Despite concerns from some citizens, the Tiverton town council, missing three members, voted Monday to purchase four FLOCK automated license plate reading cameras for the police department, pending a town solicitor review.

The council had previously voted in favor of allocating $23,000 to the police department for the cameras. They will join four other cameras already in place in town, two owned by the police department and another two owned by the state police on Route 24.

Before the decision, multiple residents spoke in opposition to the cameras, reiterating concerns about the company, FLOCK, and potential privacy issues that could arise from their installation. They had concerns about the company's use of artificial intelligence, as well as purported collaborations with federal agencies.

“I support our police, but I do not support this FLOCK company,” Patti Buchanan said.

Another resident, Abigal Pimental, said the cameras were invasive toward residents in the town.

“They really are a wolf in sheep's clothing,” she said. “The town's police department is relying on a pinky promise from a private company.”

V.A Lopes said the cameras violate the Fourth Amendment and expressed concern about their use of AI. She also said she believes the police department is capable of solving potential crimes without them.

“I know that Chief Costa and his team, with the help of the residents and public and private cameras, would still solve those crimes.”

However, Police Chief James Costa continued to defend the cameras as a useful tool for the police, arguing that they would be important for solving crimes and saying that a majority of the criticism was misplaced. He cited crimes that have been solved, including a robbery in Fall River involving a Tiverton resident that was caught on camera, as well as a hit-and-run in Tiverton, as examples of the good they can do.

“This is the technology that we’ve had in Tiverton and we’ve had it since 2022,” Costa said. “This is not illegal; this is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as opponents of this program say that it is."

He continued to stress that the Tiverton police department will not share FLOCK-generated data with federal agencies.

A FLOCK representative, Karl Bach, also spoke and said that data is owned by customers and will never be sold, and reiterated that they will delete photos after 30 days.

“These are not cameras that are open to public cameras; this information is held under the tightest cyber security standards,” he said, adding that they have had to turn down police requests for pictures older than 30 days because the photos are expired.

Afterward, council president John Edwards acknowledged that there were some concerns about the FLOCK company. However, he said that his trust in Chief Costa trumped them.

“From my perspective, if the chief says ‘Hey, this has helped us solve crimes and can run a laundry list down,’ I would like to continue to solve crimes,” Edwards said.

The council voted 3-1 in favor, with Councilor Deborah Janick opposing. Janick cited concerns about the state not having any laws regulating the cameras, as well as a contract not being seen by the solicitor before voting, as her reasons.

Councilor Mike Burk, who was a noted critic of the FLOCK cameras, was absent from the meeting, as were Councilors Denise deMedeiros and Craig Committo.

FLOCK cameras: Where are they?

Members of the police department have not disclosed publicly where Tiverton’s existing FLOCK cameras are placed, but a website that tracks the devices offers clues though their accuracy could not be determined this week.

According to deflock.org, cameras are placed:

•Just before the Sakonnet River Bridge, at the Main Road on-ramp;

•Main Road in north Tiverton, just north of Palhares Pizza at 77 Main Road;

•Route 24, north of Eagleville Road and south of Bally’s Tiverton and the Massachusetts state line;

•And Crandall Road, just south of Pine House Kitchen and Bar at 13 Crandall Road.