized the operational controls, monthly audits, authorized users and 21‑day retention policy for Flock license‑plate readers, saying the system aided recovery of stolen vehicles and several shooting investigations. Extensive public comment warned of security weaknesses, possible third‑party access and misuse; council requested audit summaries and further transparency.
Police presented an operational update on the Flock license‑plate‑reader (LPR) system, emphasizing access controls, audit practices and investigative results.
Sergeant Brown said the department requires a documented police report number and a stated investigative reason before an officer may query the system. He described monthly audits of access logs (who queried which plate, from which IP and for what case number) and said supervisors can run the same audits. Brown said the Lewiston PD has 22 authorized users with administrative roles for audits and that three municipal partner agencies have mutual‑law‑enforcement user (MLU) access under written agreements. Data retention follows state law and Flock’s configuration: 21 days on a rolling basis.
Police listed operational results they attribute in part to the LPR deployment: a number of recovered stolen motor vehicles, recoveries of firearms and assistance in shooting investigations; officers said LPR alerts are confirmed against state and NCIC databases before enforcement action. Chief Connley and Sergeant Brown told council they have removed MLU access for an outside agency after an audit revealed access that did not meet the department’s documentation standard.
Public comment included sharp criticism: residents cited national reports of Flock sharing data via a national lookup tool and alleged prior misuse of LPR systems in other jurisdictions (including use without warrants or for immigration enforcement). Commenters asked whether Lewiston’s data could be accessed by Flock employees, other agencies or federal entities without local authorization and urged greater transparency, stronger contractual controls and independent audit access. Sergeant Brown said Flock does not independently access the city’s system and that audit logs would show any such access; he described the audit logs as detailed and searchable for IP address and user information.
Councilors asked for copies of the audit summaries and for clarity on which outside entities have MLU access (police said three municipal agencies within Maine) and confirmed that LPR images capture license plates and vehicle rear images (plus timestamp/location and some vehicle attributes such as color and bumper stickers) but not facial biometric data. Police emphasized that LPR queries are not routed to Flock for identity resolution — investigators must run plates through law‑enforcement databases to obtain registered owner details.
Council did not take an immediate policy vote but requested staff provide written audit summaries and access logs for elected officials and agreed to keep the issue under review.
The public discussion underscored competing priorities: police officials stressed investigative value and audit controls; residents urged transparency, contractual safeguards and policy limits to avoid misuse.
