Flock debate shows controversial tool remains a hot topic for eastern Idahoans
Published at | Updated at
IDAHO FALLS — For over two hours, stakeholders debated the use and legality of Flock cameras in Idaho, where one point was clear from law enforcement leaders: Idaho must update its law on automatic license plate readers.
Around 50 community members gathered Wednesday night at the Westbank Convention Center to hear from Idaho Falls Police Chief Bryce Johnson and Bonneville County Sheriff Sam Hulse, who debated Brian McKellar, an organizer with DeFlock Idaho.
The debate was hosted by Stand Up for Idaho. To watch the full debate, click on the video player above.
During the discussion, Johnson described an incident in Jerome County in which the former sheriff used the system to search for his wife’s vehicle 152 times, according to KMVT.
RELATED | Jerome County sheriff used Flock cameras to search for wife’s vehicle, documents show
Despite an investigation by the Idaho Attorney General, no criminal charges were filed against him.
“By golly, I wish he would have, and I would 100% advocate for a change of the law,” Johnson said. “(IF AA) police officer violates the law and uses it improperly. They should go to jail. End of story.”
Currently, under Idaho Law, I.C. 49-1432, there are no criminal punishments for those in law enforcement who are found to be misusing the license plate readers.
The only penalty under the law is in subsection five of the code, which states, “A person who misuses automated license plate reader data pursuant to subsection of this section shall be subject to discipline, administrative penalties, and criminal prosecution, if applicable.”
The code also outlines who can use the data, for what purposes and when to audit the searches.
Johnson said the audit requirements need to be changed, as the law mandates they occur only semiannually.
Idaho Falls Police Department recently changed its policy to audit system searches every two weeks.
“Waiting six months to do an audit gives you too much time for something bad to happen, so I think there are a lot of things we need to change in that state law to make it better,” Johnson said.
Here are some of the other notable discussions from last night’s debate.
Regarding the legality of Flock cameras or license plate readers, Hulse said they do not violate the Fourth Amendment and comply with Idaho Law as required.
He said Idaho has used this technology for the past 15 years, but these cameras are more advanced than the older generation.
“The value of the license plate reader is that it allows us to accomplish in minutes or hours what could traditionally take days or longer,” Hulse said.
Discussing the cameras looking at the roadway, Hulse said there is no expectation of privacy when you are on a public road in a state-placarded vehicle. However, under Idaho Law, Hulse said law enforcement needs a justifiable reason to access data captured by any license plate reader.
“We have to have a criminal nexus or a missing person nexus,” Hulse said. “We have to have a valid reason to query that plate.”
Even with data captured by the camera, Johnson said it still requires additional probable cause to make an arrest.
McKellar took issue with this notion, as the writers of the Bill of Rights drafted the Fourth Amendment to protect citizens from unreasonable government searches and seizures, such as those arising from general warrants.
“A camera that records everyone just in case is a general warrant on a pole,” McKellar said. “Here’s how freedom is lost: not all at once, but one link at a time. With the first link, the chain is forged. The first freedom denied chains us all, and this camera is the link.”
Expanding on that, McKellar said that, in the Idaho Falls Police Department’s use of Flock Cameras, it has agreements with 461 other police departments and agencies that have access to data pulled from the cameras.
Another issue McKellar has with the system is how long Flock retains the data in its own system.
In August, the company announced it is now reducing its standard 30-day retention to a seven-day retention period.
One policy that changed in July was the Idaho Falls Police receiving approval from the Idaho Falls City Council to amend its contract with Flock, allowing its artificial intelligence to be trained on data obtained from the cameras.
While McKellar made his stance on the matter clear- that he wants these cameras taken down- he wanted to remind people of the point of the debate. The point is: does the community want a series of cameras that track and log their daily movements?
“God didn’t make us to be watched into goodness… a watched people only comply,” McKellar said. “A man who does right only because he’s become watched isn’t virtuous. He’s managed, and I don’t want my kids managed. I want them free and good because they choose it”
EastIdahoNews.com has been covering the discussion surrounding Flock cameras in Idaho Falls and Pocatello. To learn more about how Idaho law dictates how this data could be used, or the movement to “deflock” Idaho, click on the stories below.
RELATED STORIES:
- PART 1: Mass surveillance or a quicker way to solve crime? Flock cameras cause controversy in east Idaho
- PART 2: Tort claim, vandalized cameras and eastern Idahoans up in arms about Flock cameras
- IF City Council approves contract change banning Flock from using local data to train AI
- Ballot initiative for removal of Flock cameras in Pocatello to be launched at Saturday town hall
- ‘We feel betrayed,’ Pocatello residents speak out at Flock town hall