Green council committee weighs two-year Flock camera contract amendment amid privacy questions

The City of Green’s public-safety committee debated a proposed two-year, $82,000 amendment on June 9 to the policing contract that would extend Summit County Sheriff access to Flock license-plate reader services and cameras.

Chairman Davidis opened the discussion by asking the sheriff’s office to describe how the system is used and how the amendment fits into the existing contract. Captain David McCutcheon, patrol commander for the Summit County Sheriff’s Office, said the cameras produce leads that have materially aided investigations and located missing people. “Flock is an invaluable tool,” McCutcheon said, citing examples from hit-and-runs, catalytic-converter thefts and missing‑person recoveries.

Sergeant Kirk Costello gave operational details and statistics showing frequent hot‑list alerts and local investigative uses; he said the department had changed settings after reviewing out‑of‑state access requests and that six administrators currently approve access to local camera data.

Carrie McCormack of Flock’s external affairs team described technical safeguards: images are retained by the system for 30 days by default, downloads tied to investigations are logged, each user has an ID, and searches require a stated reason and create a permanent audit trail. “The photos are owned by our customers and deleted after 30 days unless downloaded for an investigation,” McCormack said. She added that Flock offers proactive auditing features to flag irregular search behavior.

A member of the public, James Lee, urged caution. “I just want to express my concern over the Flock camera systems and their usage here in Green,” Lee said, citing recent media reports in other cities and questions about who can access data and how often audits occur.

Councilors focused on several governance issues: whether the county’s contract provides adequate limits on sharing, whether non‑law‑enforcement access is possible, what triggers a download, and whether the city has contractual out clauses in the event of a change of control or unacceptable sharing practices. Sheriff’s Office staff said administrators must approve external access and that previous automatic approvals had been curtailed; they agreed to provide usage and download metrics on request and to review internal audit and disciplinary procedures tied to system alerts.

Multiple council members urged the administration to press the county for stronger, written contract protections (for example, on retention, third‑party sharing and change‑of‑control clauses) and to ask the sheriff to supply written policies and recent usage numbers ahead of the formal vote. Chairman Davidis said the committee would bring the amendment to a council vote at the appropriate time after receiving additional information.

The committee’s discussion underscored the tradeoff staff described between investigative utility and privacy safeguards. Officials said Flock’s system is intended to assist vehicle-focused investigations and missing‑person searches and that images are not linked to DMV or facial‑recognition data. The sheriff’s office and Flock representatives recommended auditing and administrative controls as the principal safeguards for preventing misuse.

The committee did not take a final vote on the amendment during the meeting but signaled that the item would be scheduled for a council vote after staff returns with additional metrics and proposed contractual language.