Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Smyrna to cancel Flock camera contract; council defends system
Summary
Residents urged the City of Smyrna to cancel a $5,700,000 Flock surveillance contract and remove cameras, citing Fourth Amendment and state ALPR concerns. Council members and the mayor defended the system as a law-enforcement "force multiplier" and pledged internal controls and follow-up.
Anastasia Pixler, a Smyrna resident, told the mayor and council the city's contract with private surveillance firm Flock is "immoral" and unlawful and urged immediate cancellation. "The only solution is to cancel the flock contract and remove the cameras," Pixler said during public comment.
Chris Nave, another resident, gave a detailed critique of Flock's data collection, telling the council Smyrna has a "5,700,000 contract ... for 75 plus cameras" and two drones and arguing that the company's continuous license-plate and vehicle-location data can create a privacy "mosaic" traced under U.S. Supreme Court rulings such as Carpenter. "With these cameras and drones, flock and the police and the cities are able to build that mosaic ... without any warrant," Nave said.
Mayor (title) responded that the council considered the matter closely and that the city's police chief endorses the system. "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about," the mayor said, adding the city has "internal controls" intended to prevent misuse and that the system is intended to "keep our residents safe." The mayor said the technology is kept by the city's law enforcement and "is not used for non law enforcement reasons." He said more information and safeguards are being developed.
Council member Oglesby described a personal criminal investigation that he said benefited from Flock's data. "I was coming home, got out of my car, and I was robbed, assaulted, and left for dead," Oglesby said, and said Flock cameras helped identify the assailants. "So I'm torn ... If we use it the right way ... we'll be fine. If we do it the wrong way, then trust me, this council, we're gonna make sure those who violate your privacy ... they're gonna be held accountable."
The comments prompted no formal action at the meeting. Council members and staff said they will supply additional information and safeguards to the public; the mayor closed public comment and moved on to staff reports.
Why it matters: Residents framed the debate as a clash between public safety and constitutional privacy rights, citing federal case law and a state ALPR statute referenced in testimony. City officials emphasized law-enforcement utility and promised oversight and further details.
