Police Chief makes presentation on Flock camera use in Pulaski

Pulaski logoBy DAVID QUESENBERRY

Patriot Publishing

Pulaski Town Council on Tuesday heard a presentation from Police Chief William Kelly concerning the use of flock cameras in the Town.

Kelly reported that the Town has four Flock cameras posted at entrances to the Town, which document the license plates of vehicles entering and leaving the Town. It also uses a portable unit which may be placed at areas of concern.

While Flock offers a variety of hardware and software for sale, Pulaski Police only use the basic automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras and the basic software platform.

Chief Kelly then described the process of a license plate read from the moment a tag is “captured” by the camera to retention of the data gathered by the Department.

Once “captured” a tag is read and the data uploaded to the Flock camera’s database. The plates are then checked against various lists such as stolen vehicles and AMBER alerts. A hit causes the system to issue an alert to the Department. If no hit results, the data is stored for a limited period of time where it is deleted according to Department policy or state law.

The annual cost of the cameras is $15,500, $10,000 of which is covered by the State Police’s Help Eliminate Auto Theft (HEAT) program with the balance funded by the Town.

Kelly addressed some of the misinformation on the cameras. They do not use facial recognition or collect biometric data, nor do they have access to DMV records, but only access lists for stolen vehicles or missing persons. Flock cameras are not speed cameras or red light cameras, which are made by other ALPR firms.

Data gathered is not sold by Flock, but becomes the property of the PPD. It does not provide a live feed in real time of the Town, nor does the cameras used by the Department have audio monitoring capability. The cameras do not create a continuous record of vehicle movement and its use has been upheld by the courts as constitutional.

Kelly acknowledged concerns over privacy, abuse and cost of the systems. Safeguards exist for each individual concern. Regarding privacy, data is retained only 21 days with records deletion verified. An audit trail must be provided by any officer using the system and there must be policies in effect regarding the data handling and disposal.

Abuse safeguards include: case descriptions for inquiries; audits according to state law for searches using the system; “flagging” of unusual events for follow up and use of advanced encryption and security techniques. Willful violations of these rules by officers can result in termination, decertification and criminal charges. Concerning costs, the Department is not locked into a long-term contract and has part of the system cost offset by the HEAT grant from the State Police. The Department’s five largest categories of use of the Flock system involve warrants/wanted persons; thefts; criminal traffic; destruction of property and drug offenses.

In conclusion, Kelly said, the department only uses Flock to capture searchable photographs of vehicles entering or leaving Town for 21 days. There are no speeding or red light tickets, facial recognition, live streaming, sale of information or sharing information outside of Virginia law enforcement. While there are valid concerns about the technology, there are Flock safeguards, Virginia legal requirements, and Pulaski Police Department policies in place to reduce concerns and problems with the camera’s use. Kelly noted the Flock cameras were of great assistance in solving street crimes, narcotics investigations, and locating missing persons.

In questions following the presentation, Councilman Joel Burchett, Sr. asked if use of the Flock system was monitored. Chief Kelly replied that it is in that the system was programmed to “flag” anomalies and let the administration know so that an investigation could be conducted as to what was done. Administrators can conduct use audits for each officer accessing the system. A random monthly audit, mandated by state law, is conducted to make sure that the data is being “used for legitimate law enforcement purposes.” So far no incidents of abuse have been found.

Councilman Brooks Dawson asked if there was a procedure for putting license numbers on the “hot list.” Chief Kelly said there were policies in effect for adding a tag to those lists that required that use had to be for a “legitimate law enforcement purpose.” It also had to be linked to a specific type of crime and a specific crime under investigation. The same standard that was in effect to read a license plate was also in effect to create a “hot list.” To Dawson’s question on the timeframe for the Flock contract, Chief Kelly said the contracts were for 24 months with billing done annually.

Councilwoman Sunshine Cope asked how the Flock cameras ranked in terms of “invasiveness” compared to other methods used. Chief Kelly replied that in his opinion a picture of a car at a certain place and time is not nearly invasive as other investigative tools used by law enforcement.