[0:01] I'm going to go ahead and call this
meeting to order. This is anformational
[0:05] evening meeting tonight only. It's like
a council workshop for us. It's not an
[0:09] official meeting. We appreciate
everybody coming this evening. Um Chief
[0:14] Felton is going to have a presentation
about cameras and then we'll open the
[0:19] floor for questions. We would like
everybody coming up to ask questions.
[0:24] Please state your name and we would like
you to ask two questions at a time. two
[0:28] questions so we can get through
everybody here. If they want to get up
[0:31] and ask, we want to give everybody an
opportunity to get up and and ask
[0:36] questions. And if we get through
everybody, then we'll
[0:40] we can get back up and ask some more
questions. So, at this time, uh I would
[0:46] have introduce C, our chief of police,
Cerfeld, and he'll do his presentation.
[0:53] Thank you.
>> Mr. Mayor, may I have one statement
[0:58] right before we start here?
>> No, you can make a statement after the
[1:02] chief's done.
>> That will
[1:08] change in the base all the way around.
[1:15] » Good.
>> All right. Yeah. Good. So, if everybody
[1:18] doesn't know, I'm coach SC, chief police
here in the back. Um,
[1:25] presentation here. I think it's probably
better if I sit for you guys over there.
[1:30] Everybody see
you sit down. I'm not
[1:36] walk through this. Um,
and if you have any questions and you
[1:40] can, you know, obviously it's going to
be crucial for me to get through this if
[1:42] we don't stop on every slide. Remember
the opportunity to ask questions that
[1:46] you have. So that'll begin.
All right. So is this new is this
[1:54] technology new? Um no. This technology
was actually first introduced in the
[1:58] 1970s.
U the technology started to be deployed
[2:02] in law enforcement in America um in the
late 1990s early 2000s.
[2:12] So what is an LTR? The license plate
reader is a fixed camera system designed
[2:16] to photograph vehicles traveling on
public roadways. It can capture images
[2:20] primarily in the rear of the vehicle uh
the time and date as well as the
[2:25] location of the camera. The important
distinction here is the system is
[2:29] designed to identify vehicles and not
people. The LPR system does not use
[2:33] facial recognition and does not collect
biometric information or driver identity
[2:37] information.
What happens to the photo that we take?
[2:42] So the photo is taken by the LPR camera.
It's then uploaded into a software which
[2:46] can recognize the license plate numbers
in the photo. Those numbers are then run
[2:50] against a list of plates which are
entered as stolen or somehow tied to a
[2:53] criminal investigation. An LPR hit is an
investigative lead, not proof of guilt.
[2:58] Officers are required to independent
independently verify the information
[3:03] before taking enforcement action. Uh the
software can also filter the images by
[3:08] vehicle make such as those listed there,
body style,
[3:13] color, and additional characteristics
such as whether a vehicle has a bumper
[3:17] sticker, rear window sticker, toolbox,
top rack, or a back rack. These are
[3:22] common descriptors which are given
during an investigation as people rarely
[3:26] remember or see a license plate. These
filters allow for fewer results during a
[3:31] search by only including those vehicles
that match the entered information in
[3:34] the results. These photos are deleted
after 30 days from that cloud storage.
[3:42] Just kind of a little visual of what
happens there. Uh the camera takes a
[3:46] photo of the passing car. It then is
uploaded into the storage. The photo is
[3:50] assessed by the storage as discussed in
the last slide. Uh then an officer
[3:56] completes a search. That photo is then
pulled down to be used in an
[4:01] investigation.
[4:04] Uh things license plate readers do not
do. The system does not identify a
[4:08] person's face. It does not determine who
is driving the vehicle. Uh it does not
[4:12] record conversations or enter a vehicle.
It does not track a person's movements
[4:16] inside buildings or record traffic
violations. Does not issue any sort of
[4:21] citation or charge. The camera
photographs vehicles visible from public
[4:26] locations.
[4:30] So, where are these cameras and why? Um,
so we have four LPR cameras on the edges
[4:35] of Glenrock and one in Rolling Hills.
The cameras are placed along the four
[4:38] main entrances based on these providing
the most opportunity to capture photos
[4:42] of vehicles. These are also locations
chosen to reveal nothing more than is
[4:46] necessary.
[4:50] some of the court cases associated with
these where courts have ruled that block
[4:54] cameras are constitutional. Um I'll just
get the key notes here guys the the
[5:00] actual court names. United States vers
in 1983
[5:05] um was in regard to people's expectation
of privacy regarding a license plate.
[5:10] United States versus Martin in 2024
court upheld the use of flock
[5:14] information in the circumstances
presented and concluded that the
[5:17] defendant did not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the vehicle
[5:21] information obtained through the system.
Um Smith or city of Norfolk block usage
[5:26] with limited retention periods does not
track the whole of a person's movements
[5:30] nor does it provide an intimate window
into where citizens drive, park, visit,
[5:34] linger, sleep or patronize. Um,
and similar decisions have been made in
[5:40] other court cases. Uh, Robinson versus
the Commonwealth and the Virginia Court
[5:45] of Appeals. In 2026, the Virginia Court
of Appeals likewise held that the use of
[5:50] the Fox system in the circumstances
before it did not constitute an
[5:53] unconstitutional search.
Lastly, United States versus Porter
[5:57] 2026. The United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
[6:01] district court's rulings. It held that
the use of the LPR system to identify
[6:04] Porter's vehicle did not violate Fourth
Amendment because there was no
[6:07] reasonable expectation of privacy and
movement on public roads or in license
[6:11] plate information and the LPR data was
not as comprehensive as cell site
[6:16] location.
[6:20] So, some of the benefits to the
community with these cameras, uh, they
[6:23] allow for faster investigation time.
Instead of manually reviewing hours of
[6:27] video, investigators can search vehicle
information with a defined time and
[6:30] location.
[6:34] These license plate readers also allow
for recovering the recovery of stolen
[6:38] property. Alerts can help officers
locate stolen vehicles more quickly.
[6:44] They allow for finding missing people.
Vehicle information can be provided.
[6:48] Important vehicle information can
provide an important investigative lead
[6:52] when a missing or endangered person is
believed to be traveling by vehicle. Uh
[6:56] these cameras can prevent and solve
crime. Um knowing that vehicles
[7:00] associated with criminal activity may be
identified can provide an additional
[7:03] deterrent.
More efficient use of personnel.
[7:06] Automated technology can help
investigators narrow a search and spend
[7:09] more time conducting traditional
investigative work.
[7:15] So these are a few of the um incidents
cases where in my
[7:20] time here um these could have been these
flat cameras could have helped us solve
[7:25] these cases a lot sooner. Um
I don't know if you want to go through
[7:31] these but May 2020
>> a few of those please sir.
[7:34] » I'm sorry. What's that?
>> Could you speak on a few of those? The
[7:36] print's pretty small.
>> Yeah. Absolutely. I apologize for that
[7:38] guys. In May of 2020, a juvenile female
was picked up in the middle of the night
[7:42] in a blue car with out of state plates
and taken out of state. Uh that young
[7:46] girl was recovered over a year later,
three states away, living with a sex
[7:51] offender.
Uh July 2012, a man broke into an
[7:56] elderly woman's home and raped her at
gunpoint. A van believed to be related
[8:00] was seen leaving the area. That van had
been borrowed by the suspect on the
[8:04] night the incident occurred.
Uh, July 2016, a man's home was
[8:09] burglarized while he was in the
hospital. A neighbor reported seeing a
[8:12] strange vehicle parked outside
previously, but only recalled the color
[8:16] and body style. During the arrest of
those individuals, the vehicle in the
[8:20] suspect's driveway match that
description which you've been given.
[8:24] » So, out of all those, I see burn up in a
stolen vehicle. Are all these burn up
[8:28] that you guys captured that you guys did
by flock?
[8:32] » No. Is that what you're saying? These
are these are previous cases that
[8:34] occurred prior to the system being in
place that the flock system itself could
[8:38] have actually helped us solve through
>> cuz I only see one in
[8:41] » every one of those is
>> okay which is 2012 all the way back to 8
[8:46] years before
>> y 10 years
[8:50] » I've been here since 2010 and so these
are some from the time that I've been
[8:53] here
>> and you've had these up since 2022
[8:55] correct
>> 2024.
[8:56] » Oh
>> yeah. So again, what I'm saying is these
[8:59] are cases that took place prior to the
cameras being there that these cameras
[9:02] could have actually helped us out
sooner.
[9:04] » Thank you.
>> Uh March 2023, a suspicious vehicle was
[9:09] reported parked for 5 days on private
property without explanation. The
[9:12] vehicle was listed as stolen by another
agency.
[9:16] June 2014, a man traveling across state
lines and stealing cars passed through
[9:21] Glenro in a stolen vehicle and stole
another vehicle.
[9:31] used some of the recent cases that we've
had in the last couple of months uh
[9:34] where the the system was actually used
to help us in identifying the
[9:37] individuals involved. Um when they left
here, a male individual entered a local
[9:41] gas station and engaged in an
altercation with the clerk. The male
[9:45] left the station prior to officer's
arrival. However, the vehicle he was
[9:48] arriving was caught on surveillance
video using descriptors. A photo of the
[9:52] vehicle was located in the FPR system
and using the plate number as well as
[9:56] follow-up investigation, the driver was
identified and charged. The male was not
[10:00] a Gok resident and likely would not have
returned to the area or been identified
[10:03] without these cameras.
Uh over here on the right, a local
[10:07] resident reported an unknown female
walking around their property and
[10:10] peering into the windows of their home.
They stated she had caught this on their
[10:14] home surveillance system.
A still shot of the unknown female was
[10:19] posted to Facebook asking for help
identifying the woman. The resident said
[10:22] the responses were not helpful and
included accusations that the woman had
[10:25] been doing this for a while. And another
stated she was likely in
[10:30] that says anger, but it means supposed
to be danger and having a mental
[10:33] episode. The resident showed the video
and using descriptors of the vehicle the
[10:37] woman pulled up in, we were able to find
the car and plate number. The woman was
[10:42] then contacted and explained that she
was in town looking at real estate
[10:45] listings for a possible move.
[10:51] So, what about safeguards? Well,
responsible use does matter. As with any
[10:55] tool, we dictate acceptable use by
policy as well as regular audit. Users
[10:59] are required to possess proper
credentiing. The image is deleted after
[11:03] 30 days unless used as evidence in a
case. When performing searches, an
[11:07] offense type, case number, and reason
for the search is required. We offer a
[11:11] transparency portal where our our
policies display as well as an audit log
[11:16] available for the last 30 days.
[clears throat]
[11:18] As new updates or options become
available, they're reviewed and if
[11:22] beneficial use.
[11:27] So this is um a look inside of the
system. Actually, these are some of the
[11:31] things that we have for options as far
as selecting and unselecting things. Um,
[11:37] for those of you who can't see, uh, we
do have the audit assistance enabled.
[11:43] Um, as far as being able to receive
requests from federal agencies for
[11:49] sharing, that is disabled.
[11:55] So, when we go into the system, this is
what you actually see when you're about
[11:58] to perform a search.
Well, you can't all see, but there are
[12:02] little red
hyphens here in the required fields.
[12:08] Those fields are offense type, case
number, and reason.
[12:13] When you're going to perform the search,
what you would do is obviously complete
[12:16] those three fields. Then down below, if
you have a license plate, you could
[12:19] enter it there. If you know the state,
you could enter it there. U or you come
[12:23] down here and you enter the things that
you do have like body, make, those sorts
[12:28] of things. You can then select the time
frame and you hit search. This is what
[12:32] you would get from that search. Assuming
you were searching a black SUV,
[12:43] responsible employment. Uh five
principles. Number one, legality operate
[12:48] with we operate within federal and state
constitutional requirements. Two,
[12:52] purpose limitation. The use of the
system is for legitimate purposes,
[12:56] public safety and investigative purposes
only. Number three, accountability.
[13:01] Audit searches and investigate misuse.
Number four, data minimization. We only
[13:06] keep information as long as reasonably
necessary and legally permitted. Number
[13:10] five, transparency. Give the community
clear information about how the
[13:13] technology is deployed and go.
>> On on three there, who audits the
[13:19] searches and investigative misuse? Hi.
[clears throat]
[13:25] » Um, and on on number four, what how long
do you consider reasonably
[13:29] uh reasonably necessary
>> as far as retention goes?
[13:33] » Yeah, it seems kind of
>> So 30 days is what they're retained for.
[13:38] » Okay.
>> So guys, if you let me complete that, it
[13:43] actually does say 30 days earlier in the
system. It also says that on our
[13:47] transparency portal as well as other
things that is included in the software
[13:51] and the software is what actually
automatically deletes that from the
[13:54] cloud.
[14:01] Um our transparency portal punch that
link real quick.
[14:11] It's going to come up for me.
[14:34] You probably open the file outside of
the presentation. See if you should be
[14:38] able to see it.
>> Yeah.
[14:51] All right. So, this is our transparency
portal. This is located on the town's
[14:54] web page under the police department for
anybody who wants to go to it at any
[14:58] time.
[15:01] » How long has this been in place?
>> This So, they actually just came out
[15:05] with transparency portal, I believe, in
July.
[15:07] » Oh,
>> to my knowledge.
[15:10] So, we've been working on getting it up
and running since.
[15:17] So, some of the things on here, um, it
does include some of the news articles
[15:22] and such, um, locally regarding the LPR
systems, things that they have helped in
[15:27] solving.
Um, obviously these update as they
[15:32] become available.
So, you can see the data usage summary.
[15:37] Uh data retention is 30 days. Total
number of cameras five.
[15:43] Um the unique vehicles detected is
meaning vehicles that have never passed
[15:48] the the uh cameras in that prior 30
days.
[15:53] So the number of searches that were
completed in the last 30 days was six.
[15:59] Um
[16:02] hot list alerted on uh national
statewide hot list sources. It's just
[16:06] showing you the sources. There wasn't
actually any hot listed, which is what
[16:09] it shows over here.
>> Does it look for all offense types or
[16:14] just a few
>> offense types when you search or just
[16:17] right now?
>> Because it says top.
[16:19] » So, these are the ones that were
searched. It's just showing you the
[16:22] three different search.
>> If if somebody's sex offender someplace
[16:25] and they end up here even though they're
not supposed to be.
[16:28] » So, that is actually an option. We did
use that at one point. We've since
[16:31] deactivated it. Um because the in the
beginning
[16:35] uh a number of these things the software
right since 2024 they've both added and
[16:41] uh changed a number of things. Um in the
beginning it was kind of an all or
[16:46] nothing thing and since then they've
allowed for that other page you know
[16:49] which is options you can turn on and
off.
[16:52] » Now would that include if there was an
Amber?
[16:54] » Yep. That would include that option.
Yep. If one of those vehicles had passed
[16:58] our stuff, that would actually change.
>> Yep.
[17:00] » One one quick question on this with the
uh the list of searches when you you
[17:05] scroll up back to the six searches or
whatnot. Now, I understand that you guys
[17:10] might have to do some investigation and
not potentially show this information
[17:15] until an investigation has been active.
So, what triggers that number to go up?
[17:20] » Six.
>> Yeah. anytime it's searched that number
[17:22] goes up
>> in the last 30 days.
[17:27] » In the last 30 days. Yeah. And it'll it
automatically does that in the system.
[17:30] So it's not like I'm going in and
uploading, you know, tomorrow for the
[17:33] last 30 days. It actually automatically
will change to include what's today?
[17:38] 25th. So we go back to the 25th of July.
So tomorrow it's going to bump from July
[17:43] 26 to 26.
>> What's test mean?
[17:47] » What does test mean?
>> Yeah. When you do a search, you need to
[17:49] put test. I would actually rather just
get through this if that's all right and
[17:53] then I'll answer those questions
question.
[18:02] » All right. So down here go down a little
further. It talks about some of the
[18:05] policy and trust things. Uh what's
detected license plates vehicles. Just
[18:09] goes over some information here guys.
And honestly I'm not going to waste too
[18:12] much time going through all of this with
you because this is completely available
[18:16] to everybody to review when you get home
and the rest of it. Um down here on the
[18:20] bottom you can actually download the
last 30 days worth of searches. Um again
[18:25] that's completely available to you.
>> What does that mean? Just tell me what
[18:28] that means.
>> What?
[18:29] » So um you can download the last 30 days
of searches. So if I went home and
[18:34] downloaded that it would show the six
searches that were made. Yep.
[18:37] » And it would show what you were looking
for case number was and would show the
[18:40] picture of the vehicle. So it it does
withhold some information because as was
[18:44] brought up by the gentleman over here u
some of the cases are obviously current
[18:47] in the last 30 days. So case numbers
aren't going to be in there, license
[18:51] plate numbers aren't going to be in
there, but it would show you the search
[18:54] parameters if you why it was undertaken.
>> Yeah.
[19:00] » But how does that lead to
>> Would you guys let him finish the
[19:04] presentation and you can get up and come
to the podium and ask questions?
[19:11] So also included here guys some myths
versus facts with some information for
[19:14] you down at the bottom. Our policy is
actually attached as well as some
[19:20] additional information on another.
So
[19:24] with that said we can move on to
questions.
[19:32] If you have questions for Chief Felner,
please come to the podium and state your
[19:36] name and ask the questions.
[19:47] Hi, my name is Mark Manel.
I got involved with this talking to the
[19:53] mayor in the town park.
I guess I'm not playing jeopardy right
[19:57] and stating a question, am I? But the
reason I got involved with this was the
[20:02] mayor lied to me about these flop
cameras. How did I lie to you about the
[20:07] flot camera?
>> That you didn't know anything about it.
[20:10] That the chief did it by himself and by
>> I told you they were bought they were
[20:14] brought in and put in during the budget
session and I knew where they were at.
[20:19] So go ahead and make your false
statement
[20:21] » and you all lied at the last
same thing that you didn't know about
[20:28] » until he
[20:32] » you had I don't know about him. That was
not our advisor session. We can do that.
[20:36] But then again to my
brought to my attention here as we came
[20:42] in to hear the January or the July 27th
meeting you were on Mike
[20:51] for giggling about that these things
have been here for four years already
[20:55] and we're just now figuring it out. And
you ran it through the budget
[21:00] through like a snake so nobody knew
about it. You're on mike for that sir.
[21:05] Everything we do is your honest is open.
You are probably my church and we do our
[21:12] budget. Thank you.
>> Just so you know, our flag system
[21:16] cameras have been in for 4 years.
[21:27] and let him speak.
>> So, I know we have four years ago.
[21:32] » Please sit down and let him finish.
>> No, that's we'll get to everybody. Let
[21:36] them do their questions, but you've lied
to us on this the whole time here.
[21:40] » No, we haven't. So, go ahead.
>> And this we said we had them four years
[21:44] ago.
>> Well, I was mistaken. You you you never
[21:47] made a mistake in your life.
>> You snaked it through.
[21:50] » No, we didn't snake it anywhere.
>> It's your voice, Mr. Mayor. It's your
[21:55] comments, not mine.
[21:59] » I've got about two minutes of context
with my question. So, if you bear with
[22:02] me, please let me know if I'm talking
your ears off. Uh, a couple of years
[22:05] ago, I spoke of my concerns with the
flock cameras in Rolling Hills. Um,
[22:10] since then, I've discussed the issue
with many people. In these
[22:13] conversations, I've said the same thing
again and again. These are good people
[22:16] with an evil tool in their hands.
>> Pardon me, sir. Would you please give us
[22:20] your name?
>> I'd be happy to. I reside in Rolling
[22:23] Hills. My name is Alex Smith.
>> Thank you.
[22:25] » I'm sorry. I was just telling you you're
good people.
[22:29] » Um, as best I understand, our police see
the lost child quickly found, the
[22:34] tragedy averted. They see a safer and
happier community. But in these
[22:38] conversations, time and again, I hear
people expressing anger and frustration.
[22:43] I hear people concerned their community
is being subjected to unamerican
[22:47] warrantless surveillance. I hear
concerns that evidence gathered without
[22:51] a warrant gets thrown out and that
genuine dangers to our community would
[22:55] persist. I hear fears of the potential
loss of funds from our community from
[23:00] lawsuits.
I hear people talking about freedom of
[23:03] information requests for data related to
the day-to-day activities our
[23:07] representatives or publication. I hear
fear of abuse of these systems, concern
[23:13] that someone who should not have access
could get into these systems could see
[23:17] you leave your house and rob you.
And I also hear people say, "Well, I'm
[23:24] not doing anything wrong. What's wrong
with this?" To that, I say you need to
[23:28] spend some time and talk with some
defense lawyers. As I understand it,
[23:32] there are people in this country that
are serving 8 years in prison for moving
[23:36] lobsters from one place to another. They
use plastic bags instead of cardboard.
[23:41] There are quotes out there that some
attorneys suspect that every average
[23:46] American is committing about three
felonies a day. They don't even know we
[23:50] have that many laws. We have treaties
where we honor the laws of other
[23:54] countries. Even like no person could
know everything that they're doing and
[23:57] what might be considered wrong under the
eyes of the law. This technology in this
[24:02] legal landscape threatens everyone
because everyone is technically guilty
[24:06] of something. And I'm not talking about
immorality or anything here. So again,
[24:12] you're good people. You have an evil
tool in your toolbox. I would really
[24:16] appreciate it if you would consider
putting on the um agenda for next
[24:20] meeting to terminate this contract, ban
flock drones, and take down the cameras.
[24:26] I appreciate your time.
>> Thank you.
[24:39] Hello council and chief. Thank you
everyone who made this meeting possible
[24:44] and I would like to speak along the
lines as our last speaker just about the
[24:50] » tell us your name. Oh, my name is Tim
Kane and I write I reside in Ring Hills
[24:55] in the the back side of Ring Hills. And
um lastly, I'd like to just speak about
[25:00] the national conversation that's going
on about these cameras and the use of
[25:04] these types of systems, not just lock,
but there are multiple types of these
[25:09] systems. And so there's a national
debate going on right now, not not just
[25:14] but the whole country, and has been
downplayed by some license plate
[25:17] readers. But that's only a small part of
this conversation. The real heart of
[25:22] this conversation and debate is about
the individual and his right or her
[25:26] right to be responsible for their own
safety and make their own decisions
[25:30] about how to be safe and secure in their
daily lives. And right now this is under
[25:35] attack by people who have good
intentions but they are good intentions
[25:39] by force. also not to be under
surveillance everywhere they go so that
[25:44] they feel a sense of freedom and a a
sense of space that we all crave. The
[25:50] real debate is whether or not government
will allow the individual to make these
[25:55] choices or will it be decided for them
by those who know better and have only
[25:59] the best intentions.
The very designed purpose of our
[26:02] national constitution and the
constitution in all 50 states is to
[26:07] recognize the individual and to protect
and defend and promote the rights of the
[26:11] individual specifically protect from
government and 100% from the majority
[26:17] rule.
The way that the rights of the
[26:20] individual are protected is by
confirming that individual rights come
[26:24] from God and are not privileges that are
granted by government that the people
[26:28] have created.
A well-meaning government, even
[26:34] supported by the majority, whatever the
public at large, cannot infringe upon
[26:38] the rights of the individuals. All of
our constitutions state this and demand
[26:43] that our public officials abide by this.
The individual is guided and held to
[26:49] account by a moral code of conduct
conduct in society and society is given
[26:54] the job of considering and bringing to
bear punishment and accountability for
[26:57] breaking the moral code handed down from
Almighty God and given to Moses.
[27:05] We all know that security cameras are
everywhere and nearly everywhere and and
[27:10] everyone says, "So why is this
different? What's the big deal?" Well,
[27:14] for most people of the liberty mindset,
99% of all these other cameras are
[27:20] either belong to private individuals or
private companies.
[27:24] It's different when any part of the
government decides to make your
[27:27] day-to-day comeings and goings a part of
a surveillance program. That is nothing
[27:31] more than a crime looking for a person
or a suspicious overseer waiting to make
[27:36] an accusation. At least this is the
perception and the the the question is
[27:41] going around the country. All available
information currently shows that this is
[27:45] to be is the case and across the country
it has been shown that any amount of
[27:49] good that has come from these types of
systems surveillance that they're
[27:54] overshadowed by corruption and misuse of
these systems. Sometimes these these
[28:00] these misuses are still also
well-meaning, but they're misuses and
[28:05] and they certain times they people go
outside of the parameters that which
[28:09] they have been told to they told the
community that they're not going to. And
[28:13] to be clear, I am not in any way
suggesting that any member of our town
[28:17] government or our law enforcement
here um is planning to or to misuse this
[28:24] program. that evidence shows that the
potential for harm across the country is
[28:29] is shown that the potential for harm
outweighs the potential for good.
[28:34] There's been studies shown that in large
metropolitan areas where these cameras
[28:37] have been used for 10 years plus that
the the actual the lowering of crime
[28:44] rates in those in those areas and the
actual meaningful arrest had had not
[28:48] increased even a single percent. But yet
the cost of these things are enormous to
[28:53] the people and that's another thing the
government is supposed to protect is to
[28:56] look at what they're spending the money
that's belongs to the people on. And so
[29:01] I'm asking on behalf of myself and other
members of the community to remove and
[29:06] ban forever these types of destroyers of
freedom and liberty and uphold and
[29:12] defend the rights of the individuals as
requested and required by our national
[29:16] and state constitutions which are the
highest laws of the land.
[29:21] And it and at first and they're also the
first grant of power entrusted to all of
[29:26] you who have chosen to serve the people
that you must abide by these
[29:32] constitutions which are the highest law
of the land. And they they say as our
[29:38] founders have that these things should
not be.
[29:41] I'm going to quote really quick. Daniel
Webster, one of our founders, is hardly
[29:46] too strong to say that the Constitution
was made to guard the people against the
[29:50] dangers of good intentions. There are
men in all ages who mean to govern well,
[29:55] but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be
[30:00] masters. And Thomas Jefferson remarked
in questions of power then let no more
[30:06] be heard of confidence in man but bind
him down for mischief which is what has
[30:11] been happening across the country by the
change of the constitutions. It is your
[30:15] duty. It is it is all of our duty to
follow the constitutions and to make it
[30:20] our our primary law. I thank you for
your time and and thank you everyone for
[30:24] coming tonight.
[30:31] Please give the people a chance to come
up and ask their questions before you
[30:34] get up and wait.
>> Sorry, I don't have a couple questions.
[30:38] » Thank you.
>> Hi. Um, I'm Amy Smith. I live in Rolling
[30:41] Hills. I just have like five questions
for the chief. Um,
[30:46] okay. So, we were talking about that
30-day
[30:50] um data retention and that's like the
license plate, right?
[30:55] » Okay. So, cuz Flock is a software
company and so I'm assuming that like
[31:00] all the other software companies that
we're interacting with, they're
[31:03] collecting user data, metadata, etc.
location data that can maybe on the
[31:09] individual level not be so valuable, but
on the aggregate level, maybe not even
[31:14] that we see at all, but that flock could
see, they can make a lot of money um
[31:19] making that data anonymous and selling
it on the exchange. Do you know anything
[31:23] about that? Have they told you anything
about that from the flock side of things
[31:26] » about whether they do that or
>> Yeah. If they're selling um the user
[31:30] data at all
>> in the contract it states that they're
[31:32] not allowed to sell the data.
>> They're not allowed to sell but like
[31:36] just the license plate data or they can
anonymize it
[31:39] » so what they use is I think you're
talking about another portion of the
[31:42] contract that talks about them having
the ability to anonymize the data.
[31:45] » Sure.
>> Then use it to train their own software.
[31:48] Oh, well, they can use it to group a lot
of those data pieces together and
[31:54] strategically sell them. Um, plenty of
companies buy and sell each other's
[31:59] data. So, I'm assuming Fluck does this
in some way, but it might just be a
[32:04] couple steps removed from just the
actual in town. So, you you
[32:08] » if they're selling it, it would be in
violation of the agreement,
[32:11] » right? I'm not saying it's like there's
only my license plate, but like maybe
[32:14] just like the entire, you know, pattern
of movements of the state of Wyoming can
[32:19] get condensed and sold or maybe the
whole front range cuz, you know, it's
[32:22] really detractive to some advertisers.
I'm I'm just guessing. Okay. Well, just
[32:26] look at that. Um, just another tech
question. Sorry.
[32:31] Okay. I don't know a ton about
encryption, but I keep hearing about how
[32:35] end to end the encryption of all this
data kind of lies within the Flock
[32:39] system. Is that correct?
>> As far as you know. Okay.
[32:45] So, basically it's kind of a lot of this
is out of like the Glenrock PD's hands
[32:50] like once the information is collected
by flock like there's that period of 30
[32:55] days and in that period of 30 days or
seven if it gets reduced technically
[32:59] they can do whatever they want with the
data right because I haven't seen the
[33:02] terms of the the contract with the PD
contract in front of me. I know that uh
[33:07] I mean it's out there but I have read
it. So technically there's a number of
[33:11] things that they in that contract they
are not
[33:14] » right because like I don't think they're
going to try and sell that like I went
[33:17] to grocery store or anything like that
like the one time but the aggregate
[33:20] tends to have a lot of value
>> if you're implying that they're lying to
[33:22] me.
>> Oh it would be like
[33:26] » well okay so do you know how long has
been around?
[33:29] » Do I I I don't know.
>> Okay. So apparently they were found out
[33:31] in 2017
and how long they've I'm so sorry. How
[33:35] long?
>> 24. We our cameras went up in 2020.
[33:38] » Okay. How long have you been with the
police department?
[33:41] » 2010.
>> Okay. Wow. So longer the Flock has been
[33:44] around. That's kind of cool. So I mean
that's neat. Okay. Um are there any
[33:49] other companies that you know of that do
what Flock does? Like does Flock have
[33:53] any competitors?
>> Axon one that also sells systems. Yes.
[33:59] » Okay.
>> If Flock scares you, Axon will
[34:03] terrorize. I I've never heard of them.
Okay,
[34:06] » guys. Let her speak.
>> No, it's fine. It's fine. I appreciate I
[34:10] appreciate that. I just never knew if
they had any competitors or not. And
[34:12] lately, I feel like all I've been
hearing about is them. And so, good to
[34:16] know that there are others out there.
Um, so just just really quickly just to
[34:21] kind of go back to it for those 30 days
that Flock has the aggregated user data
[34:25] of the comingings and goings of the
people of this town, they could
[34:29] technically do whatever they want with
it, even though it's more like not
[34:33] asking for permission, but asking for,
you know, forgiveness later on. Is that
[34:36] correct?
>> I can't answer that question. You're
[34:39] assuming that they're lying to me.
>> No, it's not even lying. It's just I
[34:42] mean,
>> they certainly haven't told me that
[34:44] they're doing that. Another way the data
is in their control, right? They own the
[34:48] data.
>> It is inside of a storage system.
[34:51] » There
you
[34:56] go.
[35:00] » All right. Hi. Uh my name is James Kane.
I live here in Glenrock.
[35:05] My main issue with the with the fly
cameras is not necessarily like you guys
[35:09] being able to find, you know, a
kidnapper or something like that along
[35:13] those lines. I think that that's a
that's a good thing that can be used.
[35:16] there is the problem with uh misuse. Um
like I said pointed out in your
[35:22] presentation that you were the only one
that does the in you know investigations
[35:27] and audits and things like that. And the
the primary problem with this is that
[35:33] all of this stuff it's not like a closed
camera system. I'd be happier with a
[35:37] closed camera system that you guys just
had here at the police station. But then
[35:41] it goes out all over the web. All right.
Now, we can talk about securities and
[35:45] this and that that nobody will
understand in this room and all this
[35:48] stuff for hours. The problem is things
like FBI uh databases, uh Pentagon
[35:54] databases, all this stuff has been
breached by hackers throughout the
[35:58] world. There's already the reason why
these things have been around for such a
[36:03] time and they're only now be gaining
traction and people coming against them
[36:08] is because there has been issues, right?
We can't change the law until there's an
[36:14] issue with the law, right? Or things
that are going on in the public.
[36:19] So,
basically,
[36:22] how could is there any way that we can
make this system a Glenrock system, not
[36:28] a flock system that goes around the
world for whatever to see because
[36:33] there's already
>> uh there's already breaches of uh stuff
[36:37] elsewhere. I don't know. It was Poland
to tell with VPNs and how they bounce it
[36:41] around because if you guys could track
where it was leaked to all, excuse me,
[36:47] all of the uh all of the scammers and
everybody in the world would already be
[36:51] caught. You know what I mean? Cuz
there's too many things for it to go
[36:55] around. Um that's my that's my point. I
just wanted to know instead of the flock
[37:02] cameras, we have a maybe our own system
or something like that that's not
[37:07] broadcast around the world to parts
unknown data brokers. We don't know.
[37:12] Once it's out there, we don't have
access to it, but somebody does.
[37:16] [snorts]
Thank you. Thank you.
[37:26] » Hi, I'm Sherin Kovatch. Uh, I grew up
here in Glenrock and I have a whole list
[37:31] of questions, but and I will save my
opposition for the city council meeting
[37:35] on the 14th. Um, I also second the
motion to not renew the contract uh for
[37:46] many reasons that have been stated. So,
I will limit my questions starting with
[37:53] uh this one.
The order from page rock 0002
[38:00] say initial term of 24 and uh a 24
months and a renewal a renewal term of
[38:07] 24 months not one year. The agreement
says that the term begins with the
[38:12] cameras are installed and validated and
the log shows the system life by
[38:17] midocctober 2024. What is the exact date
uh this contract auto renews? What is
[38:23] the exact deadline for the town's 30
days written notice of nonrenewal and
[38:28] will we have a chance to speak on it is
my first question.
[38:35] » Um the renewal date is October 14th. The
30-day window would be September.
[38:41] » Okay. Okay. And then the next question,
Chief Felton, on December 8th, 2025, you
[38:52] ran two searches logged uh to a real hit
and run case for a white ram pickup
[38:57] truck. 2 hours later, you ran roughly 40
more uh searches logged only as test. No
[39:03] case number. six of them filtering for
RAM uh using the same time window and
[39:08] the extend uh and then extending it for
4 days further back. What are those uh
[39:15] 40 searches actually looking for
considering their tests and why the
[39:21] test? And maybe explain what test means
because there is an awful lot of tests
[39:30] in the 375
different logs that were audited since
[39:35] the start of this.
>> Yeah,
[39:39] » for now.
>> All right, we'll try and get all those
[39:42] questions. Um, so December 2025.
>> Yeah, it was December 8th, 2025.
[39:51] » I I apologize. I That's a year ago. I
can't remember exactly what that was. I
[39:56] can tell you that when something like
test is entered in there, it's either
[39:59] for training or we're training a new
person on the system or some sort of an
[40:04] update.
>> Can I answer her question first? Sure.
[40:08] You're welcome afterwards to ask her.
>> Okay. So um either training of a new
[40:13] person or some sort of a new feature is
added to the system. So we go in and
[40:18] then we have to retrain on that system
for the new features.
[40:22] » So that is 40 searches within hours of
that
[40:26] » without being able to go back. I
apologize.
[40:37] » Okay. And then back to my first
question, will the community have a
[40:43] chance to speak on it? And will the city
council actually take the community's
[40:48] opinion into consideration?
>> We will take items from the floor and
[40:53] yes, in a in a in a legal council
meeting where we can make a vote, we
[40:57] will discuss that.
>> Thank you.
[41:06] Hi. Uh, my name is Brett Kenway. I live
here in Glenrock. Um, I'm going to be
[41:10] pretty quick and just be kind of matter
of fact. Um, so since
[41:16] 2024, I guess we've had these cameras
for 2 years now. Since since those
[41:20] cameras went up, how many times have
they actually actively led to some sort
[41:24] of arrest or some sort of I guess result
would be uh the word I'm looking for in
[41:31] in an active investigation um that's
been used to like you know close a case
[41:36] or something like that.
>> I would estimate that it could be about
[41:40] 10 to 12 times that we've used that
system that would
[41:44] » and are you able to speak on like what
kinds of cases those were? Is it is that
[41:48] something that you're allowed to talk
about or um
[41:50] » I mean visually I can't talk about but a
lot of them are usually uh missing
[41:54] people checks that kind of thing.
>> Okay. Okay. I just I I bring it up just
[42:00] because of there's kind of a heavy
emphasis on like the Amber Alert things
[42:05] and stuff that you guys brought up
earlier and for for two years it just
[42:08] you know in a town of 2400 people how
many how many people can possibly go
[42:12] missing? And I guess the answer is about
five a year or six a year.
[42:19] job. So the actual idea and the the
reason for no network versus closed
[42:24] network does that make sense with the
sharing of other cameras and such is
[42:27] because it's not just our amber alerts
that we right alert would be those
[42:32] entered by other agencies
>> right
[42:34] » from anywhere
>> and and and I totally get that
[42:38] understand um
>> but the question kind of stands like of
[42:42] those 10 to 12 cases how many of those
were like interstate or inter county or
[42:48] inner you know, larger than the town.
>> Um,
[42:54] » just just thank you. Um, yeah, just just
that seems like and remind me, I'm
[43:02] sorry, I'm not 100% clear. I've seen
different figures. What was the total
[43:05] cost to the town of Glenrock? Like to us
for those cameras to this point.
[43:11] » So, for the first year of the contract,
I believe was roughly 19,000. It might
[43:15] have been just over that. Um, that
included installation costs. The second
[43:18] year of that contract was 15,000. It's
$3,000 per camera per year.
[43:23] » Okay.
>> Multiply that by the five cameras that
[43:25] we use, 15 for the year. The first one
did include more just because of the um
[43:30] installation cost.
>> Right. Okay.
[43:35] And again, I I want to be clear, but
just by saying like my main concern
[43:39] isn't, you know, how much of this is
coming out of my paycheck, but um more
[43:43] so the privacy aspect. It just doesn't
seem like, you know, 10 or 12 people
[43:48] over two years. I not that we should not
look for people. Um I don't want to get
[43:53] conflated or twisted there, but um it
just it just doesn't seem like the the
[43:58] amount of what I would consider invasion
of privacy um to kind of be congruent
[44:04] with those results. Um
so that that was kind of all the
[44:09] questions I had. So thanks for your
time.
[44:11] » Thank you. Thank you. APPRECIATE IT.
[44:16] UH TO ADD TO HER question though, how
many officers Jack Street, I'm a
[44:21] resident going out here. Uh in the last
year, how many new cops have you had
[44:26] » in the last year?
>> Yeah,
[44:30] » I would estimate three or four.
>> Which ones?
[44:34] » Which new officers last year? Two of
them were in the academy right now.
[44:38] » Oh, they're still in the academy.
>> On the street.
[44:40] » Okay. Okay. So I was just wondering when
you say training in the last year, how
[44:45] many officers are you training for the
40 searches that she said on
[44:50] » who's here has to train and then like I
said software updates occur, changes are
[44:53] made in the system and new things have
to be looked up.
[44:56] » All right. So here's some data for you
for national average tracks
[45:01] ex-girlfriends and her teenage daughter
600 times. This is you like you started
[45:06] tracks ex-girlfriend and her new
boyfriend 200 times plus. Track
[45:10] estranged wife multiple track
ex-girlfriend and her parents 100 times.
[45:15] Tracked ex-girlfriends multiple track a
woman who met with working security on
[45:20] TV set then pulled her over multiple.
So that has a real concern to me with
[45:26] all the women around here as how these
are getting abused. I got here some more
[45:32] for you. Um, my question is the
department on the policy requires every
[45:38] flock search to have a relevant case
number and [music] legitimate law
[45:42] enforcement.
Right. And that goes for the law as well
[45:45] in Wyoming.
>> It goes for the law
[45:48] » as the law set in Wyoming on cameras.
Where does the law stand?
[45:53] » I'm not aware of the law.
>> Oh, they don't have any laws for flock
[45:56] safety?
>> No, sir.
[45:59] just policy and procedures by the town
of Waro that you must follow. Okay. So
[46:04] the auto log show that requirements was
ignored on 370 out of 375 searches in
[46:11] the last 2 years. What did they put
instead on the audit logs?
[46:17] » So when a test or a training was
occurring, obviously there's not a case
[46:20] number associated with that.
>> Okay, I would kind of fall into that. Um
[46:25] under the policy that would be regarding
any searches that occur there just
[46:31] searches.
>> Yeah. If you was doing a policy of your
[46:35] own policy, right, of being a case
number and justification, right?
[46:42] » Okay. 370 out of 375 searches didn't
have that. So I think that you're
[46:49] referring to um the logs that were
public public information requests
[46:54] turned over that. So in those logs the
case numbers were actually removed.
[46:58] » Okay.
>> As well as the license plates is a
[47:01] couple of those were missed. That was a
redaction error.
[47:06] » Huh. Always an errors. God, I hate
errors. Uh all right. So on November
[47:12] 27th of 2025,
there was a search with the filter out
[47:17] of all Wyoming plates in Grock. So and
what you wanted to do is you filtered
[47:23] out everybody in town of Wyoming and
went out and tracked every other license
[47:28] plate with 6,000 some odd networks of 49
other states of that didn't have Wyoming
[47:35] plates that were in towns for
Thanksgiving. Okay, that's included in
[47:39] Washington DC, Puerto Rico, and Mexico.
And you did that on all the family
[47:44] members for Thanksgiving, singled them
out. You took a filter on there, and you
[47:50] said filtered out all Wyoming plates,
right?
[47:53] » I have no idea what you're talking
about.
[47:54] » It's It's on the records that you guys
supplied.
[47:57] » Records on in front of me.
>> Okay.
[47:59] » I don't know what you're trying
>> November 27th at 25.
[48:02] » Question
November 16th.
[48:05] » November 27th. It was Thanksgiving Day.
[48:13] » Okay. Maybe it was. It was in that time.
All right. Um,
[48:18] so when you come to one that says
gambling or trespass and then says test
[48:24] afterwards, which one are you doing?
Were you looking for gambling or
[48:28] testing?
>> It would be a test
[48:29] » of gambling. There's nothing to do with
gambling.
[48:32] » So it had an error of gambling or
trespassing there. It's just information
[48:36] that was put in there for the test.
>> Huh. Okay.
[48:41] Why is only five of out of 390 searches
come to one case number? You only have
[48:47] one case number in 390 searches in 2
years.
[48:50] » As I told you earlier, those numbers
were taken out. The case numbers as well
[48:54] as license plates were supposed to be
taken out when that was released. There
[48:57] was a mistake in that process.
>> Always mistakes. When the only
[49:01] accountability tool that come from
promised us is filled with the word
[49:05] test, the system is not accountable. It
is operating with the basic of we don't
[49:10] know.
Uh I call for action. We not asking for
[49:15] another promise to do better. We're
asking the count council to act. Demand
[49:19] a full independent review of every test
search. Require real consequences for
[49:24] the documented policy violations.
release the remaining emails in the
[49:29] complete order form without further
delay and most importantly put the
[49:32] future of these counties on the ballot
where it belongs to the people of Glenn
[49:38] to vote on it and off the town council.
Uh the logs are public are documented.
[49:46] The only question left is whether this
council will finally hold the system
[49:50] accountable to the community it is
supposed to be served. And the last one
[49:55] is Mr. know you stated that you guys
when you did these you permitted them
[50:00] outside your jurisdiction by getting a
permit from white dot is that correct
[50:05] » okay that was and you did that by white
dot right it wasn't extending the city
[50:13] limits like you quoted in cowboy daily
>> cuz they said it got extended
[50:19] » I don't know the answer to that
>> okay do you know the answer to that
[50:21] » no I do not
>> okay cuz on cowboy daily you said that
[50:24] that we extended the city limits. That's
not true.
[50:28] » City limits was extended to the south up
to Deer Creek Road. Yes. I didn't say it
[50:32] was extended any other direction, Jack.
>> Huh. Well, I can't even find any records
[50:37] of that.
>> Wasn't done by this council. It was done
[50:40] by probably
12 years or long before it was done by
[50:47] back at that time when that all was in.
So why is it the sheriff's department
[50:52] they hire patrol under these and not
you? Cuz it's not even your jurisdiction
[50:56] where you hold up the data.
>> Why is that?
[50:59] » Jurisdiction doesn't matter with these
because these are not things that are
[51:02] being legally they're not the
infractions aren't occurring outside of
[51:06] the jurisdiction.
>> Huh? Who?
[51:08] » There's no infractions being recorded.
And the only reason the jurisdiction
[51:12] jurisdiction would come into play is if
say something were to be actionable on
[51:16] this.
>> Yeah. The infractions. What do you mean
[51:18] by infractions? Infractions means
breaking the law.
[51:21] » Is there any law you can just decide to
run these fire without case numbers in?
[51:26] Is that what you're saying?
>> I'm not sure.
[51:29] » I'm not either. So, all right. I run 100
miles between Grock and Casper. So, any
[51:36] given day I'm at I could run two to
three times to Grock. That means I pass
[51:40] these six times a day. Times that by
five, that's 30 a week. times that by
[51:45] 52,
you're looking for an astronomical
[51:49] amount. Say 3,000 times. I go to 15
rentals and going up in Casper.
[51:54] Especially if I have to replace a water
heater and go up to Casper. We all
[51:58] commute. My problem is is we run a power
four times a day. In 2 years, we've got
[52:04] a total of 2,000 times that we ran
across those power plays. So, we could
[52:08] all be in fractions by your means. I
mean, what? I mean seriously, we have a
[52:13] digital footprint this gang us in here
and you know we are ranked number one on
[52:18] the internet for the safest town. Good
job by the way. It's safest town in
[52:23] which in Wyoming right now. Okay. So I
don't understand why we have
[52:26] justification for these systems when
it's a foot in the door for what's
[52:31] coming next with drones with facial
recognition. It's a foot in the door for
[52:36] total surveillance. Do we want to be
like China? Come on now. That's where
[52:40] it's leading to just straight up do it.
Might as well just throw it all away.
[52:46] You know, my grandfathers died in this
country to [music] save our freedoms,
[52:51] our rights, our liberties, and put
people like you guys that we can vote in
[52:55] charge and trustworthy to do the right
thing. And man, I ain't giving up my
[52:59] rights that my family died for, man. I
mean, we all have family members that
[53:05] have fought for this country and our
freedoms. and it's a foot in our door to
[53:10] take our freedoms away. Especially in a
town of 2400 people that lives 3 miles
[53:15] off the road. Who's going to detour of a
criminal to come through our town to buy
[53:20] gas in the middle of the night? They're
going to stick to 25. What? I mean,
[53:25] seriously,
we're 72% below average for a crime
[53:30] rate.
It doesn't make sense.
[53:33] » Are you asking me a question?
>> No, I'm just talking personal
[53:36] personally, but I'm done. Thank you.
That was good.
[53:43] » I had uh one other question or perhaps a
couple of quick questions. So, I've been
[53:47] writing software since like the '90s and
often times when I'm doing stuff for
[53:51] like hospitals or lawyers or you know
like personal information, bank
[53:54] accounts, like we create sandbox
environments so that way we're not
[53:58] exposing personal information and we can
test all kinds of different things,
[54:01] train, so on and so forth. Why wasn't
testing done through something like
[54:06] that? as opposed to real citizens
information.
[54:10] » So that's a great question for
because I agree with you on that but it
[54:15] just they just haven't environment.
>> Thank you.
[54:24] » Hi, my name is Tate Wise. I have four
questions down. First, are there any
[54:28] portions of the contract the town has
with Flock that any of you council
[54:31] members would like to see changed in any
way if we were to, you know, renew it or
[54:35] if you could just go back in time and
change any stipulations?
[54:39] » I'll be honest. I've never read the
contract.
[54:42] » Yeah,
>> I'll be honest.
[54:46] » Okay. And uh
well, I guess I don't know who direct
[54:51] this next question. I guess it's a
follow-up question, but um do you know
[54:55] how much
flexibility flock provides when
[54:59] negotiating with the municipality in
terms of the details of the contract. Is
[55:03] it pretty willing to say yes, we're
willing to make this concession and that
[55:06] concession? It sounds like they might
be.
[55:09] » My understanding,
but my understanding is that yes, they
[55:13] will make alterations to the contract.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, regarding
[55:18] intermunicipal flock searches, could you
tell us about how Glenrock works with
[55:21] other municipalities and what sort of
data is shared? be more particular,
[55:26] would you would you speak to how or if
information at all is shared using
[55:30] information directly from Flock between
municipalities?
[55:34] I guess what I'm asking is, you know,
when working with other municipalities,
[55:39] is it something through Flock where
you're able to like, you know, share
[55:42] footage or give direct access to another
municipality for a certain period of
[55:46] time or does another municipality just
call the police department and say,
[55:49] "Hey, we're wondering if this license
plate has come through town." So if
[55:52] somebody wanted information like that,
yes, they would have to call unless
[55:56] they're a subscriber of the flock
system. They're a subscriber of the
[55:58] flock system and they can search from
their end.
[56:01] » Okay.
>> Depended on who they were and whether we
[56:04] allow would allow them for something
like that. But for something like that,
[56:08] that would require a license.
>> Okay. Um, so if we were to have a 30-day
[56:15] cutoff, but another municipality were to
connect to us using what you just
[56:19] mentioned and they didn't have a 30-day
cut off, would the data from our town be
[56:24] we be deleted from their database after
30 days or would they retain it?
[56:27] » You mean if they searched it and they
retained that like they did a search and
[56:31] got that data from our system?
>> I Yes.
[56:34] » My understanding would be yes. Okay.
>> Unless they were able to download that
[56:38] as evidence.
>> Okay. Thank you. And uh would you be
[56:42] willing to be more particular when
running test searches? For example, by
[56:44] naming the officer being trained and the
exact skill being taught so that there
[56:48] aren't just things saying tests, but
more particular things.
[56:50] » Yeah, we definitely look into those
changes.
[56:52] » Okay. Thank you. And uh do any council
members uh have any thoughts on how to
[56:56] provide a higher degree of oversight
perhaps from outside the police
[56:59] department? I mean, no shade at all. I I
trust you, right? But you know, just
[57:03] just institutionally, you know.
>> Any thoughts,
[57:08] » sir? I I appreciate hearing the thoughts
of the citizens of our community and I
[57:14] just want to hear what you have to say
and what you have to what you feel about
[57:18] this and to think upon it. Thank you.
>> Oh, thank you. All right. Anything else?
[57:23] We're good.
>> I think we're going to take all the
[57:25] information we got tonight and evaluate.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
[57:28] » We are we're going to look at this. So,
>> all right. I appreciate it, guys. Thank
[57:32] you.
>> We can't make any decisions on this
[57:34] tonight. This is council.
>> No, this is
[57:37] » it would have to go into an exam session
on and during your regular council
[57:42] meeting. So, it's an official.
>> Yeah.
[57:44] » I just want to make one comment. First
and foremost, I think that everybody up
[57:48] here tries to do their very level best
by way of the town.
[57:52] » And to the extent that we have this many
people showing up tonight for this kind
[57:56] of system issue, I mean, this is
powerful. This is what democracy is.
[58:00] This is what government should look
like. So, it's real good that
[58:03] everybody's here to voice your concerns.
And to the extent that there's
[58:10] information being misappropriated or,
you know, mismanaged,
[58:16] I haven't been a part of any of the
discussions related to blockch. But now
[58:20] that I am, I can assure everybody that
I've looked at um this system and what
[58:27] Chief Selson's been doing that the fact
that we're here, we're being transparent
[58:32] and open and trying to educate everybody
in the community, I'm not in a position
[58:36] to know, you know, how this is
beneficial or how it's helpful or what
[58:40] have you. He'd be in the best position
to do that. But to the extent these
[58:43] folks appear um trying to withhold
information or invoke more
[58:50] » are you legal counsel for them? No.
>> Yes. Invoke more government versus less
[58:56] freedom. That's certainly not their
intention. And so if it's the masses
[59:01] here deciding that this is not something
the town or those folks want to do, I
[59:04] mean it's real powerful for everybody up
here to hear from you. So I appreciate
[59:09] everybody's attendance tonight. my I
appreciate, you know, being educated on
[59:13] this topic. It's not something that
comes up in my day-to-day work and
[59:18] unless it's brought to my attention to
review these things, I wouldn't be doing
[59:22] it. Otherwise, I'd be full-time every
single day legal counsel reviewing every
[59:27] single document these folks do. And so
to the extent that you know that
[59:31] everybody up here didn't review the
contract or that they didn't have a good
[59:35] understanding of what the exact terms
are, it's certainly not from that
[59:40] standpoint in my opinion. Um it's
certainly that you guys coming out and
[59:45] speaking about your objections, your
questions, your issues with this is just
[59:50] helpful in terms of a governmental
standpoint for us to understand what the
[59:54] citizens want to do here. So that's just
my two cents.
[59:58] » Oh, ma'am.
>> Thank you.
[59:59] » You're counsel, but we don't know who
you are.
[1:00:02] » I'm Amy.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[1:00:04] » Very nice. Thank you. I
>> I had one more question. Um,
[1:00:07] » thank you so much for coming in.
>> Thank you, by the way. Uh,
[1:00:11] » could any of you quickly clarify the
constitutionality of of this? I I mean,
[1:00:16] I'm sure there's something here about,
you know, plain view or something like
[1:00:19] that. I mean, could you could you talk
about it? So, I don't really want to
[1:00:22] give you like a constitutional analysis,
but just think of it this way. Okay? So,
[1:00:27] the last time I went through the Denver
airport and I wanted to sign up for
[1:00:30] clear or whatever, I walked up to the
machine to sign up for that clear system
[1:00:35] so you can go through the airport on the
faster track, right? I put my
[1:00:39] fingerprint on there and it knew
immediately who my mom was as who my
[1:00:44] mom's maiden name was. And so, that was
one of the test questions. I mean to the
[1:00:48] extent that we are
>> You volunteered that.
[1:00:51] » I volunteered the fingerprint. True. But
at the same time, the fact that I just
[1:00:55] put my finger on there and they knew who
I was by reading my fingerprint or they
[1:00:59] can test as good as you think
considering the information that's been
[1:01:03] gathered used through other situations.
>> It's terrifying.
[1:01:07] » By you putting a fingerprint on there.
Now you throw in the metric of knowing
[1:01:10] where everybody goes, who's driving that
car by who it's licensed to, their
[1:01:15] fingerprints, their background, their
everything that's put together through a
[1:01:19] mosaic of all of this surveillance
>> that is the problem we are all going to
[1:01:24] hear that are against
>> No, and I hear that. I mean, ultimately
[1:01:30] to the extent that you have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the public
[1:01:34] view anymore, it just doesn't
necessarily exist. And so now with the
[1:01:40] implementation of the flock system, I
mean I I do a lot of 1983 litigation. So
[1:01:45] that's civil right litigation and um you
know to identify criminals or the like
[1:01:51] that that's one of the tools that
officers use but to the extent that
[1:01:55] there are invasion of privacy issues
it's been a hotly debated topic across
[1:02:00] the US right so I mean there is very
little expectation of privacy and policy
[1:02:07] anymore but there's also a reason that
we choose to live in a place like
[1:02:11] Wyoming
>> yeah we choose gun to have and live in
[1:02:15] the big cities where these things happen
to get out of the hustle and bustle to
[1:02:19] live in town.
>> Would you guys like if you want to talk
[1:02:24] come to the podium
and we're we're about to we're all here
[1:02:29] on free gratus time so this is not going
to last much longer.
[1:02:34] » I really appreciate you guys for having
this meeting and for you guys being
[1:02:37] here. Obviously, I know it's a touchy
subject and um it's not always fun to be
[1:02:44] when when you know that you're just
trying to do what's right to be
[1:02:47] questioned. And excuse me, ma'am. Oh,
sorry, Brandy Senson.
[1:02:52] Um okay, so I just have a couple
questions. Um how did Flock come to you?
[1:02:58] Was it like marketed to you or how did
that come and how did you decide we
[1:03:04] needed it here?
So, um, I apologize that was back in
[1:03:09] early 2024. I I don't remember if I saw
it somewhere.
[1:03:12] » Okay.
>> Actually, we still get a lot of phone
[1:03:16] calls. A lot of emails,
but
[1:03:21] » Okay, awesome. Um, so the other question
that I have is about auditing. And I
[1:03:28] just want to say I'm very pro law
enforcement as well. I just know that
[1:03:32] there's also humans in law enforcement.
And so I'm not meaning any of this
[1:03:36] personal towards anybody in in this room
or on our you know force or anything but
[1:03:42] um the audit as far as the audit goes
and I do appreciate the question that
[1:03:46] Hard has but how does can you explain
more about what you do to audit it to
[1:03:51] make sure that it's only being used for
correct purposes and I assume that's
[1:03:55] only for you can only audit your
officers not any other people who are
[1:04:02] maybe in Tennessee that are on the
flock. system surging in Glenrock,
[1:04:06] right?
[1:04:09] » So, yes, the audit is an internal audit.
Not sure I understand what the rest of
[1:04:13] the question as far as me auditing
another agency. I don't know.
[1:04:17] » Yeah. So, like you can't tell whether
the person from I'll say Tennessee,
[1:04:21] sorry, no offense to Tennessee. Um but
just somebody else. You there's no way
[1:04:26] to tell whether that is a legit case.
He's not just stalking his ex-girlfriend
[1:04:30] or something.
So,
[1:04:33] » can somebody from Tennessee get on your
flock system and run search?
[1:04:38] » Nobody can come through our system if
that makes sense. However, the [snorts]
[1:04:42] idea of the national sharing network, it
is possible that other cameras could
[1:04:48] utilize I mean search across our system.
>> Okay. Can you explain that a little more
[1:04:52] cuz it like it sounds like yours to me
it was contradictory.
[1:04:59] » So, Cter let me let me take a stab at
that. So, so say somebody in Tennessee,
[1:05:03] law enforcement, Jacksonboro, Tennessee,
wants to search Wying license plate
[1:05:07] 1079. If they search that, I got to find
my truck cuz that's my truck. If they do
[1:05:12] that, do you get notified that they that
they found the truck in Glenrock,
[1:05:16] Wyoming that they were searching for on
Fox? Is that your question, Rick?
[1:05:19] » Uh, yeah. That's the beginning of it.
Yeah. So no, it would be not I mean
[1:05:24] unless there was something with that
system like it was flagged
[1:05:27] » then it would notify
>> but that's possible for them to do that.
[1:05:31] » Yeah.
That's the idea of the the national
[1:05:34] versus just keeping it internal is that
if I enter somebody as a a missing
[1:05:38] person right and somebody's kidnapped
from here we enter them into the system
[1:05:41] and they would go to another area and I
be able to search those other cameras
[1:05:45] and that to flag or for that to flag in
those other areas. Yes.
[1:05:51] And yeah, how does that differ from, you
know, like NCIC or something like that?
[1:05:56] Um,
putting in that Amber Alert or,
[1:06:02] you know, all points built in or, you
know, how how come you can't go? It's
[1:06:06] just faster this way if you're using all
this technology.
[1:06:09] » So, it's faster and that you're you're
employing the the number of cameras that
[1:06:13] are out there, right, to catch that
instead of just relying on one officer
[1:06:16] to see that. Does that make sense?
>> Sure. Okay. Um, and is there a way to
[1:06:22] turn that off so that nobody else could
come into our area to search in
[1:06:26] Glenrock? No other state, you know.
>> So, so yes, you can opt out of that, but
[1:06:30] then that removes us from being able to
utilize those other ones. Um, and also I
[1:06:35] can tell you that I am aware that the
company itself is actually putting in
[1:06:39] some they're altering the way that works
so that you can alter uh my
[1:06:43] understanding is they have to have only
certain reasons can be searched if that
[1:06:47] makes sense.
>> Okay. So like we could switch once
[1:06:50] that's out. It's not out yet.
>> Hypothetically
[1:06:53] » once that's out certainly it's as I said
going to be given a lot of
[1:06:57] » and it sounds like a good thing. But
anyway long story short we can actually
[1:07:00] select what things they could search
across the system. So cannot do those
[1:07:04] kind of
>> okay like the case kind of.
[1:07:07] » Okay. And then um what did you when you
said on that toggle the federal was off.
[1:07:13] Can you explain that a little bit more?
So that would mean that if a federal
[1:07:16] agency wanted to share, so um the
network sharing like we just talked
[1:07:19] about that is actually something that
one agency has to agree to with another
[1:07:23] agency to allow the reciprocity of that
national search or famil.
[1:07:28] Um so what that toggle does it doesn't
allow any federal agencies to actually
[1:07:33] even reach out and ask to share. Oh,
>> okay. Okay. Um it's interesting that
[1:07:38] it's okay from other states but not
federally. And I know that's a whole
[1:07:42] other issue. Um, last question is, um,
and I guess more just a thought with the
[1:07:49] with the testing. I appreciate the
council's, um, pointing out, you know,
[1:07:55] that our data is everywhere. And again,
no offense to anybody, but when it's in
[1:08:00] the hands of the government, that's the
reason that the United States has the
[1:08:04] Constitution and the amendments and
everything like that. And I know that
[1:08:07] you did talk about some
constitutionality, but there was a
[1:08:11] recent Supreme Court case um federal
Supreme Court case about um Chhatri
[1:08:16] versus some state, I don't remember, and
it was talking it said that um the
[1:08:23] the data to get like a phone dump area
to see who were all phones. Um that that
[1:08:30] still requires a search warrant. And
even though right now it hasn't gone the
[1:08:36] right case, we all I we all know how
case law like you got to have the right
[1:08:40] case. sending just the right facts and d
and eventually it you know but anyways
[1:08:43] it hasn't been ruled to Supreme Court
but why not just in your policy require
[1:08:50] maybe a search warrant or something to
do more looking not just you know so
[1:08:55] that we know as citizens and we have a
little more trust because as as a
[1:09:01] citizen and in Wyoming even when you ask
for a public records the keeper of the
[1:09:07] records in my um experience the keeper
of the records can say actually it's not
[1:09:12] for the public's best interest to see
that and that is really hard to tr and
[1:09:17] it's like trust me bro and I'm like
sorry that like no offense but like
[1:09:21] that's that's what England said. So um
I'm not trying to be like but it's true
[1:09:28] and um it's just really hard to again no
offense to anybody but um that's why
[1:09:34] people get so so nervous about this and
I appreciate YOUR TIME.
[1:09:43] UM, MY NAME IS Jackie Harder. I live in
Rolling Hills. My question is,
[1:09:49] how often do you share the flock
information with Casper Police
[1:09:54] Department? Um, when you guys are
working together for say a car going
[1:09:59] through Wyoming, does Casper have flock
cameras?
[1:10:03] » Oh, but they're bigger than us, right?
[snorts]
[1:10:08] » Okay. So you can't share the information
about Glenrock with our local police
[1:10:13] departments like Douglas PD, Casper PD,
Gillette PD. So you can't share any of
[1:10:20] that locally with any of our police
departments.
[1:10:24] » None of us in the system or they call
that request.
[1:10:28] » So the closest
city in Wyoming to us that also has
[1:10:34] flock cameras is Cheyenne. So, do you
guys share the information back and
[1:10:39] forth with Cheyenne? Do you guys work a
lot with Cheyenne since they're so close
[1:10:42] to us?
>> So,
[1:10:47] I'm not sure what you mean by sharing
information back and forth. So, if
[1:10:50] Cheyenne has flot cameras and we're the
closest place to Cheyenne that has flot
[1:10:55] cameras,
how what is the point? If there's crime
[1:11:01] that's done here and there's crime
that's done in Casper, Douglas, all the
[1:11:06] places that are close around us, they're
all bigger than us, but we have
[1:11:12] slot cameras here, but they don't have
them going into Casper. So, how
[1:11:17] beneficial is an Amber Alert or anything
once they leave to the next city closest
[1:11:24] to us?
>> How beneficial would it be for me to put
[1:11:26] in an Amber Alert or
>> Right. because they're not going to know
[1:11:29] because it's on flock. So, how can they
know that it's driving through their
[1:11:33] city?
>> So, yeah, certainly they would have to
[1:11:35] drive past one of those cameras for the
alert to go on. However, Amber alerts
[1:11:38] are also put out through NCIC, which
means every officer is made aware of
[1:11:42] that.
>> Okay. So every officer,
[1:11:46] so
pretty much my question is why do we
[1:11:49] have the flat kayas? Casper doesn't have
them. Douglas doesn't have them. We're
[1:11:53] smaller than both of them. Maybe not
Douglas, but why do we have so many and
[1:12:00] the cities that are closest to us don't
have them?
[1:12:03] » So would that be a question to ask them?
I can tell you that when we went into
[1:12:06] this, those cities were all looking at
the system as well. whether they went
[1:12:10] with another system or just opted out of
it completely. I can't really speak to
[1:12:14] that. That is on them.
>> So, they obviously didn't get them for
[1:12:17] some reason or another.
>> Yeah.
[1:12:19] » Huh. Okay.
>> So, the original intention was to try
[1:12:23] and partner and get those cameras put in
those other places as well. So, they
[1:12:27] would be more beneficial in that sense.
>> Okay. So, when is our what is the
[1:12:30] benefit since you said it would be more
beneficial if they had them. What is the
[1:12:35] exact benefit for us having them here in
Glenrock?
[1:12:39] So um I pull back the cases that we
talked about earlier. So what it does in
[1:12:44] those cases was help us solve those
cases faster.
[1:12:47] » And those cases were from what year?
>> A number of years. I've been here since
[1:12:51] 2010 and I specifically only use cases
that I personally.
[1:12:55] » Okay.
>> From 2010.
[1:12:56] » So but recent cases it didn't help with
right.
[1:12:59] » Okay. I listed those as well. So okay
>> since we got the system like I told uh I
[1:13:04] apologize asked earlier u we used the
system where the system is utilized and
[1:13:09] was specifically helpful in those cases
I would say about
[1:13:13] » okay but it's not useful in the other
cities then I guess that are close that
[1:13:18] my whole thing is why do we have them
>> and why would you make that decision for
[1:13:22] us obviously
>> is there a certain size that's required
[1:13:26] before we put a safety feature in place
>> no not at all but the Point is, what
[1:13:32] makes you decide for us, a smaller town,
when the PD of Casper, which is a much
[1:13:39] larger town,
decides that it wasn't a good idea for
[1:13:44] whatever reason he came up with, why
does it make you be like, "Oh, yep. I'm
[1:13:47] going to get them, even though no one
else around me has them, except for
[1:13:50] Cheyenne." And then you get to Denver
and we don't even talk about them.
[1:13:54] So,
[1:13:58] » the decision to to go with them wasn't
necessarily made specific to anyone else
[1:14:02] going with them as well,
>> but it says that the main person for the
[1:14:06] flop camera, it tells you what agency
owns it, and it's Glenn Rock PD. So,
[1:14:11] that's you, right?
>> Yes.
[1:14:14] » Okay. So, my question is, what made you
decide to get them? Since you're the
[1:14:20] owner of it,
>> there's a potential use for the consult.
[1:14:24] » Okay. So, the but there's also a
potential use just like she was talking
[1:14:28] about the people in Tennessee. It's
homicide, kidnapping, Amber Alert. Well,
[1:14:32] my ex-boyfriend decided that he was a
cop and he put Amber Alert out on me.
[1:14:38] They found me here. Next thing you know,
I have a very dangerous man showing up
[1:14:43] at my doorstep because there was an
Amber Alert on me. So, how is that
[1:14:48] helpful?
>> We speak hypothetical.
[1:14:51] » Well, it's hypothetical that it's going
to help you solve crimes, too, right?
[1:14:55] Cuz it's a potential. You just said it
was a potential
[1:14:58] » and it has potential to do that. But it
also has potential for my ex-husband to
[1:15:03] find me who abused me and show up at my
door because he's a cop and I was listed
[1:15:09] as an amber alert today.
>> Yes.
[1:15:13] » Okay. Okay. That's that's my question
and that's it.
[1:15:18] » Thank you.
[1:15:24] » Hi. Uh my name is Mariah Miller. Uh we
live here in Glenrock. Um I just wrote
[1:15:30] these down throughout this meeting. It's
mostly just questions for clarity. Um so
[1:15:35] for auditing, you said that you conduct
internal audits. Um, is there any third
[1:15:40] party or any objective party that audits
outside of that or is it just you?
[1:15:47] » So,
the short answer is
[1:15:50] » okay. So, my cause for concern for that
would be because there have already been
[1:15:54] so I don't want to say so many but um
multiple charges for police officers as
[1:16:00] has been stated already abusing the
system. Um, one of them was a police
[1:16:04] chief. Michael Steffman in Georgia was
criminally charged for using Flock to
[1:16:09] stalk his ex-girlfriend. So, what
accountability is there for you because
[1:16:14] you conduct the audits? Who's making
sure that you're that it's not getting
[1:16:19] corrected or incorrectly used
essentially? Or are we just trusting
[1:16:24] that not personal to you, but just
trusting that on your good merit that
[1:16:30] it's being used appropriately? All
right. So certainly that's a good point
[1:16:36] that's been brought up and it's
something that we're going to have to
[1:16:37] look into. It's not all
>> and it's not personal too just because
[1:16:43] it could be any police chief in the
future.
[1:16:46] » Okay. Um and then the next section or
question sorry I hate public speaking.
[1:16:51] Um for other on the searches that you
were showing would that fall under test
[1:16:56] that was the number one or what falls
under that category?
[1:16:59] » So it would be yeah it would be other
things. I apologize. I haven't I don't
[1:17:03] know exactly looking at it, but other
would be testing
[1:17:07] » testing. Okay. Cuz I just noticed that
that was number one. Um and then is
[1:17:12] there any policy in town for downloading
our data? I know that the retention is
[1:17:16] 30 days. Um you had noted um that other
towns like if there's a request for
[1:17:20] evidence or if it's being used for
evidence, they can download it. Um, is
[1:17:24] that the actual policy? Like you can
only download it if it's for evidence or
[1:17:28] can you guys download that and retain it
as long as
[1:17:30] » So
my understanding is that if those other
[1:17:34] agencies wanted to download it, they
would have to actually request that. As
[1:17:37] far as us downloading it or say it was,
you know, used for an investigation or
[1:17:42] under investigation, um, it would become
a part of that case.
[1:17:45] » So is that the requirement though? You
cannot download it unless it is for an
[1:17:49] investigation or is there any specific
policy around that? You mean internally?
[1:17:53] » Yes.
>> Yeah. No, you wouldn't download any part
[1:17:56] of the case.
>> Okay. Um and then I think just kind of a
[1:18:00] question for everyone. Can you all kind
of understand the concern that's coming
[1:18:04] from the community around this? Um just
because even for the transparency
[1:18:09] portal, I don't think that was something
that was brought up as a resource for us
[1:18:13] in the town hall meet or the last city
council meeting. Um, and I just think
[1:18:18] it's just suspicious, not suspicious
that kind of that it came up in July
[1:18:23] after the Cowboy State Daily article
came out making most of us aware of
[1:18:26] these cameras. Um, when from what you're
saying, most of it's automated. It
[1:18:31] probably just took some configuration to
get that up and running. So why did it
[1:18:34] take almost 2 years for the transparency
portal to be available?
[1:18:38] » Portal wasn't an option that was offered
by the company. And so like I said, to
[1:18:42] my knowledge, July. I've been working on
it since July to actually go through it
[1:18:46] and stuff. Oh, that was when they gave
it as an option.
[1:18:48] » That was when I was aware of that as an
option. Okay. It wasn't an option when
[1:18:51] we first got the system. Um I'm not
aware of it being an option prior to to
[1:18:56] July.
>> Okay.
[1:18:58] » So, when it was in there, um going in
and actually trying to look through
[1:19:01] that, what it looked like, setting it
up, how that works that started then I
[1:19:04] can tell you that, you know, it's not
like 247
[1:19:08] was just specifically trying to do that.
So, it did [clears throat] take time to
[1:19:13] get it up and running. Yeah, I agree
with you that the timing was not good.
[1:19:16] » Okay, that was all I had. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:19:22] » Is there anybody else has any questions?
Otherwise, we're going to probably call
[1:19:25] this close this meeting before long.
>> Go ahead. If you had a question. Yes, my
[1:19:31] question. I'm Dave Blair. I live here in
Glenrock. My question is on the recent
[1:19:34] ruling battery versus the US uh August
13th rule 63 that is unconstitutional to
[1:19:41] do a search without a search warrant. Is
the department of the town have any
[1:19:46] plans or intentions of putting something
in place that a warrant has to be used
[1:19:49] to do a search?
>> So not intentions on the warrant. Um we
[1:19:54] were put in the safeguards. The problem
with the warrant is that kind of defeats
[1:19:57] the purpose of the time that you save by
being able to do that. Um I certainly
[1:20:02] understand And I can be certainly also
watching those those court rulings and
[1:20:05] things like that. If something works a
little differently, then absolutely play
[1:20:08] that.
>> In response to your response, would you
[1:20:10] be willing to put if it's an amber or
something? Um, I don't mean to downplay
[1:20:15] anything, but something more
timesensitive that we could agree to
[1:20:20] disagree that something of that would be
substantial enough to put and wave the
[1:20:26] warrant that is a child missing or
something of that nature. But if it's
[1:20:29] somebody that broke into a home, then
the crime's already committed, the
[1:20:33] threat's gone, where you could take the
time to get a warrant properly. And the
[1:20:38] reason I asked this is um you had
mentioned, well, one gentleman mentioned
[1:20:42] 375 searches, 370 uses test. You've
twice now mentioned that 10 to 12 times
[1:20:49] due off correction in the last year that
that system is utilized to help solve a
[1:20:55] crime. So therefore, we have a
discrepancy of a minimum of five if not
[1:21:00] seven times the test was used in
breaching the protocols and the asterics
[1:21:05] that you pointed out to get the search
results.
[1:21:10] » So I think that you're
that is not correct. What Mr. street
[1:21:15] said was that there was 370 searches and
correct me if I'm not mist
[1:21:26] » had case numbers or license plates
>> case numbers
[1:21:28] » case numbers or license plates
>> I wasn't confirmed the case numbers or
[1:21:32] » the direct credit or statement was 370
were listed as test
[1:21:40] » don't think that's correct
>> okay
[1:21:42] » case
that only two case number
[1:21:46] » they were tied to a case number because
only one single case number was not
[1:21:50] redacted
>> defiance or something
[1:21:55] » and I apologize I don't have the date
that was posted but I do have a
[1:21:58] screenshot of response from the town
earlier that you yourself only have
[1:22:02] access to the cameras but earlier in
this meeting you stated that the tests
[1:22:06] were performed to instruct and teach
oncoming officers why was a statement
[1:22:12] publicly made on Facebook that you
yourself have sole
[1:22:18] uh access and granted access to the
platform if in fact we're using it to
[1:22:23] teach other officers who should then not
have access.
[1:22:26] » I'm not familiar with what statement
you're talking about. I can tell you
[1:22:29] that it was stated in there. All sworn
officers um and individuals who undergo
[1:22:34] that background check to become a member
of our department have access.
[1:22:38] » Okay, that's all I had. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Another
[1:22:45] quick question for you. Uh, so
sorry it's a technical question, but I
[1:22:50] want to make it nontechnical. Um, there
are a lot of ways to hack a computer.
[1:22:54] I've like reverse engineered malware and
all kinds of different stuff. So I could
[1:22:58] paint a scenario such as like I looked
at the data that was published and some
[1:23:02] of those queries seem to indicate they
were coming from mobile devices. And I'm
[1:23:06] not gonna really unpack the security
stuff unless you wish me to. But in
[1:23:10] essence, an officer using earbuds with
Bluetooth listening to something on his
[1:23:14] phone on an authenticated mobile device
into this network could have that
[1:23:18] compromised. You can attack Bluetooth as
an example when it's not patched as well
[1:23:23] as like other types of technology. So it
terrifies me the idea of hostile actors
[1:23:28] abusing these things. And like one of
the slides said, never happened. A more
[1:23:33] accurate statement would be we're not
aware of a security incident.
[1:23:37] » And so um are there any kind of formal
uh do you know what a I'll just say a
[1:23:42] penetration test is a test done where
you basically bring in hackers to try to
[1:23:46] break in so as you can learn from how
they did it to prevent actual hostile
[1:23:50] actors from coming in. Have you yet
arranged for any kind of like pen
[1:23:54] testing for your systems to secure them
as best as possible?
[1:23:57] » So the system is controlled through
block. So it's just unfaith from a third
[1:24:01] party like you haven't because you
couldn't you just do it yourself as well
[1:24:04] your officer's phones your your devices
here and everything
[1:24:08] » have a security audit to ensure that you
don't have a compromised system and
[1:24:12] therefore a flop compromised system
could see the security
[1:24:18] » I'm sorry let me rephrase my question
have you made any effort to have a
[1:24:22] formal computer security evaluation of
all your officer systems
[1:24:26] » no
>> do you intend to Based on what you're
[1:24:30] telling me, it sounds like you could do
anything.
[1:24:31] » I would highly advise you to
>> Thank you.
[1:24:40] » I've got one more quick thing. Um so
recently Flock itself has announced that
[1:24:46] they will no longer keep data for longer
than 7 days unless the department has
[1:24:53] extended for longer because of the
shelter verse uh the United States they
[1:24:59] ruled that anything longer than 7 days
would need a warrant. So moving forward,
[1:25:07] if flock in this town is continued,
would you uphold that? Because I do not
[1:25:13] consent to searches.
So longer than 7 days, I do not consent
[1:25:18] to you holding my stuff cuz the Supreme
Court ruled anything longer being held
[1:25:25] longer than 7 days requires a search
warrant. I I highly suggest that you
[1:25:32] look into it. I also highly suggest that
you look into Fox response. They
[1:25:39] actually did that. They said that they
are not going to retain the data for
[1:25:44] longer than 7 days unless the department
says that they want it. Um they did that
[1:25:51] the day before the rule and I do feel
like that they probably knew that whole
[1:25:56] thing was coming. you know, big money,
big pockets, people talk. And when
[1:26:02] » was that?
>> Uh, I believe it was like two weeks ago.
[1:26:06] It was fairly recent. It might have been
a week ago.
[1:26:10] » Um, I've been very much keeping up on
the flock and Axon and everything. Uh,
[1:26:18] so I just I would appreciate if you guys
do keep the system to go along with
[1:26:26] Fox's new way and not retain the system
or retain the data for more than 7 days.
[1:26:34] Although I don't think that this is the
right way. maybe a hardwired system
[1:26:41] something because I didn't even know
that you guys had a discussion about
[1:26:46] this two years ago and
I feel a little [screaming]
[1:26:51] too and I just I I feel like the lack of
transparency is there. I don't know
[1:26:57] where the city council agendas posted. I
don't and I also am not on Facebook all
[1:27:04] the time, although I am more often right
now because I want to stay in I want to
[1:27:09] stay in the know because I feel like I
have a voice and I should be using it
[1:27:13] just like everyone else in this room.
Um, but people who are not on the
[1:27:18] internet should have a place here in
Wilmock, whether it be at the town hall,
[1:27:23] the grocery store, the library, or all
of the above with, hey, this is going to
[1:27:28] be on the agenda.
I mean, I'm not on city council, so I
[1:27:33] shouldn't have to come to all of them if
I'm not
[1:27:36] » All of our all of our meetings are
posted and put out on the webs our town
[1:27:42] website.
>> Yes.
[1:27:46] » The agendas are are posted on Thursday
before before Monday.
[1:27:50] » Why can't people speak on Monday? Why
can't they?
[1:27:54] » Yeah, that's a different issue. But the
agendas are posted. The entire agenda
[1:27:58] pack is posted on the Thursday before
the council meeting on Monday. The
[1:28:02] minutes are posted from I mean I think I
think it goes back 2 years and then I
[1:28:08] have the meeting minute books upstairs.
What might I request for people who
[1:28:13] don't use the internet, cuz I know
there's a lot of older people than me,
[1:28:17] um, posting it physically like the
senior center, library, grocery store,
[1:28:23] here in the town hall, even in the
police department section because that
[1:28:28] would be more transparent to this
community.
[1:28:32] And
>> I will save the rest of my questions for
[1:28:36] the 14th. So, thank you. It's almost
7:00, so let's hurry up. We're going to
[1:28:42] close this meeting at 7:00.
>> I don't have a question. I just have a
[1:28:44] real quick comment I want to make. Uh,
it has to do with the CC cameras and
[1:28:48] that he brought up. Um, so people don't
leave leave here and feel like they were
[1:28:52] lied to. Again, I think we need to be
transparent that cameras are not the
[1:28:55] only cameras that we have in Glenrock.
Very true.
[1:28:58] » Okay.
>> Absolutely.
[1:29:01] Do you have you have law enforcement
that have onboard cameras that take a
[1:29:04] picture of your c of your license plate
and your face and do facial recognition
[1:29:09] and run you through NCIC whether you
know it or not.
[1:29:12] » And we also have cameras in South
[1:29:18] » and that keeps from the damage and the
uh people defacing our property and
[1:29:24] tearing it up.
>> I mean there there's always going to be
[1:29:27] an argument for
>> Yes. Hi, I'm Cynthia
[1:29:31] cameras and anybody walks up to your
door that you're recording
[1:29:35] me before. Hey, Cynthia Wise. I'm a
resident of Glen Rock and I have a I
[1:29:41] have a real
>> Shut up, please.
[1:29:43] » Excuse me.
>> Well, I will be rude. She's down here.
[1:29:47] You want to talk? Walk up to the deal.
Jack,
[1:29:50] » I have been waiting. I have been
waiting. Don't go to the deal. She's
[1:29:55] talking.
>> Please.
[1:29:57] » Okay. I have a problem with the name the
name flock. I think that we're we're um
[1:30:04] the flock. I mean, they're treating us
like livestock, treating us like sheep,
[1:30:08] and they're not even hiding it.
You know, it I'm called back to uh a
[1:30:15] quote from
Thomas Moore in in England and he said,
[1:30:21] so it's his writings. They said, you
know, when they started fencing the
[1:30:24] property lines that the peasants, you
know, they they took away their their um
[1:30:29] gardens and uh they had no livelihood,
but then he said you're taking away
[1:30:34] their livelihood and treating them like
criminals and then you lock them up
[1:30:37] because they steal. I mean, I think that
the back to the point that Tim McCain
[1:30:42] made, these are rights that we have
because we are born human beings and we
[1:30:50] need to stand up for our rights.
>> You know, we have God-given rights.
[1:30:56] I understand from the perspective of
policing that your training and
[1:31:02] everything makes that you know you take
it seriously and it is wonderful that
[1:31:07] you take it seriously but I have heard
that the the the contract that Flock has
[1:31:14] it says that they own the the um data in
perpetuity what is that the word forever
[1:31:21] they're forever it's in private hands
we can't trust who's going to be in
[1:31:26] next. Our constitution outlives
the what do they call it? The the
[1:31:33] presidency. It outlives lives the
administration. And we can't afford to
[1:31:38] erode those rights. They outlives
us and it keeps our country safe. And if
[1:31:45] we cannot stand up for that in our town
and make a push back against AI and
[1:31:51] everything else just just because the
government has it, we have it, then then
[1:31:56] I I think that we're inviting a slippery
slope for erosion of more of our rights
[1:32:01] as human beings. Okay. So please will
somebody please read and understand what
[1:32:08] the contract with flock says.
>> Thank you.
[1:32:11] » Thank you.
We're going to call this meeting closed
[1:32:15] at this time and you can come on board.
We've been here for an hour and a half.
[1:32:20] We're we're given our time. Ju
[1:32:25] I told you we're closing at 7. You want
to speak? Come on the 14th.
[1:32:31] Please come on.
I don't trust any of them. That's the
[1:32:36] bad news. The good news is I just paid
taxes here.
[1:32:40] But that being said, you violated the
public trust and I think the best way to
[1:32:45] do that is to have the police chief an
elected position not under the wind of
[1:32:53] let's see mayor code enforcement
DCI involvement or whatever you do with
[1:33:00] this new.
Okay. So, what would it take to have the
[1:33:04] police elected?
>> It's not an elected position. It's
[1:33:08] appointed by the mayor at the beginning
of the C of their 4-year term. And you
[1:33:11] can't change that. I think that's across
the United States. That's that's statute
[1:33:16] in in the state.