Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy And Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and trustees clash over Flock cameras and First Amendment audits
Summary
Public commenters and trustees debated the township's use of Flock license-plate cameras and the impact of a resident's First Amendment auditing activity, with residents saying the audits have cost the township tens of thousands in legal fees and the auditor disputing accuracy and legal interpretations.
Public comments at the Delhi Hills Town Council's July 29 meeting focused on the local controversy over Flock camera technology and repeated First Amendment auditing by a resident.
Josh Ward, who addressed the trustees first, said the auditing activity by another resident has become disruptive and costly. "It has been publicly discussed that these ongoing interactions have resulted in approximately $27,000 to $30,000 in legal fees for the township," Ward said, and he urged trustees to consider the burden on taxpayers and staff time. Trustees acknowledged the concern and thanked Ward for raising the issue.
Another resident, Steve Howe, told trustees he believes some people who record and publish interactions are "YouTubers" rather than journalists and cited state statute in questioning who qualifies for press protections. Howe also defended the police's use of Flock cameras, saying the technology helped find an elderly resident and aided arrests in recent incidents.
Rich Gages, who identified himself as a member of the press on his YouTube channel, disputed claims made about what the cameras capture and raised legal points about Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, citing court opinions. "I am a member of the press under the 1st amendment," Gages said, and asked the law director and police chief to correct the record if trustees' statements were inaccurate.
Trustees and police described the Flock system the township uses as designed to read rear license plates and noted limitations on retained data and access. Chief Braun said the department is preparing a public transparency site that will explain how data are collected and how long records are retained. "We are in the process of actually implementing that," the chief said. "Basically, this is a site that people can go to if they have questions about the data or what happens or how the cameras function."
The exchange combined residents' concerns about privacy, the township's legal exposure and the benefits law enforcement says the technology provides. Trustees did not take an immediate policy vote on the cameras at the meeting; the discussion appeared to leave open further review and clarification from the law director and police chief.
