The time to prepare for a tragic incident is beforehand.”

Portsmouth Police Chief Brian Peters

Having a third party having that information scares me a little bit.”

Portsmouth Town Council President Keith Hamilton

ACLU praises Portsmouth, chides Bristol

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island lauded Portsmouth and criticized Bristol this week after the two municipalities took opposite positions on whether to allow the Rhode Island State Police to install Flock Safety license plate-reading cameras.

The Portsmouth Town Council voted unanimously to reject the request on Tuesday, while two nights later the Bristol Town Council approved the proposal on a 4-1 vote.

Calling the Portsmouth decision a “win for privacy,” the ACLU thanked residents who contacted council members and urged them to oppose the plan.

“Some of the councilors noted they had rarely heard so much concern from their constituents on a topic,” the ACLU said in a statement. “This is a reminder that, in a time when our freedoms are under threat, local actions matter. Your voice matters. And you can make a tangible difference in protecting our rights and liberties here in Rhode Island.”

The ACLU, however, said it was disappointed by the Bristol council’s decision to move forward with the cameras.

The organization noted that Bristol officials indicated they would place conditions on the memorandum of understanding, such as an annual review of the program’s effectiveness, but said details of those conditions have not yet been made public.

“While we are disappointed with this decision, we will continue to raise awareness about the spread of this surveillance technology and advocate for laws that safeguard our privacy rights,” the ACLU said.

PORTSMOUTH — John McDaid and Larry Fitzmorris don’t usually agree on much.

McDaid, a progressive Democrat, and Fitzmorris, a conservative Republican and president of Portsmouth Concerned Citizens, often find themselves on opposite sides of local political debates. But on Tuesday night, the two men stood before the town council united by a shared concern: opposition to installing license plate-reading surveillance cameras in town.

That unlikely alliance set the tone for a unanimous decision by the council, which voted 7-0 to reject a proposal from the Rhode Island State Police to install a Flock Safety license plate reader camera in Portsmouth.

The vote makes Portsmouth the second Rhode Island municipality to turn down the state police-backed system, following a similar rejection last year in Warren. The cameras are part of a broader statewide rollout funded through a federal COPS grant that includes $579,000 for 39 cameras. On Thursday night, the town council in neighboring Bristol voted 4-1 to approve a Flock camera near the base of the Mt. Hope Bridge.

Flock cameras are automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, that photograph the rear of passing vehicles and log information such as license plate number, time, location, vehicle make, body type and color. Police agencies can search the data or create “hotlists” that trigger alerts when a vehicle of interest passes a camera.

State police officials and Portsmouth Police Chief Brian Peters pitched the technology as a proven public-safety tool, citing its role in solving crimes, locating missing people and responding to emergencies. But council members said residents’ privacy concerns — particularly about data storage and sharing — ultimately outweighed those benefits.

“I don’t think I’ve received as many emails on a subject as I have on this one,” council member Mary McDowell said. “And 99 percent of them have been in opposition.”

Debated in December

The matter returned to the council Tuesday after being tabled unanimously in December, when members asked the state police to return with a detailed memorandum of understanding spelling out who would own the data, how it could be shared and what safeguards would prevent misuse.

Those questions remained unresolved for most councilors.

Council President Keith Hamilton said his central concern never changed: the fact that the data would be stored and managed by Flock, a private company, rather than directly by law enforcement.

“Having a third party having that information scares me a little bit,” Hamilton said. “If there were a state law that managed how this data was shared, I’d feel differently. But we’re not there.”

Representatives from Flock Safety attempted to allay those fears. Kerry McCormack, a public-affairs manager for the Atlanta-based company, said Flock works with roughly 6,000 communities nationwide and partners with more than 1,500 businesses. He said the system helps solve more than 2,800 crimes daily and that 15 percent of reported crimes in the U.S. involve Flock technology.

McCormack stressed that the cameras do not capture images of drivers or passengers, do not use facial recognition and cannot track people’s movements in real time. He said data is owned by the customer, deleted automatically after 30 days by default and never sold.

“We do not support replacing police officers,” McCormack said. “We provide a critical tool to help law enforcement do their job.”

But skepticism lingered.

Council member Juan Carlos Payero pointed out that Flock uses Amazon Web Services for cloud storage and noted that major platforms have been hacked by foreign governments. McCormack said he wasn’t aware of that, but that Flock’s servers have never been breached.

Council member Sondra Blank, who works in technology, asked what kinds of crimes account for the company’s touted success rate. McCormack cited organized crime, retail theft, wanted suspects and missing persons, but said he did not have a detailed breakdown.

Public comment proved decisive.

McDaid, of Gormley Avenue, urged the council to reject the proposal, arguing that Rhode Island lacks meaningful laws governing ALPR data retention, access and use.

“I know many on this council see me as a Democrat,” McDaid said. “But tonight, I’m here only as a private citizen. This is not a partisan issue.”

He warned that promises made in an MOU were unenforceable, criticized the use of third-party servers and cited cases elsewhere in the country where ALPR data was shared with federal agencies or used to track residents in sensitive situations.

Moments later, Fitzmorris echoed those concerns.

“I rise to agree with Mr. McDaid,” Fitzmorris said. He questioned whether residents had ever been asked how much privacy they were willing to sacrifice in the name of policing and warned against what he described as a steady expansion of surveillance infrastructure.

“For a number of years I’ve counted the number of surveillance cameras between when I get on Route 24 near the DOT facility, and when I get onto 195. There are seven as far as I can tell,” he said. Unless the cameras were addressing a specific, documented crime problem on Route 24, Fitzmorris said, the town should say no.

Police testify in favor

Police officials disagreed.

Peters said the technology would act as a force multiplier for a small department and help officers respond quickly in time-sensitive situations involving missing children, seniors or violent incidents. He cited the recent Brown University shooting, saying the suspect was identified with the help of Flock cameras elsewhere.

“A time to prepare for a tragic incident is beforehand,” Peters said.

State police Capt. Marc A. Alboum, a Portsmouth resident who worked on the Brown case, said the system could save lives and expressed frustration with the opposition.

“If you haven’t done anything wrong, what do you got to hide? Why are you worried about cameras? There are cameras everywhere. A camera that’s reading your license plate, or the back of your car, getting the make or model? Big deal,” he said. “You’re doing (Chief Peters) no justice if you deny this camera.”

He added that shortly after the Brown shooting, someone from the Town of Warren called him to ask if the camera was still available. “It’s not,” Alboum said. “Another town will gladly take your free camera.”

But council members said the vote reflected the will of their constituents.

“Citizens who have spoken to me are overwhelmingly against it,” Blank said.

After discussion, Vice President David Gleason made a motion to deny the request, and the council approved it unanimously.