Liberty City Council votes 5-2 to keep Flock cameras despite privacy concerns

Liberty City Council voted 5-2 on Tuesday, Oct. 13, to renew its contract with Flock Safety, keeping nine license plate-reading cameras in place throughout the city despite objections from several residents and council members who questioned the technology’s impact on personal privacy.

The cameras, which cost the city $27,000 annually, have been used by the Liberty Police Department to help recover stolen vehicles, locate missing juveniles and assist other law enforcement agencies in criminal investigations.

While supporters say the cameras have already proven their value, opponents worry about how the information is collected, stored and shared, particularly with law enforcement agencies outside Liberty.

Tommy Brents was among four residents who spoke in public comments against renewing the contract.

Brents said he appreciates the success stories involving Flock cameras but believes the city needs to consider the potential for abuse. He pointed to incidents in Baytown and Lufkin involving allegations that law enforcement officers improperly accessed license plate information.

“Catching an abuse does not undo it, and accountability afterwards does not replace safeguards beforehand,” Brents said.

He also questioned whether Liberty has sufficient oversight of outside agencies that can access information collected by the city’s cameras.

According to Brents, the city’s Flock transparency portal showed nearly 150,000 license plate reads over a 30-day period, with the information available to hundreds of outside agencies.

“We can write all the policies that we want, but who’s making sure that those outside agencies follow them?” he asked. “Who’s reviewing their searches? How do we know that our residents’ information hasn’t been misused? A policy is only as good as its enforcement. When we are dealing with the privacy of innocent citizens, assurances alone are not enough.”

Brents urged council members to discontinue the contract and spend the money on traditional police work instead.

“Of course, an officer can observe you driving down a public street, but there’s a world of difference between an officer seeing you drive by and the government keeping a searchable record of where you’ve been,” he said.

Resident Barrett Simmons shared similar concerns, saying the cameras collect information about the movements of ordinary citizens, not just criminal suspects.

Simmons warned that surveillance systems can gradually expand beyond their original purpose, especially as new technologies are developed and connected to existing systems.

“The danger is not always the technology itself. The danger is building an infrastructure first and worrying about its limits later,” Simmons said.

Cedric Lucas questioned the accuracy and security of the cameras, citing reports of motorists being mistakenly identified as suspects because of incorrect license plate readings. He also raised concerns about unauthorized access to camera information.

Another resident, Joe Lucas, questioned the city’s reliance on a private company to provide technology used in law enforcement. He argued that local governments should remain directly accountable for the services they provide.

Councilman Nick Dennis also had questions about the city’s control over the information collected by Flock.

“One of my biggest concerns with Flock is that it’s a cloud-based system, collecting a significant amount of information on our citizens,” Dennis said.

Dennis made it clear that he was not questioning the Liberty Police Department or whether the cameras had helped officers do their jobs. His concern was whether the city could adequately protect residents’ information when a private company manages the system.

He asked whether the city could audit searches conducted by outside agencies, limit access to the information and determine who would be responsible if the data were compromised or misused.

City representatives confirmed that searches can be audited. Dennis also questioned whether future artificial intelligence features could be added to the cameras without returning to council for approval.

Councilman Ross Ward, who voted in favor of the cameras a year ago, said he has changed his mind.

Ward said he has become increasingly concerned about the direction surveillance technology is headed, particularly with the development of artificial intelligence and autonomous drones.

“I know that a year ago I voted in favor of it. I think at that point I did vote in favor of a license plate reader,” Ward said. “But given everything that has gone on over the next 12 months and what I now know about Flock, I urge council that we vote against it and we drop Flock cameras.”

Ward said he wants the police department to have the equipment and resources it needs but does not believe the cameras are the best use of city funds.

He also said the feedback he has received from residents has changed considerably over the past year. When the cameras were first considered, he said, public opinion seemed fairly evenly divided. More recently, most of the people contacting him have opposed keeping them.

City Manager Bryan Kendrick addressed the cost of the cameras after Ward raised the issue.

Kendrick said he had seen social media posts incorrectly claiming the city spends $20,000 a month on the system.

“It’s $27,000 a year, $3,000 per camera, and all of that is a check cut to Flock,” Kendrick said.

He added that the city’s financial records, including payments to Flock, are available for public review.

Councilwoman Debbie Duggar spoke in favor of keeping the cameras, drawing on her experience working with Texas CASA and programs serving children who had been physically or sexually abused.

Duggar said she has seen how important it is for law enforcement to locate suspects quickly, particularly when children are in danger. She believes technology such as Flock could help prevent additional crimes and save lives.

She also said the cameras have already helped Liberty officers and that the department has taken steps to limit access to the information.

According to Duggar, only two people in the Liberty Police Department have access to the system.

“I think we need to look at what is our success ratio and how are we able to better equip our police officers to do a job that’s very hard and give them immediate notification,” she said.

Duggar acknowledged that privacy is a concern but said she believes the benefits outweigh the risks. She also disagreed with Ward’s assessment of public opinion, saying she has heard from Liberty residents who support the cameras.

She said she trusts the local officers responsible for using and monitoring the system and believes council members should consider what the cameras have accomplished in Liberty rather than focusing entirely on problems reported elsewhere.

Mayor John Hebert, a former police officer, also defended the cameras.

Hebert compared the technology to other equipment officers routinely use, including computers in patrol vehicles and mobile license plate readers.

He acknowledged that mistakes can happen and that officers can misuse technology, but said those possibilities should not prevent departments from using tools that help them protect the public.

“Does it need guardrails? Yes,” Hebert said. “And the Liberty Police Department has set up those guardrails and are doing a really good job of monitoring that system.”

Hebert said the department has not experienced the types of problems cited by opponents and pointed to cases in which the cameras helped recover stolen vehicles, locate missing juveniles and assist neighboring agencies. He pointed to a recent incident where a Houston-area murder suspect was located and arrested in the Cleveland area through use of Flock camera information.

He also said court decisions will likely provide additional guidance on how the technology can be used as it becomes more common in law enforcement.

“That’s all we’re trying to do is keep us safe,” Hebert said.

After hearing from residents and discussing the concerns, council members voted 5-2 to renew the contract, allowing the Liberty Police Department to continue operating the nine Flock cameras.

Liberty Police Department maintains a Flock camera transparency portal. To access this, go online to https://www.cityofliberty.org/police-department/page/flock-camera-transparency-portal