Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flock Safety details data controls and audit features as Fort Wayne council presses retention and access questions
Summary
Flock Safety representatives told the Fort Wayne Common Council the city controls sharing and that Fort Wayne’s LPR data are retained 180 days; council members and public commenters pressed officials on audit practices, CJIS access, and risks of broader surveillance.
Holly, a representative of Flock Safety, told the Fort Wayne Common Council on June 16 that the company’s license‑plate‑reader (LPR) and sensor suite is configurable by local agencies and that Fort Wayne Police controls who may access the city’s data. The company said Fort Wayne’s retention period is 180 days and that every search in its system is recorded in an immutable audit log tied to an offense type and, per local policy, a case number.
The presentation included national context (Flock’s founders in 2017; company figures on missing‑person assists) and a technical overview of the product suite, including LPRs, audio sensors to detect gunshots, and investigative software. Holly said Flock does not provide facial recognition, that private customers cannot access law‑enforcement data, and that CJIS‑certified Flock employees (a limited group) can access certain datasets only when required to maintain or improve the product.
Council members probed those assertions. Councilman Robert Tom asked what makes an employee CJIS‑certified; Holly said the process requires a government background check, fingerprints and a test and that only a select group of engineers undergoes it. When asked who can access shared data, Holly reiterated that sharing is permission‑based, can be one‑to‑one, statewide or nationwide, and that federal agencies cannot be auto‑approved on sharing networks.
Fort Wayne Police representatives said the department adopted the 180‑day retention policy to match body‑worn camera retention and that their internal affairs unit conducts monthly audits of searches. Flock described an audit‑assistance tool that flags atypical search patterns (for example, searches at unusual times or plates searched only by a single officer).
An Allen County prosecutor who spoke at the committee described a homicide investigation in which LPR data provided a lead that helped identify and arrest a suspect within hours. ‘‘It was lead information…Within hours, Jermard Lewis was arrested,’’ the prosecutor said, describing how a parking‑lot vehicle image and vehicle characteristics helped investigators find the suspect.
Public commenters later raised privacy and security concerns, citing contract language and news accounts of other cities that ended vendor contracts. Several speakers urged the council not to renew or to pause the Flock contract until independent audits and clearer local controls are in place.
The committee did not take a final contract vote during the meeting; council members instead used the session to extract technical details, ask for written policies and clarification on auto‑approve sharing, and press the police department on audit cadence and access controls.
The council’s next procedural steps were not decided at the meeting; staff said they would provide technical documentation on deletion procedures and follow up on outstanding questions about sharing networks and auto‑approval settings.
