Brittany Kelley
SAN MARCOS – The courtroom was packed as the discussion surrounding Flock Safety cameras continued during the Aug. 19 Hays County Commissioners Court meeting.
Prior to the item discussion, resident Shannon Fitzpatrick took to public comment to voice her concern on the automated license plate reading system.
“This is a company that sells information it collects to over 700 different entities. Those entities can share with whomever they please, [with] no warrants [and] no legitimate protections, just thousands of eyes on your every move and more,” said Fitzpatrick. “Some say that the new Flock cameras are relatively inexpensive at around $30,000. Why is that? What Flock is doing is installing cameras on the cheap and then, they can sell that data to anyone who has the money.”
She continued by stating that if there is an emergency that requires camera footage, then law enforcement should subpoena Ring camera footage or other local cameras, rather than taking residents’ “rights away, so outside entities can monitor and make money on our every move.”
Other comments echoed this sentiment, stating that Flock is part of mass surveillance.
Additionally, there were advocates for Flock, such as felony prosecutor Allison Buess, who shared that she is concerned by the misinformation that has been spread regarding the camera system.
“[These cameras are] not an invasive search and this is not personal information. License plate readers are just that; they read license plates,” Buess began. “Everybody has been asking about why we can’t provide numbers for the cases that have been solved by Flock cameras and the answer to that is simple: Flock doesn’t solve crimes. Detectives and police work that relies in part on information provided by Flock is what solves crime … [It’s] not entirely based on Flock, but it is an important tool that provides that first step for law enforcement.”
Several emailed statements supported Buess’ statements, as residents voiced that the tool helps law enforcement act quickly and efficiently. Buess also noted that it not only aids in crime cases by identifying potential suspects, but it also verifies alibis, gives the ability to place schools on lockdown when a vehicle with an individual who has made threats is in the area and more.
This agenda item was initially tabled at the Aug. 12 meeting, as commissioners Michelle Cohen and Debbie Ingalsbe were hosting a forum Aug. 18 with Hays County Sheriff Anthony Hipolito to address concerns community members held.
According to Ingalsbe, the meeting “got heated,” but it was still beneficial to hear the commentary.
The commissioner also shared that at a separate meeting, the sheriff was willing to initiate a forum that would require any officer that utilized the Flock system to provide a reason why and potentially a case number, as well as ask Flock representatives if any of their staff members would also have to provide a reason.
Despite this, Ingalsbe stated that “it wasn’t enough” and she would like to see if there would be any additional safeguards to put in place.
“[People] have muddled the waters in saying that support[ing] law enforcement, support[ing] public safety equals support of these cameras and I consider that a false framing,” said Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra. “The problem I keep hearing is about federal militarization and overreach. It’s not about the guys in this courtroom. It’s not about our sheriff … So, the comment you just made about the sheriff offering a log, if you will — I’m just going to paraphrase it down — doesn’t solve the real ache of the militarization that is actually, literally, not figuratively, taking place in our nation.”
Commissioner Morgan Hammer questioned the timing of these concerns, as when the request for additional cameras was initially presented in February, there was a lack of contention, citing that perhaps the reason is because of Senate Bill 8, which provides agreements between sheriffs and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“Sheriff Hipolito hasn’t done anything to make us distrust him, not once. He’s in support of this [and] I’ve said this from the start: I support our sheriff. So, what is it going to take for us to come to a consensus on these cameras,” stressed Hammer.
“A few people asked, ‘Why wasn’t a member from Flock invited to the forum?’ We weren't sure what exactly the community wanted at this forum, but I think that it could be very beneficial, judge, to have another meeting with Flock representatives in this setting, to allow them to come in and answer more specific questions because I don’t believe that all the questions that were asked were answered,” Ingalsbe explained.
Both she and Cohen stated that they would like more time to discuss because they were not comfortable supporting the cameras, but were also not in favor of cancelling all contracts with Flock, either.
Supporting additional time was commissioner Walt Smith, though, he did suggest that despite the courtroom being full and numerous emailed public comments, that there is a lack of community engagement, as “We’ve heard from some of the same people four and five times.”
He also stated that the idea that license plate readers are “Big Brother” is a red herring: “Where do we draw that line with sharing? … We’ve never drawn that line in the past when it comes to protecting public safety and honoring all sectors of our law enforcement community and having them work as a team … This is a tool that they have in their tool box that helps provide [justice]. I cannot support removing that from them.”
Becerra opted to table the item once more for further discussion at a later meeting. Because of this, Smith’s item of purchasing additional cameras for the Hays County Sheriff’s Office was also tabled.
The Hays County Commissioners Court will meet next at 9 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 2.
