Red Bay Council to meet next Monday to hear citizen concerns regarding Flock surveillance cameras operating in the city

With mounting citizen concern about the Red Bay Police Department’s use of a Flock surveillance camera installed on Golden Road , the Red Bay City Council will hold a special called meeting Monday, August 17th, to hear from residents before acting on a proposed License Plate Recognition policy.

The meeting is set for 7 p.m., at Red Bay City Hall, 204 4th Ave. SE, in downtown Red Bay.

Members of the public who have submitted the requisite forms at City Hall will address the council before it considers the city’s policy regarding the controversial automated license plate reader camera, and whether additional cameras will be installed. Originally set to vote on the policy at its July 15th meeting, the council tabled the issue to allow public comment on what many residents believe is an invasive system designed to circumvent privacy laws.

After the Golden Road camera was installed last month, public backlash about privacy concerns came almost immediately. A second Flock camera, at the intersection of 11th Street/4th Avenue, has also been reported.

Public concerns have reached Red Bay City Council members, who believe a clearly defined policy including how information from Flock cameras is gathered and used is a necessary step.

Councilman Jason Vinson said he believes the city needs a policy that goes beyond the minimum standards used by other cities and agencies in Alabama.

Flock safety cameras are intended to serve as law enforcement investigative tools that can help police solve crimes more quickly with the immediate access of information generated.

The cameras capture still images of all vehicles that pass by, gathering information including vehicle characteristics and condition, license plates, make, model and color as well.

The cameras do not capture or use facial recognition technology, as information collected relates only to the vehicles photographed and not an identification of the driver or occupants.

Law enforcement officers tout their investigative benefits. Camera information can assist with stolen vehicle recovery, missing or endangered persons, Amber Alerts, hit-and-run incidents, burglaries, thefts and violent crimes.

Red Bay Police Chief Janna Jackson said her department sees Flock systems as an investigative tool. Additionally, Jackson said since the camera was installed, no information has been accessed pending approval of a written policy by the city council.

Law enforcement misuse of surveillance system cameras and the information they collect has been well-publicized, including two recent examples in Alabama.

A police officer in Moody, Ala., was fired last month after an internal audit found the officer had violated the department’s license plate reader policy. An officer in Springville resigned during an internal review regarding alleged camera policy violations.

The Russellville Police Department has operated Flock cameras for the past three years after the city entered into a five-year contract with the company.

RPD Chief Chris Hargett said he’s not fielded any citizen complaints about the cameras and they have been a beneficial investigative tool for officers.

“The cameras have helped us solve cases of endangered and missing persons. We had a storage shed break-in and some old camera equipment there showed a yellow convertible with one male occupant. Through use of the nearby Flock camera, we were able to determine the person responsible,” Hargett said.

Hargett said he understands public concerns about surveillance camera systems but in Russellville, only supervisors in the RPD have access to them. All RPD officers receive text alerts if there’s a Flock camera hit of a stolen vehicle within 30 seconds of the car passing a camera. Department wide texts are also sent if a camera alerts a vehicle related to a missing or endangered person investigation, Hargett explained.

Other safeguards include regular audits that indicate which employees have accessed Flock information. Although no RPD officers have been cited for misuse of the camera system, a Russellville police officer was let go last year, Hargett said, for misusing the Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, known as LETS.

LETS is a secure nationwide network that shares vital criminal histories, driver’s license data and vehicle registrations.

The officer used LETS information for personal reasons, which is a crime under Alabama state law.

“Obviously, any technology can be misused. But you can judge the rogue actions of a few officers and disregard what’s otherwise been an effective investigative tool,” Hargett said.

While Hargett declined to say their location, he said there are five Flock cameras in use inside Russellville City Limits. The cost for the five Flock cameras was approximately $13,000 according to the chief.

“We could use more, but five is good for a town our size. As long as those who abuse the system are held accountable, that should deter others from any misuse. Most officers do the right thing,” Hargett said.

Flock cameras debuted in 2018, but license plate recognition systems were developed more than 25 years ago.

Officers do not monitor live video feeds on such systems. Instead, the system is searched only when a crime is being investigated. They are not speed cameras and no traffic citations are issued based on Flock information. And most departments only retain camera footage for 30 days, unless preserved for evidence in a criminal investigation.

Ultimately, Flock cameras don’t prevent all crime. That’s not their purpose. Instead, they are designed to aid law enforcement solve crimes more quickly while avoiding continuous live video surveillance of the public.

Whether or not they cross Constitutional lines and invade privacy rights remains a hotly-contested issue not likely to dissipate as long as the systems continue to be used.