Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Flock topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marshall County residents press commissioners over Flock license‑plate cameras
Summary
Residents told commissioners the county’s Flock automated license‑plate readers raise privacy and data-control concerns and urged restrictions; commissioners said the incoming prosecutor will review the program and report back.
Dozens of residents used the public‑comment period at the July 6 Marshall County Board of Commissioners meeting to urge restrictions on Flock automated license‑plate cameras, saying the vendor’s data access and national lookup capability create privacy and local‑control problems.
"If that passive sensor is working ... that Flock camera now knows all my phone numbers and everything else, and that is an invasion of privacy," said Don Nunemaker, who identified himself from Nutmeg Road and cited decades of experience with computer and defense systems. Nelson Washburn of Plymouth said the vendor retains control of servers and software and urged the board to require that national, out‑of‑state lookups be disabled and that a public audit trail record every search.
Commissioners acknowledged the public concerns. One commissioner noted the county currently has a contract covering five or six devices but that municipal jurisdictions within Marshall County also operate their own systems, limiting the county's unilateral ability to remove all devices. The same commissioner said he had discussed the matter privately with the incoming prosecutor, Joe Morris, and requested Morris present legal and policy options at the first meeting after he assumes office.
The board member advocating for caution said that while courts have not definitively ruled that these systems violate the Fourth Amendment, many jurisdictions across the country have reviewed and in some cases ended such contracts. "It's very hard to take a step back once it's been in place," the commissioner said, urging broader consideration of long‑term surveillance and psychological effects on the public.
The commissioners did not vote on a policy change at the meeting. They asked county legal staff and the prosecutor‑elect to prepare more information and options for a future meeting so commissioners can weigh privacy protections, law enforcement utility and contractual limitations. The public comment segment closed without further action.
The county did not provide statistics at this meeting describing how Flock cameras had affected crime‑solving locally; public commenters asked for such data and for contractual guarantees that the county—not the vendor—would control access and retention of locally generated data.
