Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Carrollton council for hearing and possible end to Flock Safety ALPR contracts
Summary
Multiple residents urged Carrollton’s council to hold a formal hearing before renewing Flock Safety (ALPR) contracts, citing privacy, transparency, long‑term third‑party data retention and documented cases of alleged misuse in other jurisdictions. Speakers requested program metrics, audit access, retention details and stronger public reporting.
Dozens of residents used the July 21 public forum to urge the City of Carrollton to hold a dedicated hearing and to consider ending or not renewing city contracts with Flock Safety, the company that supplies automatic license‑plate readers (ALPRs) installed around parts of town.
Speakers said the program creates an enduring, searchable record of people’s movements and that third‑party storage and access raise privacy and misuse risks. “These cameras collect that information without asking,” resident Kurt Booth said. “That feels less like public safety and more like my personal data being taken without consent.”
Other residents cited examples of alleged misuse in other jurisdictions and said open‑records requests for program performance and audit logs have been difficult or expensive. Claire Niago, a certified public accountant who has submitted multiple records requests, asked council for metrics demonstrating the program’s effectiveness and a clear return on investment. “When you consider Louisville as an example, that transparency portal shows roughly 0.2% of detections resulted in a hit,” Niago said, urging the city to publish similar measures before a renewal.
Speakers requested specific items from the city: the program’s measured outputs (hit rates and arrests resulting from ALPR hits), audit logs showing who has searched the system and when, retention and deletion practices for Carrollton data, and whether Flock or any third party can analyze or retain long‑term resident movement patterns. Some speakers asked council to terminate the contract immediately; others asked for a public hearing and fuller transparency before any renewal.
City staff and council acknowledged they had recently posted a CPD transparency page referring to Flock but residents said the information is insufficient and that open‑records searches had produced inconsistent or delayed replies. Several commenters urged the council to schedule a formal hearing in advance of any contract renewal so residents could evaluate evidence of program effectiveness and safeguards.
What’s next: residents requested a public hearing and more transparent, machine‑readable reporting on ALPR usage, audit logs, retention policies, and measurable program outcomes; council did not schedule a hearing at the July 21 meeting but heard repeated public demands to do so.
Sources and attribution: resident comments during the July 21 public forum, including Tony Ackerman, Kurt Booth, Hannah Faust, JJ Faust, Christian Hernandez, Claire Niago, Nick Lee and Kenneth Fagans.
