WA cities reconsider Flock traffic cameras as judge rules their data is public

Jurisdictions across Washington, including Redmond, Lynnwood and Skamania County, have turned off their Flock Safety license-plate-reading surveillance cameras or delayed implementing them, as officials and residents express concerns about who can access the photos and data they generate.

That unease, including over how federal immigration enforcement agencies may access the data, has intensified after a Skagit County Superior Court judge ruled this month the cameras’ pictures and information must be made public in accordance with state law.

In her Nov. 6 ruling, Judge Elizabeth Neidzwski said the cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood could not deny an Oregon man’s public records requests for Flock photos and data because they qualify as public records and cannot be exempt from release under the state’s Public Records Act.

It is not clear whether Stanwood or Sedro-Woolley intend to appeal Neidzwski’s ruling. Stanwood Mayor Sid Roberts and Sedro-Woolley’s City Administrator Charlie Bush declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

But the ruling has already had a chilling effect on some Washington jurisdictions’ desire for the technology and the potentially overwhelming number of public records it could one day burden them with stewarding.

Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley turned off their cameras before the ruling. The Skamania County sheriff’s office announced Wednesday the agency had disabled their six cameras, saying Neidzwski’s decision threatened public safety by “allowing access to anyone and extending far beyond the (sheriff’s office’s) policy parameters.”

For privacy advocates, the ruling heralds a long-desired reckoning by cities and police agencies in Washington, who can no longer ignore that Flock’s automated license plate readers track every vehicle – not just those linked to a crime, said Timothy Hall, a Yakima attorney representing Jose Rodriguez, the man who requested Stanwood’s and Sedro-Woolley’s Flock records.

“When they created the Public Records Act, they weren’t thinking about (Flock’s technology), but that’s a reason we should have more in-depth conversations about, ‘What exactly are we agreeing to here?’ ” Hall said. “This is a discussion we need to be having now.”

How Flock Safety works

Privacy and civil rights advocates have long criticized Flock Safety’s cameras, which take between six and 12 time-stamped pictures of every passing vehicle, sometimes including the faces of drivers and passengers.

Using artificial intelligence, Flock’s software logs information about every vehicle – including license plate numbers, damage, decals and bumper stickers – into a searchable database controlled by the customer, who can view and download the content and grant others access to do the same.

Police agencies typically search their Flock databases when looking for specific vehicles, like stolen cars or vehicles linked to missing people. The majority of pictures and data continuously generated by Flock’s cameras are not accessed or downloaded before being automatically deleted from the company’s cloud-based storage system within 30 days.

This could change with Neidzwski’s ruling, however.

To comply with the state’s public records law, agencies in Skagit County may have to download and store every Flock image and data entry before they are automatically deleted. They may also be required to release that content to anyone who submits a public records request for it – creating what Stanwood’s and Sedro-Woolley’s attorneys said could be “a mechanism for stalking or harassment” in a court filing.

Those privacy and safety concerns were what drove Jose Rodriguez, a 35-year-old tattoo artist who works in Walla Walla, to file public records requests for the Flock photos and data of about 50 public agencies across Washington.

Rodriguez started researching Flock Safety last October, after noticing several automated license plate readers appear in Walla Walla. Learning about the devices – and the sheer amount of data and images authorities collected by using them – disturbed him, he said.

“The government can’t just put a tracker on us without a warrant, but these (cameras) are basically doing the same thing,” he said. “We can’t go down the street without them knowing where we go 24/7. I feel like we’re being watched by a bunch of prison guards.”

Rodriguez hoped his public records requests would draw attention to “potential abuse” of the technology, and the financial burden government agencies could face by not handling the images and information their cameras collect as public records.

About three dozen of the public agencies Rodriguez submitted public records requests to provided him their Flock images and data. He sued the 10 cities that didn’t, including Sedro-Woolley.

Rodriguez requested up to $100 per record per day that Sedro-Woolley did not comply with his request. Rodriguez also asked that the city’s staff undergo training on how to follow “the spirit and intent” of the state’s public records law, according to a copy of his Aug. 12 complaint. The city did not provide him the records, which were automatically deleted, court records show.

“I’m causing financial burden on these cities to show them that these Flock cameras – there’s hidden costs behind them,” he said. “I’m not trying to bankrupt any of them, but I’m trying to at least bring everything to light.”

Flock Safety’s chief legal officer, Dan Haley, disagreed.

Lawsuits like Rodriguez’s are not about protecting peoples’ privacy, he said, but about making money off “bogus” public records requests that are enabled by flaws in the state’s public records law.

Privacy concerns about Flock’s technology are also unjustified, Haley said, as the company’s cameras take pictures of vehicles on public roads, where there is no expectation of privacy. Customers can also only search their databases for unique vehicle characteristics, but “not anything to do with people,” such as a person’s name or a description of their appearance, he said.

Flock Safety is now advocating a “legislative fix” to Washington’s Public Records Act, which Haley called one of the most “aggressive” in the U.S.

“It’s not about trying to hide the data from anyone,” he said. “It’s about trying to end abuse of the law as it exists in Washington.”

Community reaction prompts cities to respond

Concerns like Rodriguez’s motivated nearly 500 people to sign an online petition by Monday demanding the Yakima Police Department turn off their Flock cameras until city and police officials find ways to better protect peoples’ privacy, said Brian Korst, the petition’s creator.

Criticism bubbled up after a University of Washington report last month that said federal immigration enforcement agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol had searched Flock Safety databases of at least 18 cities in the state, often without their police departments’ knowledge.

In a statement hours after UW published the report, Gov. Bob Ferguson said his office and the state attorney general’s office were looking to ensure local jurisdictions were complying with the Keep Washington Working Act, a 2019 law barring most state agencies from cooperating with immigration enforcement.

Fears in Yakima boiled over with the Skagit County ruling, Korst said, because residents recognized Flock data could become available “to anyone, for any reason.”

While the cameras do not use facial recognition, photos still sometimes include peoples’ faces, along with granular data about the cars they are in, where they are driving and when.

“This can be used by stalkers. It can be used by political opponents,” said Korst, 49. “We understand they’re very useful tools in law enforcement, but they have no way to safeguard that information.”

Yakima activists plan to deliver the petition during a City Council session Tuesday night. If city officials do not agree to shut down the cameras, Korst said he and fellow organizers will ask those who signed the petition to submit complaints to the state attorney general.

Even before Neidzwski issued her ruling, mounting concerns about the surveillance technology had caused some Washington cities to pause their Flock programs, or stop considering the technology altogether.

Redmond and Lynnwood, which started using about two dozen Flock cameras each this summer, turned their devices off at the end of last month. On its website, Lynnwood said the pause was necessary to do “further evaluation” of how to protect privacy and maintain community trust.

Increasing concerns about Flock’s technology and the court ruling called “for a moment of pause,” Redmond City Councilmember Melissa Stuart said during a special meeting Wednesday, shortly before the council voted unanimously to continue suspending the use of their cameras.

The council is scheduled this week to discuss the future of Redmond’s Flock program, including possible ramifications of ending a contract with the company. The meeting will happen within days of a KING 5 report showing Redmond police arrested the wrong man in August, based on information from Flock.

Mountlake Terrace’s City Manager Jeff Niten said the city’s Flock program remains “on hold,” about five months after the City Council approved buying nine Flock cameras, despite significant pushback from residents who said the data could be used to target immigrants or people seeking abortions.

The councilmembers are expected by the end of this year to decide whether to install the cameras, Niten said by email.

For the Woodway City Council, potential repercussions of Neidzwski’s ruling were enough to table any conversations about Flock cameras, said Eric Faison, an administrator for the city.

Despite having no major crime problem, Woodway’s councilmembers started discussing last year whether to buy six cameras for their city of about 1,400 people.

Until the fallout from Neidzwski’s ruling was “all said and done, Faison said continuing those conversations is not advisable.