Brittany Kelley
SAN MARCOS — Resident voices have been heard as the Hays County Commissioners Court tabled an item related to Flock Safety equipment at the July 29 meeting.
According to agenda documents, the court previously authorized an exemption for the Hays County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) to purchase additional cameras from Flock Safety Group for investigative purposes. The current item would be to approve the execution of the order form to purchase four more.
Currently, there are five cameras in Hays County, with a sixth waiting on permitting. According to HCSO, the cameras are strictly to capture license plates, with no facial recognition technology, and store the data for 30 days. They also have the ability for another agency to ask whether a suspect’s vehicle is driving through its county.
Several community members from Mano Amiga spoke during public comment regarding the item. The first was Myles Martin.
“I’m asking you to vote ‘no’ on the expansion of the Flock Safety cameras through the sheriff’s office. The issue here isn’t whether we care about public safety because we all do; the issue is whether this technology actually makes us safer or if it simply creates a false sense of security, while draining resources that could go to real solutions,” said Martin.
There is no benefit to the cameras, he continued, as they don’t prevent crime or provide a reasoning for it. They simply collect data, which Martin claims can be stored, shared and used in ways that community members cannot see or consent to.
“That money [for Flock] could go instead towards support things proven to reduce crime, like affordable housing programs, youth mentorship, better mental health resources or job opportunities,” Martin explained. “Commissioners, our county has a choice: invest in the people or invest in surveillance.”
Eric Martinez echoed similar concerns, stating that there has been documented cases of Flock data being used to support immigration enforcement, raising concerns about how the system would be used in Hays County.
Additionally, 19 other constituents spoke on the item. Resident Sam Benavides stated that the item was initially approved in February when not much was known about Flock Safety and automated license plate readers: “Since then, experts from across the country worked tirelessly to sound alarm on these tools and we are just now beginning to understand the severity of the situation … If you stand with our immigrant neighbors, you should stand not only against this agenda item, but against all efforts that seek to expand the tools of surveillance and mass deportation,” she concluded.
Providing insight on the item was Sheriff Anthony Hipolito. He shared that this purchase was already approved prior, but that the order form was incorrect, which meant that it needed to be brought in front of the court once more.
Hipolito stressed that these cameras are not about mass surveillance, rather the focus is on public safety.
“We are all being tracked every single day,” he said. “We all carry a cellphone. You are being tracked every single day by merely carrying your cellphone. I cannot tell you how many crimes have been solved as law enforcement by using cellphone data … While I understand and I appreciate different activist groups, their point of view, we as local governments at some point have to stop letting small, but loud, activist groups run our local government.”
He then referenced his time at the city of Austin and how it has “crumbled” in recent years, stating that San Marcos is headed in the same direction.
“Are we going to get rid of [Flock Safety] because we think it’s under mass surveillance? We have to be better as a county. We have to be better and not let one organization or two organizations dictate policy. That’s a slap in the face to law enforcement and it is a slap in the face to victims of crime,” the sheriff concluded.
Following Hipolito, Hay County Judge Ruben Becerra invited San Marcos City Council member Amanda Rodriguez to discuss her take on the item, as council recently opted to deny the installation of additional Flock Safety cameras.
“Our council — not just because of two activist groups — had some sense to see where we are nationally, where we are statewide, where our government continues to harm people and saw the bigger picture,” said Rodriguez. “We went and we did a deep dive into our policy [about the cameras] and it mentioned hypotheticals about immigration. It is not a hypothetical. When we actually got the data as a city within the last year, from the time we looked at the data, there were 15 million searches of our cameras. Not just in the state; not just in the county, but throughout the nation.”
Commissioner Walt Smith took to the floor to note that he sponsored the item because he was familiar with cases that would not have been solved without the cameras and that, currently, he cannot see the benefit of removing a tool used by law enforcement that has been proven to work.
Suggesting to take a few more weeks on the item was commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe, which commissioner Michelle Cohen agreed with, stating that it is true that more information has come out, as compared to when the item was initially approved. She also emphasized that they cannot ignore feedback given by the community members.
“I just want to say [that] I think at the end of the day, everybody wants our community to be safe as we possibly can. We have different ways of looking about it, but I always think at the end of the day, we care a lot about our community and we care about everyone remaining safe,” said commissioner Morgan Hammer. “I got to know our sheriff for the year and a half that I was campaigning with him and I know him as someone that is extremely reasonable … So, I will look to our sheriff to see where we need to go and I will trust him.”
According to Jordan Powell, first assistant, the court could either not support the item, which would prevent the additional purchase of cameras, support and approve the contract or table it for later discussion.
Becerra noted that it is true that people are being surveilled constantly, but agreeing with Ingalsbe and Cohen, stated that community members are concerned, so that needs to be taken into account.
The item was ultimately tabled, which Smith hoped would give HCSO time to walk through the Flock Safety system with members of the court who had any concerns.
To listen to the discussion, visit bit.ly/4fcHzmU.
Vickie Dorsett, Hays County budget officer, also announced that the fiscal year 2025-26 budget season will begin at the next meeting, with a recommendation of a $0.0425 per $100 increase from the current tax rate, bringing it to $0.3925.
Budget workshops will be held at 11 a.m. Aug. 5, 12 and 19, with the public hearing and vote on the proposed budget and tax rate at 1 p.m. Aug. 19.
