Flock cameras in public rights-of-way may be on their way out in Lansing.
A City Council member plans to introduce a ban after receiving a city attorney’s opinion that the Council has the authority to prohibit them.
The Council passed a resolution in August requesting that the Schor administration stop using automated license plate readers. However, the administration has taken no action.
Since then, 1st Ward Councilmember Ryan Kost has asked the city attorney whether the Council could pass an ordinance regulating their use.
“Council could prohibit the placement of ALPR cameras in City rights-of-way,” City Attorney Gregory Venker concluded in a seven-page opinion dated Oct. 24 and sent to Council members and Mayor Andy Schor.
The Lansing Police Department operates 26 cameras at seven locations along city streets. They are all in public rights-of-way.
Venker cited the City Charter in his written opinion that the Council “may not pass an ordinance detailing how ALPR cameras or the evidence they generate may (or may not) be used by the Lansing Police Department.”
“However,” he wrote, “the City Council has the primary regulatory authority over rights-of-way,” which includes “the placement of technology by the Police Department.”
Police Chief Robert Backus has defended the cameras as an asset in investigating and solving crimes.
Kost and other opponents, however, argue the cameras create an invasive surveillance system that threatens the constitutional rights of ordinary citizens. Kost also said they have the potential for misuse, such as stalking.
“It comes down to how far do we go on impeding people’s civil liberties in the name of safety,” Kost said. “And I think this just goes too far.”
Kost acknowledged that the Council’s authority is limited to banning them from public rights-of-way. He said they could be placed elsewhere, such as on private property, but added, “I’m not sure how effective these would be from that distance because it’s just reading the back end of a car.”
Flock says its cameras can detect motion up to 75 feet away, with a field of view about 20 feet wide at that distance. Cameras potentially could be placed on city-owned structures or private property outside the public right-of-way.
Mayoral spokesperson Scott Bean declined Monday to comment on the opinion, which he said Schor “has not seen.”
He said Schor “looks forward to seeing whatever is introduced and debated by the Council.
“The mayor continues to work with the police chief, LPD officers, the city attorney, community groups and others to gather information and thoughts on both sides of this issue.”
City Council President Peter Spadafore said Monday that the Council “needs to explore this avenue of our authority because we’ve heard from a lot of residents and a lot of people over the last few months about concerns about privacy and the use of ALPR technology.”
Spadafore was the only Council member to vote against the Aug. 24 resolution calling on the city to terminate its contract with Flock Safety and avoid entering into agreements with similar companies until a privacy impact assessment is completed and additional privacy safeguards are in place.
At the time, Spadafore said he was uncomfortable supporting a resolution that could affect other parts of city government with just four days’ notice after Kost introduced the measure.
Spadafore said Monday, “What I want to do is what we’re going to do in this case: look carefully through an ordinance about all the implications.
“Does this affect parking enforcement? Does this affect some of the things that are on school buses for student safety? This will give us a chance to have those questions answered and put together a thoughtful bit of policy.”
Kost said he has asked the city attorney to expedite drafting language, based on Venker’s opinion, that could be added to an ordinance governing public rights-of-way in Lansing.
The city has argued that it is locked into a contract with Flock Safety to lease the cameras, with about a year and a half remaining.
“I haven’t seen the contract,” Kost said, “but I can’t imagine that we can’t possibly get rid of these things before that contract ends.”
Regardless, he favors stopping their use “even if we have to unplug” them.
Kost said too little is known about how information collected by the cameras is being used.
He said, for example, that Backus told a Council committee in April that no information from the cameras had been shared.
Then, Kost said, the Council learned from Flock Safety in July that about 140 other law-enforcement “departments within the state could see our cameras.” Kost said he did not know how that broke down among local, state and federal agencies.
Police spokesperson Jordan Gulkis did not respond to an email requesting comment on the city attorney’s opinion and Kost’s proposed ban.
