Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Policing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on police conduct and city surveillance spending
Summary
Several public commenters told the council they had lost trust in the Midlothian Police Department and questioned a recent expansion of license-plate readers, urging more transparency, data and accountability. Council heard claims of missed responses, open-records delays and a call to reconsider surveillance contracts.
Public comment at the July 14 Midlothian City Council meeting opened with several residents sharply criticizing the local police department and the city's recent technology purchases. Carolina, who said she does not live inside the city limits, told the council she had filmed an incident she described as a Fourth Amendment violation after an officer removed and searched a driver over a visible vape pen. "A vape pen is not probable cause to pull somebody out of a car and search them," she said.
John Ferris followed with a wide-ranging critique of the council's decision to expand automated license-plate readers, describing the network as "one-way surveillance that erodes trust." Ferris said the city approved spending he characterized as "up to $202,109,100" for cameras and services and asked whether those funds would be better spent on officers, roads, or community needs. "If transparency and accountability are good for citizens filming public officials, why isn't the same standard applied when the government films all of us?" he asked.
Other speakers echoed concerns about police investigations and records access. Preston Gates, a Midlothian resident and business owner, recounted an instance in January 2025 when he said officers did not respond to a call; he described delays in CID review and an unconfirmed referral to the Texas Rangers. Robert Harvey cited a prior internal review into an investigation of an alleged assault involving a child and said consultants had identified systemic case-management deficiencies.
Council members did not take action during the public-comment period on these issues. Mayor (speaker 1) acknowledged the remarks and proceeded to the consent agenda. Several council members raised related questions later during agenda items affecting public safety oversight and records practice, but the meeting record shows no formal motion or directive to open a new investigation or to rescind the surveillance contract during this session.
The council did not vote on any police-discipline or surveillance rescission measure at the July 14 meeting; instead, the comments were entered into the public record for future consideration. Residents and callers seeking specific remedies would need the council to place such items on a future agenda or to direct staff to return with recommended actions.
