[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.

Flock Safety Informational Meeting - 08/25/2026

Transcript