PSL citizens still concerned about Flock cameras | St. Lucie County

PORT ST. LUCIE – City residents once again addressed the City Council Sept. 28 to continue their barrage of protests over the city’s use of Flock cameras, only to learn during Board member comments that Police Chief Leo Niemczyk had already implemented a temporary pause in the use of the automatic license plate readers.

For the last several months the Council has heard citizens complaining about such devices, bemoaning an invasion of privacy and citing abuses of the technology by some law-enforcement officers. Similar protests have been rolling across the entire country, with even Florida Governor Ron DeSantis – a previous advocate of ALPRs – suddenly doing an about-face on Aug. 31 and calling for their removal from state rights of way. The St. Lucie County Commission immediately followed suit, with its Board majority voting Sept. 1 to eliminate the readers from all county-owned roadways.

One of the regular Port St. Lucie opponents, Casey Huneycutt, joined several others at the Aug. 24 meeting to criticize the Council for its vote last March to expand its Flock camera system at the request of Chief Niemczyk. Huneycutt continued that protest during the latest meeting.

“Last month myself and many others came before you to speak of the invasion of privacy and safety risks that fall upon everyday people by using AI-powered automatic license plate readers like Flock cameras,” he said. “Since then, the calls in this nation to abolish the use of these cameras have grown larger and louder. More officers are being charged with abusing these systems. Cities across the county and in this state are responding to their citizens by removing these cameras. There is no net-positive that these cameras bring the community.”

Huneycutt particularly objected to the reasons some law-enforcement agencies use to justify the use of ALPRs.

“We have been told that these technologies are a force multiplier for police [and] prevent crime,” he continued. “However, the most frustrating excuse for turning our city into a surveillance state is that, if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. I find that interesting, especially since the Washington, D.C. Police Union has come out against ALPRs. Why? Because Internal Affairs is using them to investigate their officers. That mass surveillance is wrong and has a negative impact on those under that surveillance.”

His fellow Port St. Lucie resident Jorge Borges agreed.

“I’m asking you to remove the city’s flock cameras and take broader action like St. Lucie County has taken in its rights of way,” he said. “Many people say these are just license plate readers and not a surveillance tool. Well, I would like to draw your attention to that 2022 procurement contract titled, Public Safety Video Surveillance Equipment Software and Accessories. Surveillance isn’t a side-effect of the system; it’s how this system was described in its own procurement. The chief said the city’s cameras do not identify people inside vehicles. That is the case today, but today’s settings cannot protect us from tomorrow’s software.”

For his part, James Reynolds lamented the idea of Big Brother watching over him.

“I don’t want to live in an Orwellian State,” he said. “I’m not saying you guys want to either, but you’re laying the groundwork for one. I could see a society that’s safer if we just let police kick in the doors and search every house, but you’ve got to draw the line somewhere. You guys should just think about what kind of society you want to build for your grandchildren and your children.”

Councilman Anthony Bonna, who’d first suggested a pause in the city’s use of its Flock cameras during the August discussion, was the first Board member to respond to the public speakers.

“I believe that public safety is important, [and] I’ve always backed law enforcement,” he said. I believe our civil liberties and our Constitution is important. I have personally called for a complete pause on our program until we can develop an ordinance that identifies the city’s official policy on this. We need to make sure there are punishments for misuse, retention periods are addressed and our audit is complete.”

Vice-Mayor Jolien Caraballo immediately reminded Bonna of a memo sent to Council members by Niemczyk that very afternoon.

“The chief did issue a policy as well as a white paper specifically on this,” she said. “It came like at 3:06 p.m., so I’m not sure everyone got to see it.”

“I did see that,” Bonna responded. “I think there’s a difference between a policy that’s emailed and a public discussion on an important issue. With all due respect, I agree, but I’m supportive of a pause until that discussion happens.”

When Vice-Mayor Carballo insisted on having that discussion in the future when Chief Niemczyk could be present, Councilman Bonna agreed with a final comment.

“The debated and vetted policy with public input, a balance between safety and constitutional protections, should come before we have these cameras,” he concluded.

Mayor Shannon Martin then sought input from City Attorney Richard Berrios.

“Can you address the fact that the police chief has already instituted a policy based on the memo that came out a few weeks ago?” she asked in reference to a Sept. 2 departmental announcement.

“My understanding is it’s an operational rollback of how the ALPRs are operated,” Berrios said. “The specifics of that are laid out in his white paper and the policy as well. It has addressed a lot of the issues that have been raised.”

“And it’s going to come forward in the future based on what the Council directed in a prior meeting, correct?” Mayor Martin prodded.

“Yes, it’ll come back,” Berrios replied.