Tensions high as Shasta supervisors discuss possible cancellation of Flock camera contract

After a two-meeting run in Anderson, the public conversation about Flock cameras, also known as automated license plate readers or ALPRs, made its way to the Shasta County Board of Supervisors’ agenda today.

Familiar faces from Anderson brought their concerns to the supervisors, reiterating anxieties over surveillance. A crowd of young people also approached the board, voicing their concerns for the future of the technology. 

The Sum Up at Sun Up from Shasta Scout

All the latest news. Just one email. Weekdays at 6 a.m.

Email

Always free!

“Flock cameras can record when and where vehicles travel among other things,” said one young person. “That may not seem like a big deal today, but where does it stop?”

In response to questions from supervisors, Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson claimed that Flock data is not monitored by his office without cause and said the data is also not shared with other local agencies unless there is an active investigation. 

“It’s only when there is an active investigation, and that is authorized by a sergeant or above … to access Flock for the data, only on an investigative purpose,” Johnson said. 

The elected sheriff claimed the cameras are not a constitutional issue, saying what’s known as the plain view doctrine allows for police to utilize images from the cameras because property and individuals being photographed are already in view of the public. 

Commenters cited cases of Flock misuse, such as a stalking case that occurred in Orange City, Florida. Other incidents of misuse that have been documented nationwide include former law enforcement keeping log-in information after leaving the force and subsequently allowing unauthorized access by outside agencies. 

Johnson acknowledged his awareness of incidents nationwide regarding Flock camera use but emphasized his belief that the cameras are a helpful resource for law enforcement. 

“I’m not about to violate anybody’s constitutional rights, but currently … it’s effective for us,” he said. “[The sheriff’s office is] using it regularly to help solve crime, and that’s a big plus for us.”

In the event of misuse in Shasta, Johnson told supervisors that the office would either discipline or even fire law enforcement staff who are found to have acted inappropriately with the data.

The board voted unanimously for Johnson to return at an upcoming meeting to provide further information on Flock cameras, including the specifics of Shasta’s contract and use policy. Before the vote, Supervisor Kevin Crye noted that he believed the board should decide whether to continue or cancel the contract based on the sufficiency of the information provided in the sheriff’s presentation. Other supervisors agreed.

Johnson is expected to present before the end of November. He said he’s willing to discuss possible new restrictions on the system to allow “local control and oversight” as a way to keep Flock cameras active in Shasta while responding to the public’s concern. 

For his part, Crye called upon the public to show up and make a point as part of the board’s next Flock discussion. 

“If you want Flock out of the area, at our next meeting, you fill this room with every single person, every guide dog, every parent, every grandparent; doesn’t matter, get them here,” Crye said. “And if you want Flock [to remain] here, then do the same.”

Have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org