Should access to the camera data be only by law enforcement officials? Y/N

To my knowledge Law Enforcement are the only ones who have access to CSPD's data. Unless you are trying to say Lowe's and Home Depot aren't allowed to have their own cameras.

Should a court order be required to access the data? Y/N

Can you explain how this would work? The whole point of the system is to be able to catch the criminals. If someone does a shooting or robbery or theft or hit and run and witnesses give a license plate shouldn't the police be able to immediately search the cameras to see where the car is to get a traffic stop on it and arrest the suspects?

What if somebody steals your credit card or checkbook and the store requires legal process so they don't provide video until the 14th day after it occurred. Your 10 day window wouldn't work.

Let's say once you get the video it only shows a silver Chevrolet Silverado but no plate is visible. But you got the video with flock scans still available. How should a warrant cover a search for the flock cameras around the store? What if two days later the victim reports their credit card used in Houston - shouldn't law enforcement be able to start seeing if the same vehicle was in the area of both crimes?

Since no license plate is known, how many searches of the system does law-enforcement get to do? How many scenarios? Is there a time limit?

Can you point to any other agency in the United States that has put a legal process on their law enforcement to search Flock?

mason12 said:

---

Should access to the camera data be only by law enforcement officials? Y/N

To my knowledge Law Enforcement are the only ones who have access to CSPD's data. Unless you are trying to say Lowe's and Home Depot aren't allowed to have their own cameras.

Should a court order be required to access the data? Y/N

Can you explain how this would work? The whole point of the system is to be able to catch the criminals. If someone does a shooting or robbery or theft or hit and run and witnesses give a license plate shouldn't the police be able to immediately search the cameras to see where the car is to get a traffic stop on it and arrest the suspects?

What if somebody steals your credit card or checkbook and the store requires legal process so they don't provide video until the 14th day after it occurred. Your 10 day window wouldn't work.

Let's say once you get the video it only shows a silver Chevrolet Silverado but no plate is visible. But you got the video with flock scans still available. How should a warrant cover a search for the flock cameras around the store? What if two days later the victim reports their credit card used in Houston - shouldn't law enforcement be able to start seeing if the same vehicle was in the area of both crimes?

Since no license plate is known, how many searches of the system does law-enforcement get to do? How many scenarios? Is there a time limit?

Can you point to any other agency in the United States that has put a legal process on their law enforcement to search Flock?

---

Good points,

I should have said, law enforcement in their line of duty. Some of the cases have been law enforcement checking where their wife is going and accessing it for friends. have flock cameras been accesssedby none law enforcement in texas - Google Search

I was assuming that the data was going to used for investigative purposes over a period of time and in real time within minutes of a crime.

The 10 days was just a comment. There should be a drop-dead number of days the data is saved.

You say to go get a warrant: please explain to me step by step, with a reference warrant, how that would work.

I am unaware of a single state or agency that has implemented a warrant requirement.

But from a legal perspective, show me what a search warrant would look like for searching the flock database.

The state provides guidance in the code of criminal procedure on how to get a search warrant for a cell phone or for a wireless telecommunication service..

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/code-of-criminal-procedure/crim-ptx-crim-pro-art-18-0215/

There is nothing equivalent to that to search a database that law enforcement already has access to.

Perhaps you gentleman can derive something useful from the tables above.

Since I'm scared watching the Aggies and K State all of the sudden, I figured I'd take a break.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

tu ag said:

---

I believe that is the point.
It SHOULD require a warrant, like any other search into a citizen's private affairs.

---

Surveillance is different than a warrant. Warrant means actually going through your stuff to make an arrest.

In the 1950s, the FDA nailed a company in Houston for selling mostly sweetened water instead of orange juice from concentrate as promised, because they had rented a nearby apartment and filmed them unload the trucks (and secretly retrieve the sugar).

I suspect that confusing surveillance and a warrant is just to not knowing which is which and not "those poor pedos, how dare the government illegally monitor the fact that they were going to sites which dealt with explicit content involving minors"-style thinking.

mason12 said:

---

But from a legal perspective, show me what a search warrant would look like for searching the flock database.

The state provides guidance in the code of criminal procedure on how to get a search warrant for a cell phone or for a wireless telecommunication service..

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/code-of-criminal-procedure/crim-ptx-crim-pro-art-18-0215/

There is nothing equivalent to that to search a database that law enforcement already has access to.

---

It isn't practical when they already have access.

But as a footnote, an agency that doesn't have access today could obtain a warrant for the data, the same as with cell phone providers or ISPs or anything else.

But when a search warrant is written for a cell phone provider or an ISP law enforcement is relying on a third-party to conduct the search for them. I'm just trying to understand, practically speaking, how a search warrant would work when the person who is responsible for applying for the warrant, is the same one who is going to conduct the search.

A third party holds something, in this case, data. An agency wants it. The third party could just agree to give it to them with no legal instrument. But if they don't, the agency could seek a judge to agree that access to the data is material, forcing the third party to produce the data.

Flock gives CSPD access to some data without a warrant. It does not make sense to seek a warrant because the nature of a warrant is force, but access to data is already present.

If CSPD wanted data maintained by Flock that it does not have access to, they could seek a warrant for that data. For example, CSPD could obtain a warrant to force Flock to search a plate across their entire network, including jurisdictions to which CSPD does not have access. They could do this with or without our current contract.

If your question is more around creative thinking, how could we implement a requirement for a warrant in order to search our Flock system, there is no way that wouldn't severely limit the system in place.

Imagine first that there was an ordinance that CSPD could not access FlockOS. That only IT administration at the city had any access at all and is not permitted to use it for investigative purposes. Then, all access is through warrants to the Flock company, just like a cell provider. Even if acquiring the warrant is instantaneous, this is non-viable because it will likely take Flock a while to respond and the data constantly purging at 30 days. Also, CSPD would be unable to use Hotlists, which are arguably a much better use of ALPR technology.

Short of that extreme, there is policy. Policy could require oversight on every search. For example, all access could be removed except for dispatchers, so all searches are centralized through individuals that are not independently investigating. Policy could define the dispatcher's process to execute a search, including answering questions and recording of justification. Falsified justification would come with criminal penalties such as falsifying a government record. Routine audits could also be conducted. The issue with a policy solution is that it is limited to CSPD and we cannot enforce it over all the organizations we share with.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Your first link is ACLU. So there's that.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Yet here we are with staunch conservatives in complete agreement with the ACLU.

Isn't the government trying to pass something that allows tracking in vehicles?

https://dallasexpress.com/national/ready-for-your-next-car-to-decide-if-youre-too-impaired-to-drive-federal-kill-switch-is-moving-forward/

"A federal requirement mandating the installation of advanced impaired-driving prevention technology in new passenger vehicles remains in effect after the House rejected an effort to block its funding in January 2026.

The technology, often referred to in public debate as a "kill switch," stems from Section 24220 of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a federal motor vehicle safety standard requiring passive systems that monitor driver impairment such as through blood alcohol concentration detection or performance monitoring and prevent or limit vehicle operation if impairment is detected."

How did the Flock cameras get brought to the attention of City Council to begin with?

Bear87 said:

---

How did the Flock cameras get brought to the attention of City Council to begin with?

---

Back before Flock was a thing in the national news, it was on the consent agenda. That's usually the more routine appropriations- ministerial in nature. We get a lot of that. Those items outnumber workshop and regular agenda items about 4 to 1. We get tons of law enforcement items on consent as a matter of routine. Staff wasn't hiding anything. We've used ALPR for years. No one knew it was going to blow up like this- and that especially includes me.

I often pull items off consent for further discussion. I did not do so for Flock. Full stop.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

CS78 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Flock Grant funding: The MVCPA catalytic converter grant funding is likely dead, and in the absence of an answer by staff, who are ostensibly trying to untangle the governor's executive order, it's probably best for council to presume we'll have to come up with the money out of O&M, which is a hit.

We had all agreed to keep our comments to 3-5 minutes so I didn't get to billing. I wish I had. If the grant indeed no longer applies, all up front funding out of O&M hurts.

I failed in that effort. Full stop. No sugar-coating it.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

I wondered about this. I assumed it would be at the front of the conversation, but it didn't get mentioned. I assumed that meant that it was already settled. Should have been a top point of conversation.

Really wish citizen comments were allowed on short notice so that when critical points are passed over, they can be spurred with a 2 second question.

---

I'm not a 100% certain but by midweek I will be. I'm pretty sure though, that because we allocated grant funding, it'll have to come back if that grant no longer is fungible to Flock. We would have to appropriate another way, as yet unapproved. Maybe even requiring a budget amendment. If the last camera was installed after October 1 last year, I'm inclined to think that means it's a FY2027 appropriation and may require the first budget amendment of the year to fund.

Of course, most don't care about such detail. You guys just wanted it cancelled and law enforcement wanted to keep solving and deterring crime with it.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

What is the incentive for Flock to install the last camera? I'm assuming they're getting paid before then.

It the final camera is the effective date of agreement, why wouldn't they extend the contract by dilly-dallying?

birdman said:

---

What is the incentive for Flock to install the last camera? I'm assuming they're getting paid before then.

It the final camera is the effective date of agreement, why wouldn't they extend the contract by dilly-dallying?

---

I think they don't get paid until the contract commences and it doesn't commence until the final camera is installed.

The cameras are theirs. Not the city's. If the cameras are destroyed, vandalized or stolen, the city and thusly the taxpayers are charged for them.

Important FYI

Respectfully

Yancy '95

CS78 said:

---

Yet here we are with staunch conservatives in complete agreement with the ACLU.

---

"Staunch conservatives" who were ready to throw away the same liabilities that protect innocent third parties in case of a gun violence incident, demanding re-interpretation of the Bill of Rights, and using terms like "on the right side of history".

Maybe you're willing to sacrifice every freedom and ideal you hold dear to get rid of Flock, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees.