Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tiverton council keeps $23,000 for expansion of license‑plate cameras after public privacy concerns
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment and council debate over privacy and a private donor’s role, the Tiverton Town Council voted against removing $23,000 allocated for additional Flock Safety cameras and approved the FY27 budget as presented.
Dozens of Tiverton residents urged the Town Council on April 28 to delay or reconsider expanding Flock Safety license‑plate cameras, saying the technology risks Fourth Amendment protections and sensitive biometric tracking.
Speakers from privacy groups and individual residents — including VA Lopes and Ivy Hall — told the council they had reviewed Flock’s patent and worried about biometric data collection and downstream uses of images. "Once these images are captured, they can go into anything for biometric tracking," VA Lopes said during public comment. Ivy Hall, who identified herself as a Brown University contracts professional, told the council "we need to pump the brakes" and cited neighboring towns that have rejected or tabled similar proposals.
The council’s debate focused on a $23,000 line in the FY27 unified budget for four additional Flock cameras. Councilor Burks moved to remove that funding, citing civil‑liberties concerns; Councilor Janek seconded the motion for discussion. The police chief explained that the town already had two cameras, that one additional camera’s recurring payment had briefly been paid by a private donor but the contract and billing have since been transferred to the police department, and that the department conducts monthly audits and maintains a public portal about camera usage. "That donor never had access to those cameras or control over placement," the police chief said in response to questions about donor influence.
Supporters of the cameras, including several councilors and the police chief, pointed to solved crimes — including a recent hit‑and‑run — and a list of arrests and recoveries attributed to camera data. Councilor Paul referenced multiple incidents (armed robbery, organized retail theft, credit card fraud, grandparent scams) and asked whether the expense was worth the public‑safety benefits.
After discussion, the motion to remove the $23,000 failed and the council moved to adopt the FY27 budget as presented. The council did not publish a roll‑call tally in the transcript; the minutes record the motion as failing and the budget subsequently advancing.
The police chief offered to provide an additional presentation to address outstanding questions from residents and council members about how the system operates in Tiverton, including data‑sharing limits and audit practices. Several councilors and speakers said they welcomed a follow‑up briefing that would address specific concerns raised in public comment.
Next steps: The FY27 budget, as presented, advances; the council agreed the chief could return with another presentation to answer outstanding privacy and operational questions.
