Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
University City pauses Flock camera expansion after residents raise privacy and ICE concerns
Summary
After residents urged a pause over privacy and possible data-sharing with federal immigration authorities, the University City Council removed a Flock camera expansion item from the agenda March 23 and said it will pursue more dialogue before deciding whether to proceed.
University City Mayor and council members removed a proposed expansion of Flock license‑plate/automated-plate-reader cameras from the agenda at the March 23 City Council meeting after multiple residents raised privacy concerns and warned the cameras could expose local people to immigration enforcement.
Todd Dean, who said he lives on Dorset Avenue, thanked the council for pulling the agenda item and told council members Flock cameras “collect license plate and other data and share it across a national database,” potentially allowing agencies with 287(g) cooperation agreements to access that data. He asked the council to develop clear policies, public oversight and alternatives that prioritize community trust and civil liberties.
“Data collected here in University City could be accessed by agencies throughout the U.S., including those with 287(g) cooperation agreements with ICE,” Dean said, urging the city to consider community-based safety investments rather than expanding surveillance.
Resident Sean Baldwin also connected surveillance to immigration enforcement in his public comment, saying federal and local cooperation had led to detentions and arguing the council should take steps beyond previously adopted resolutions to protect residents he described as vulnerable. Council member Timon said he had asked that the item be held for further discussion and cited several cities that have rescinded Flock contracts; he said he is “not against safety measures” but wants more information before the city proceeds.
The mayor and council did not vote on any procurement or contract award related to the cameras that evening. Council members and residents signaled they expect more staff reports and public dialogue before the council considers authorizing new surveillance technology.
Next steps: the council left the item off the agenda for the night and council members said they would continue deliberations and solicit additional information and community input before taking formal action.
