Former Police Chief Proposes Guardrails for Flock – Are They Enough?

Flock Safety cameras and other automated license-plate reader (ALPR) systems have become a national flashpoint in debates over surveillance, policing, and privacy. Even data centers poll better than Flock cameras.
 
Now a former police chief is proposing a detailed framework intended to preserve the investigative uses of Flock and other ALPR systems while imposing new rules governing how police departments operate them.
 
Tom Weitzel, who served as police chief in Riverside, Illinois, has released a position paper on automated license plate reader systems, including the cameras made by Flock Safety. Weitzel, a 37-year law-enforcement veteran, writes that he has seen technology improve policing – and seen its misuse damage public trust.
 
In a letter published by Patch, Weitzel explains what prompted his proposal:
 
“I keep watching the debate and feel stuck between two bad options: leave these systems running with no real oversight or rip them out altogether. I don’t accept either option. I’ve seen ALPR data recover stolen vehicles, locate missing people, and crack violent crime cases that otherwise would have gone cold. Walking away from that capability doesn’t make anyone safer.
 
“At the same time, I won’t defend a system that can’t demonstrate it’s being used honestly.”
 
Weitzel proposes that communities adopt:
​

• An independent civilian oversight board with subpoena power

 

• Mandatory written justification and case numbers for every search

 

• Immutable audit logs

 

• A 30-day retention limit for data that does not produce a “hit” on an investigative “hot list.”

 

• A public discipline matrix with zero tolerance for personal misuse.

​
We note that Weitzel’s suggested 30-day retention period for “non-hit” data – images of vehicles not related to any law-enforcement hot list – exceeds the 7-day retention period now recommended by Flock CEO Garrett Langley. We would also recommend including an explicit prohibition against tracking individuals solely on the basis of their religious, political, or journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment.
 
His paper also proposes transparency measures, including a dashboard that reports aggregate searches, criminal-activity hits, usage audits, and disciplinary actions against officers. He proposes a public portal called “Explain My Stop,” and the selection of community members by lottery to participate in audits.
 
Weitzel would also institute an annual “State of Surveillance” town hall and independent academic reviews. Other elements include a plain-language explanation of ALPR policies, public accounts of cases solved with ALPR assistance, optional alerts for residents whose plates are searched repeatedly, and independent compliance certification for programs.
 
Weitzel’s framework provides a detailed set of ideas for lawmakers in Congress and state legislatures, police departments, and communities to consider as they debate whether – and under what conditions – to continue using ALPR systems

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS