Aransas Pass residents press council over license‑plate reader program, urge strict policies

At a packed Aransas Pass City Council meeting, a presentation from Flock Safety on automated license‑plate readers (LPRs) prompted hours of public comment and detailed questions from council members and the police chief about access controls, data retention and oversight.

Ian Leslie, identified in the meeting as Flock Safety’s regional public affairs manager, told the council the system captures point‑in‑time images of the back of vehicles, records vehicle characteristics, and can alert agencies within about 20 seconds when a plate matches a national or state crime database. “You guys 100% own the data,” Leslie said, adding that agencies control sharing and that Flock’s default retention is 30 days.

Residents and business owners who spoke during a lengthy public‑comment period pushed back hard. “Adopting Flock license‑plate reader cameras in Aransas Pass is not just a policy decision — it is a direct threat to constitutional rights, public trust and the safety of our own citizens,” resident Jacob Miller told the council. Miller and other commentators accused the company and its investors of creating a surveillance network and warned of misuse by officers.

Council members pressed for specifics. Chief Perkins confirmed the department operates nine fixed LPR cameras and one mobile camera and said the system shares data with nearby agencies including Ingleside and Rockport. Perkins said alerts are used to focus patrols when necessary and that the department maintains an audit area that logs searches and outcomes. “If any possible misuse is detected, it will be investigated and corrective action will be taken,” Perkins said.

Speakers on both sides urged stronger written rules. Several residents urged that any expansion require a council-approved policy that limits which officers can run searches, requires case numbers or documented reasons, mandates supervisor notification and sets strict penalties for misuse. “If someone abuses it, are there systems in place to alert proper supervision?” asked Leroy Terio, a resident. Flock’s presentation emphasized audit logs, multifactor authentication and agency control of sharing settings; Leslie repeatedly said policy choices rest with local agencies.

Council members did not vote on new hardware or funding at the meeting, but asked staff to return with the contract, transparency/audit reports and a proposed local policy that would specify retention, who may run searches, supervisory review and other safeguards. Several council members said they were torn between the tool’s value in locating stolen vehicles or Amber‑alert responses and the need to preserve residents’ privacy and trust.

The council directed staff to gather the requested documentation and schedule a follow‑up discussion, noting that the current system has been in place in the city since 2022 and that any future additions should be accompanied by clear, written oversight and public transparency measures.