Jackson Jambalaya

Flock cameras will soon be no more in Jackson.  JPD Chief Rashell Brackney announced she is not renewing the contract with Flock Safety at a meeting of the City Council's Public Safety and Parks Committee Wednesday.  The cameras have drawn controversy nationwide due to misuse by some police officers. 

The JPD Chief said such cameras have been around in 2016.  However, she said she did not use Flock cameras when she was police chief in Charlottesville: 

Even back in 2016, part of the issues why I did not install Flock when I was in Charlottesville, Virginia, is they had a mandatory data sharing that you did not have to have a subpoena if you were a law enforcement agency, that you would share all of your information with another law enforcement agency. And there are a lot of those still in existence today. So when Flock came here in 2024, that same over-surveillance issue and what are you going to do with 90% of the data that was not data that was being collected related to any crime being committed. Councilman Grizzell is correct in this. And the way you access that data, and the way you mine that data is the thing that we have policies on. It can only be for a law enforcement purpose that you do that. Then more than 50 officers that have been charged across the nation have violated their own policies, including the policy that was put into effect.  

The video of the discussion and a transcript of the video are posted below.  

Transcript

Tina Clay: And also, Chief, do we have Flock cameras?

Chief Brackney: So just for the record, we do have Flock cameras. And for the record, this was voted in under council as well. It was voted in on September 16 (2024). The vote was Yeas: Banks, Foote, Hartley, Lindsay, and Stokes. The Nays were none, absent Grizzell. So yes, we do have them because this council actually voted for it and voted to pay for them and to have them installed. So...

Tina Clay: But a previous council.

Chief Brackney: Well, some members of the council... I just named who voted for it and who said yes to pay Flock and yes to bring them in. And they were brought in two years ago. And so yes, I don't know what the questions are because I was not brought into that conversation. I just know it was on the agenda.

Ashby Foote: Yes, I think the question is again, members of the public are reaching out and they're asking their council. And there's a lot of folks are saying, you know, there's a violation of privacy and a bunch of other things. So Attorney Neighbors, if you could speak to that, please. What are some of the concerns out there? Are we going to breach any of the First Amendment rights or any other privacy issues? I just want to get a handle on it so when these emails come across my desk, I know how to properly respond.

Jason Neighbors: As far as potential legal claims against the city related to Flock cameras?

Chief Brackney: Yes.

Jason Neighbors: Well, I'm not prepared to address that at the moment, honestly. And we may need to take some of that into executive session. Drew did want to address that, he's been working on that issue, he's just not here yet. And I know that the Flock camera situation is still under contract. I'm not sure that it will be renewed. I don't know if anybody wants to speak to that, but my understanding is it probably will not be, but I don't know the duration of that.

Vernon Hartley: Okay. And when we voted it, we saw it as a very useful tool, but I just wanted to examine it and perhaps if the city attorney's office can provide us a response to those individuals that's writing the emails. That, I think that would suffice.

Ashby Foote: Madam Chair.

Vernon Hartley: If I may, just add some perspective here. No, I did not vote for these items.

Chief Brackney: You were absent, sir. You're correct.

Vernon Hartley: Correct. But what I would like to say is that the question is boiling down to officer behavior versus the camera, the device itself. You had some greasy officers who were using or abusing their power as they went to... the camera is a manufacturer of the camera. It has nothing to do with your behavior. We got cameras everywhere. And if you have officers or whoever else stalking folks, that's just a different thing. And I think that needs to be addressed if that is the case. But the cameras that we do have all over the city, I'm not sure who's the manufacturer of all those cameras, but they have helped to solve a lot of crimes. And these people who are sending these emails, we can't confirm or deny whether or not they actually live in the City of Jackson anyway, because we know a lot of these constituent groups, especially if they're anti-police, they swoop in and they send a lot of emails, right? And so we just need to try to figure out the middle ground here and let the Chief create a policy to make sure that none of our officers are abusing their powers to try to, you know, do personal things to different people. That's all I'm saying.

Chief Brackney: That's correct. And if there's a conversation about surveillance, Flock has been around at least since 2016. So they're not new. And when we enacted them here in 2024, there was a lot of information about them. There was a lot of controversy about them in 2024 about are they over-surveilling and what are they doing with their data. And they've always been known as a license plate reader system is what they are. Automated license plate reader system of which Flock is the manufacturer. Even back in 2016, part of the issues why I did not install Flock when I was in Charlottesville, Virginia, is they had a mandatory data sharing that you did not have to have a subpoena if you were a law enforcement agency, that you would share all of your information with another law enforcement agency. And there are a lot of those still in existence today. So when Flock came here in 2024, that same over-surveillance issue and what are you going to do with 90% of the data that was not data that was being collected related to any crime being committed. Councilman Grizzell is correct in this. And the way you access that data, and the way you mine that data is the thing that we have policies on. It can only be for a law enforcement purpose that you do that. Then more than 50 officers that have been charged across the nation have violated their own policies, including the policy that was put into effect.

Vernon Hartley: Can we just, Mr. Neighbors, can you just get with JPD and you all just come up with a response that we can present to the public from the administration or whoever?

Jason Neighbors: I will send that to you.

Vernon Hartley: It's a lot of them and it's more like a form email, right. They're just saying, you know...

Jason Neighbors: Right.

Vernon Hartley: Can we, but we can come up with a statement of the city's position and so that we can just, as we get them, we can just reply back with that same general statement. Thank you.

Tina Clay: Madam Chair, also last week the legislative committee for the MML Board of Directors met, and these Flock cameras came up. And I can tell you that most of the municipalities are looking at this, but they're not against them. They're more against the behavior that people have used to abuse their power individually, because they've had very loose policies on how they've installed them. So license plate reader systems have been in existence for a very long time. Flock just put theirs up quicker, faster than anyone else, and then they were moved throughout the United States very quickly. License plate readers are very effective. They have solved several of our homicides. They have connected people and we've been able to triangulate their traffic. It's just again how are we mining that data and using that data and protecting the privacy of individuals who are not involved in any crimes whatsoever.

Chief Brackney: And then for the note, we are not renewing our Flock. We are not renewing Flock. We are though going to have to look at license plate reader systems and how they might integrate with our other systems like our cameras, real-time command center, and things of that nature. Again with very stringent policies, we don't over-surveil or over-police.

Vernon Hartley: Again, thank you Mr. Neighbors for coming up with the city's position so we can just automatically respond to these emails. Thank you. Any more questions about Flock cameras? What I will encourage us to not respond to those emails. Do not respond to those emails. Thank you.

Tina Clay: Okay, what's...

Vernon Hartley: I say that because one, you don't really know who you're responding to. Also they're always pulling our emails. They can get our emails and everything else through records request. I got hit with one the other day, even though they were all on my calendar, but just be careful responding to these folks that you have not seen.

Chief Brackney: Legal, can we just send them to you?

Jason Neighbors: Jason Neighbors, I was about to say please send them to me because they could involve potential legal claims. And one of the reasons I don't want to talk about that in open session is obviously if there are legal claims, Flock is being sued right now. So please send them to me. Thank you.

Vernon Hartley: Congratulations, you're going to be receiving these emails.

Tina Clay: If there's no more questions about Flock cameras, I will take a motion to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters.