While their counterparts in neighboring communities of Bristol and Portsmouth recently decided to deliberate the matter further, the majority of the Warren Town Council, at its December 9 forum, decided to deny a request from the Rhode Island State Police to install a Flock Safety camera on Route 136.

The installation of the automated license plate recognition (ALPR) systems, which in town was suggested to be located at Old Market Street, have proven to be a controversial issue both locally and nationally.

The action Tuesday was taken on a 3-2 vote. Council President Joseph DePasquale, Council Vice President Kerri Cronin and Councilor Derrik Trombley backed the denial. Peers John Hanley and Louis Rego dissented, saying they wanted more information.

At the moment at least, there likely won't be any after the department's presentation to the body was made by RISP Captain Marc Alboum with input from Warren Police Chief Roy Borges.

Alboum began his remarks saying he hoped to "dispel some of the rumors" about the Flock cameras, adding he was doing so "because I truly believed the Town of Warren and the residents should have it."

He said of the Flock system, "Automatic license plate recognition cameras have and will continue to help enable the ability to support modern policing through data driven, resource optimized solutions."

The cameras, Alboum explained, provide law enforcement with real time alerts and advanced analytics, which assist police in responding to active threats such as school shootings.

He continued, the cameras help "maximize investigative efficiency" and offer needed insights for such instances as "Amber," "Silver" and "Purple) alerts for missing children, the elderly and residents with special needs.

The cameras are currently utilized in some 20 communities around the state as well as in other locations like Rhode Island College.

Attempting to get ahead of some of the criticism of the Flock system, Alboum said, "Ethically, there is no facial recognition being found on the cameras. There's no speed tracking, no undiscerning evidence gathered. Flock safety cameras have no public IP (intellectual property), and therefore are not able to be remotely accessed."

"The cameras are there to provide a great investigative lead that can fill many gaps within an investigation. There's so many testimonials that we've already seen positively throughout the state," Alboum said, referring to a recent case when approximately eight people were arrested for their participation in murder case in Pawtucket and Central Falls.

Borges had two such examples where Flock cameras installed in other communities aided his department in solving local crimes.

One was the ability of officers to find a vehicle in Connecticut stolen from a town resident. A second was of another resident being scammed of approximately $50,000. The violator was apprehended at the U.S.-Canada border because the license plate of their vehicle was captured by a Flock camera there.

Borges tried to allay fears of potential misuse by Warren police by stating only the two detectives in the department's investigative unit would have access to the system.

Borges also noted residents who have "RING" doorbell cameras installed gather much more personal identification elements than does Flock. And many homeowners have already cooperated with his department when asked to assist with investigations.

In Rhode Island, the Flock data is stored for 30 days then permanently deleted. The information, Alboum said, is not shared with any federal agencies without consent of the host party, in this case the RISP.

"Federal agencies do not have backdoor access. Collaboration with federal agencies falls on the customer's choice, which, again, through our MOU, we are not going to give information to the Federal agencies. And Flock has never been hacked," Alboum said later.

Councilors' comments
Trombley used a personal story to reflect his opposition to the cameras, describing a stalking incident involving a family member and a police officer. A lawyer himself, he also had concerns about issues with system breaches and liability.

Cronin, who said she watched Alboum's presentation before the Bristol Town Council last month and appreciated the positive impact the system could have, cited the recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid in town as one of the reasons for her reluctance to support the request.

"It doesn't seem realistic to expect that the technology isn't going to evolve to a place where people who we don't want knowing our private business will have access to it, and given what has already happened in town, it just feels like too much," Cronin said.

Rego also used a personal story to reflect his immediate position on the Flock cameras, recalling a time some 40 years ago when his then toddler son briefly strayed away from their home.

The child was found immediately, but in that instance Rego said he wasn't concerned about any infringement on his privacy rights.

"It might have been less than a minute, and I was so scared. So when I look at this technology, I'm looking at that kid that gets abducted, and at that point in time, I don't care about my privacy. I just want my son found. So this is where I'm coming from," Rego said.

Hanley, who would later offer a motion that was defeated to continue the discussion, said he could not make a learned decision on the matter without being provided a memorandum of understanding and a formal policy from the RISP.

Near the end of the deliberations, DePasquale said, "I don't think that there's any information that's going be provided in this memorandum of understanding or other documents from the applicant that's going to make me feel comfortable with this type of surveillance from this town."

Community comments
A handful residents of the town offered up remarks against the Flock cameras, among them Anne Raver, who like Cronin, cited the recent ICE action as well as her worry about the information being used by the current federal government to quell resistance to and opposition of its policies.

Jan Reitsma read into the record a letter he penned to the council expressing his opposition. He, too, was concerned about the information being misused and abuse by parties outside the state.

Said Reitsma, "It is not okay to say that mistakes are always being made or mistakes can be made when egregious violations of people's privacy, physical safety and emotional security have been documented.

"Whether we are for or against immigration is not the issue. Whether we support a protest, certain policies is not the issue at this time.

"At this time, we need to make sure in a law enforcement operations are properly and it is lawfully authorized, necessary, and executed. And that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect our public and private freedoms."