Lebanon’s automated license plate readers will remain in the city for now — despite an effort by some members of the city council to terminate the city’s agreement with Flock Safety.
Council member Matt Sellers sponsored a resolution to do so that failed 4-3 Tuesday night.
“I've created many different friendships with a lot of people on this board. So, I guess that makes it a little more difficult for me when I have to come up here and critique some of my colleagues,” Sellers said. “I am extremely disappointed in the decision of this council.”
Sellers, who has previously said he believes the Flock cameras are an affront to the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of a reasonable right to privacy, echoed the same sentiment at the council meeting. He also listed several state constitutions, including Ohio’s, that ban unreasonable search and seizure.
“A system that records everyone first and looks for a crime later is exactly what they forbade,” Sellers said. “I will continue to stand up [for] the constitutional rights of every citizen, and frankly, I am not going to stop working until this contract is ended.”
Although Lebanon’s 20 Flock cameras will remain in place, they will also remain covered, Mayor Mark Messer said. The council voted to shut off and place bags over them last month after Lebanon officials posed more than 50 questions to Flock Safety and did not receive a response by the city’s deadline.
The company that owns the automated license plate readers did eventually respond. But Flock Safety’s answers to questions about how long it retains Lebanon’s data and mitigates security threats concerned Messer.
After the vote to terminate failed, Messer and all six other members of council voted in favor of a motion from council member Kristen Eggers to “direct city staff to coordinate discussions with public safety officials” regarding their automated license plate reader policies.
Council member Mike Cope, who voted with Eggers against terminating the contract, said though he doesn’t want to end the relationship with Flock yet, he also isn’t ready to turn the Flock cameras back on.
“I'll be more comfortable once I get some more dialog here about what the rest of the county does, how we can get some alignment, because I know our policy is a good policy,” he said.
Cope said he is comfortable with Flock Safety’s answers to the city’s questions, and one possibility is that Lebanon signs a different agreement with the company that outlines exactly when data must be deleted.
“Comfort is one thing. Let's put it in a contract, and then that way we know those commitments aren't violated,” Cope said.
Several people who spoke at Tuesday night’s meeting expressed disappointment with the council’s decision not to end the arrangement with Flock Safety.
Luke Honerlaw, a Mason resident, said the cameras can be a powerful crime-stopping tool, but as a Republican, he doesn’t trust the technology in the hands of future elected officials.
“We have a squared away council in Lebanon, right? But in 30 years, we have no idea who's going to be in office. It could be you know people who hate us,” Honerlaw said. “I thought for sure I'd be able to maybe convince some of them to change their vote. I don't know. I thought I thought my argument was compelling.”
Daniel Stolz, with Young Americans for Liberty, said he collected more than 100 signatures from Lebanon residents who want the city to terminate its agreement with Flock Safety.
“They get to store that data in perpetuity,” Stolz said, referencing Flock Safety’s terms and conditions. “[Lebanon] can't search records older than 30 days, but Flock can continue to build their surveillance tools with our data.”
Stolz, who drives through Lebanon often, said he will continue to use a GPS app that routes drivers away from the cameras.
“Everywhere I go — I know on my side of town, I know all of the routes to go to avoid the ALPRs,” Stolz said, using the acronym for the cameras. “And when I'm driving somewhere outside of my normal area, I'm always on the Flock Hopper.”
Read more:
