Plymouth Latest City To Discontinue Flock Safety Surveillance

The Plymouth City Council decided Tuesday night to discontinue using Flock Safety, a company behind controversial surveillance technology that captures license plate data.

The vote was 6-1.

Questions surrounding Atlanta-based Flock Safety have been raised for months.

The issue was heightened even further in July when multiple media outlets reported that a Plymouth resident was mistaken by police for someone who had stolen a vehicle.

Residents have also spoken at Plymouth City Council meetings denouncing Flock and raising concerns about automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), including several on Tuesday night before the vote. A special city council meeting involving Plymouth Police Chief Erik Fadden preceded Tuesday’s regular council meeting.

Plymouth police supported the continued use of ALPRs, saying they are a helpful safety tool, but understood the concerns surrounding Flock.

During the Plymouth police presentation, Fadden showed how ALPRs have helped during multiple criminal investigations, including apprehending suspects in a drive-by shooting and finding a domestic assault suspect.

“I understand this topic is extremely complex, and I’ve done my best to respond to any questions and concerns as they’ve come in and will remain committed to continuing to do that,” said Fadden.

Plymouth Police Chief Erik Fadden in a previous interview with CCX News

Resident Concerns

Concerns raised Tuesday night about Flock Safety included issues surrounding privacy, how data is preserved, what happens if it gets in corrupt hands, and the general discomfort in the technology that some say amounts to unconstitutional warrantless surveillance.

“Part of the problem with this system is that at any point, anyone who has access to it can flip a switch and choose to misuse it at any point,” said Daniel Woo, a Plymouth resident.

“Flock is not to be trusted, particularly their PR,” said Doug Maltby, another Plymouth resident. “They’ve been caught in lies so many times.”

Plymouth City Attorney Soren Mattick said he is aware of constitutional challenges and lawsuits involving Flock.

“To date, I am not aware of any court at any level finding that Flock is violating the Fourth Amendment,” said Mattick.

The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act oversees data retention and state legislation has deemed ALPR data as private.

Council Members Weigh In

All seven Plymouth City Council members weighed in on Flock Safety surveillance, a topic that consumed nearly five hours of discussion Tuesday between the special and regular meetings.

“So again I say supporting police officers giving the tools that they need 100 percent. But I am not sure that I trust this tool, that this is the tool Plymouth needs in the city,” said Plymouth City Council Member Julie Pointner.

Pointner said she never had anyone email her who supported the Flock Safety technology.

Council Member Scott Aldrich concurred about the public trust issue.

“One thing I think about, even if Flock is perfect, the public trust isn’t there. No matter how perfect it is, I feel like it’s a hard pill to swallow to say, ‘hey it’s good now, don’t worry,'” said Aldrich.

Council Member Julie Peterson held up her smartphone stating that people are okay with some level of surveillance technology, but there’s a distinction with Flock.

“People talk about what we’re already okay with, with our phones that we have in our pockets. And the big difference between this and ALPRs that the city of Plymouth might use is I don’t use my tax dollars to be surveilled by this,” said Peterson.

Kimberly Nelson, another council member, said she approached many neighbors to gather feedback about Flock.

“It’s wild because most of them are okay with security cameras, video. They’re fine with that.” said Nelson. “But when I explained to them the ALPRs, it’s a bridge too far for them right now.”

Council Member Joel Spoonheim stated he didn’t have a problem with Plymouth police using Flock. His concern was the company itself.

“I spent over 15 years in health care, and I look at Flock – and there’s no way this data management would be allowed in the health care system from a data protection perspective. It is quite striking to me,” said Spoonheim.

But Spoonheim acknowledged there’s a trade-off in discontinuing its usage.

“Our police department will continue to solve crimes, will continue to protect the public safety, it will just take longer in some cases because this technology does speed up the ability to track down people with malicious intent,” he said.

Council Member Clark Gregor said perspectives he’s heard about the technology span the gamut.

“I’ve heard people say ‘I’m not doing anything wrong, so I don’t care if they’re taking my picture.’ I’ve heard people say, ‘I beg you not to get rid of this.’ And I’ve heard people say, ‘I beg you to cancel this.’ So I’ve heard that full spectrum from residents. And I do see the struggle in the balance.”

Wosje, the lone Flock supporter, said he understood he may take “heat” for his vote, but wanted to support Plymouth police over a company’s bad PR.

“I’m weighing this against what we all talked about, the ability to keep our residents safe and catch the bad guys versus basically the bad PR that Flock has. And I’m going to come down and get on the side of public safety, our police department,” said Wosje.

Plymouth joins Crystal in local cities to cut ties with Flock Safety. 

Also see: Crystal Police Chief Reflects on Flock Camera Removal, Community Feedback

Crystal | Plymouth