AgGunNut said:

---

Except that it hasn't been deemed unconstitutional…

Just because you think it, doesn't make it true.

---

Just because a court hasn't yet deemed a gun ban unconstitutional, doesn't make it any less unconstitutional. I dont need to be a civil rights attorney to know obvious violations when I see them.

Trust is our biggest issue with the city.

All the things we keep bring up like Macy's is really about trust. Its not so much about the specific issue.

Myself and others have said this before about different issues. Our city leaders need to prove they can handle the small things first. Instead they pretend the past was just a fluke then want to shoot for the moon.

If the CSPD wants us to trust them, release the bodycam footage. They should release footage on the regular. They could probably have a high view count YouTube channel just showing Northgate interactions.

If a leader fails to communicate (also release footage) then others will speak for them. In turn, those leaders lose trust. I have lost trust of CSPD because of it.

If you want body camera footage released on the regular on YouTube - don't people have an expectation of privacy when they are at a bar or at their house? Just because the police responded somewhere I was at doesn't mean the entire world should get to see me. Releasing body camera footage is more invasive than police having access to a database of license plates.

I see what you are saying. I am not talking about a livestream. I am talking about people who have been arrested and have charges brought against them. When charges are brought that is a matter of public record along with the entire judicial process.
Many departments automatically release bodycam footage from higher profile incidents to be proactive in addressing the media and the public. It all is supposed to be turned over to the defense anyway.

In the Spring Loop incident the family is claiming / claimed CSPD edited/redacted altered the footage they submitted as evidence in the wrongful death suit.

Giving anything but raw data to the courts should be a criminal offense because you cannot get a fair trial if the data is tainted.

As far as general release, I am not saying it all has to be raw video. Sensitive info, minors, etc should be redacted.

As soon as formal charges are brought against you, the expectation for privacy change. There is a difference in bodycam footage from police being dispatched to an incident and releasing the video account of that incident when charges are filed versus thousands of cameras stalking us

Hornbeck said:

---

CS city attorney does not agree with you.

He is appointed by the city council.

---

They're all part of one big system. They don't go against each other. Just like we're seeing here.

I really wish we could get some candidates with no political connections, no preformed relationships, no CSTX advisory board or committee experience, no endorsements from the different groups, etc. But alas those people are busy working real jobs, raising families, etc.

For releasing video like you are suggesting (not big incidents but some sort of YouTube for people generally arrested), would you support paying your tax money to afford employees to do appropriate redactions? Because there are laws dictating that. Also, when someone is arrested, that does not mean they are formally charged. Formal charging occurs when an indictment is handed down by a grand jury (felony) or an information is filed (for a misdemeanor). Both of those are done at the prosecutorial level, not the law enforcement level, and law enforcement generally isn't notified when that occurs (or doesn't). Are you okay with people not being formally charged having their business aired?

On your note about redactions in the court room, sit in court proceedings. It's is extremely common. It isn't done by the police. It's done by the prosecution and defense. Because there are laws in play such as rules of evidence that dictate how evidence can be admitted to the court.

One thing I've learned from this thread. EVERYONE is an expert. Except those with actual legal experience and law degrees. Just because someone thinks they know how something should work doesn't make them correct.

Some bad Flock misuse.

https://abc13.com/story/san-jose-california-police-officer-fired-allegedly-sharing-flock-camera-data-domestic-violence-suspect/19830467/

mason12 said:

---

Issues only come up if another state has that same number and letter combination. Do you know any other states that have it that way?

I am curious to know what is about to happen to Texas plates as we are about to have Z license plates. Texas currently uses @@@#### (ABC1234) and has since 2012 (https://100plates.txdmv.gov/page/plate_milestones.html).

---

human error is human error and that can come up in many different ways it is not just as you stated above - there have been several instances in this thread where people have been stopped and the digit was off by one letter number etc. cops pulled over wrong people etc……

This wrinkle adds more possibilities of that error happening.

🚨#BREAKING: A father in Amarillo, Texas says he had to MOVE WHERE HIS KIDS SLEEP because a police officer used the city's Flock cameras to STALK him 76 TIMES over a woman the officer wanted for himself...

...prosecutors only gave the cop a MISDEMEANOR and a $4,500 bond.

This… pic.twitter.com/3dJGsqcWAv

— Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) September 14, 2026

This is wild - guy is being stalked because he dated someone the cop is stalking and the city claims the city is actually the victim because their flock system was abused by this officer so the guy had no recourse due to Texas law - officers can access cameras by their phones or personal computer.

Direct link to the story and video.

'I had to change where my kids sleep': Man shares terrifying experience, says Amarillo officer tracked him 78 times

And to only charge him with misdemeanors. Then they wonder why they cant be trusted, after protecting guys like this.

I don't like them, but if flock cameras are allowed, I think that anyone who wants access to the video, should have to go to court and get a warrant for access and it has to be stated exactly what is being searched for as would be needed to search a person's home.

I they are looking at the video in order to track a person who has committed a possible robbery/shooting, they shouldn't be able to see not stop completed at a stop sign and then go after me to ticket me. The use should be exactly specific on the need and use.

Also, anyone who accesses the video w/o the warrant should get six months in county jail.

woodiewood1 said:

---

I don't like them, but if flock cameras are allowed, I think that anyone who wants access to the video, should have to go to court and get a warrant for access and it has to be stated exactly what is being searched for as would be needed to search a person's home.

I they are looking at the video in order to track a person who has committed a possible robbery/shooting, they shouldn't be able to see not stop completed at a stop sign and then go after me to ticket me. The use should be exactly specific on the need and use.

Also, anyone who accesses the video w/o the warrant should get six months in county jail.

---

Theyll never go for that. The whole system was designed to circumvent the need for a warrant. It makes their job easier at the expense of everyone's liberty. It's no different than if they had a system to track every cell phone in their jurisdiction. No doubt it would be effective in fighting crime. And no doubt it would also be abused. And no doubt they would fight tooth and nail to keep that too, despite the abuse.

I dont blame the cops for liking the system. The bigger issue for me is, why did the city council just implement this on citizens without public comment? Common sense should have been enough to see what it would lead to. Are they that gullible that they just fell for a sales pitch without even thinking about what they were doing?

CS78 said:

---

woodiewood1 said:

---

I don't like them, but if flock cameras are allowed, I think that anyone who wants access to the video, should have to go to court and get a warrant for access and it has to be stated exactly what is being searched for as would be needed to search a person's home.

I they are looking at the video in order to track a person who has committed a possible robbery/shooting, they shouldn't be able to see not stop completed at a stop sign and then go after me to ticket me. The use should be exactly specific on the need and use.

Also, anyone who accesses the video w/o the warrant should get six months in county jail.

---

Theyll never go for that. The whole system was designed to circumvent the need for a warrant. It makes their job easier at the expense of everyone's liberty. It's no different than if they had a system to track every cell phone in their jurisdiction. No doubt it would be effective in fighting crime. And no doubt it would also be abused. And no doubt they would fight tooth and nail to keep that too, despite the abuse.

I dont blame the cops for liking the system. The bigger issue for me is, why did the city council just implement this on citizens without public comment? Common sense should have been enough to see what it would lead to. Are they that gullible that they just fell for a sales pitch without even thinking about what they were doing?

---

Bolded for emphasis. I don't blame PD's for wanting this, it makes their jobs easier. However ease alone is not a reason to infringe on a citizens right to not be tracked. Next on the list will probably be phone tracking, then "Alexa/Google/Siri" data and so on and so forth until we have no privacy or autonomy. We have to stop FLOCK, it's a gateway surveillance, it will lead to more surveillance. Mr. President, tear down these cameras.

GoFundMe for his bond and potential fine?

Hornbeck said:

---

GoFundMe for his bond and potential fine?

---

and a couple dozen flags and a ladder, not all heroes wear capes

AgGunNut said:

---

After 14 pages of commentary, if you're going to throw out your opinion, at least know that it's not video at all…

---

For now.

It's available. AI Video Cameras | Smart Security with Instant Alerts | Flock

Expect them if our elected leaders don't get enough push-back on mass surveillance.

Many people have brought up the Constitution and whether mass surveillance by government, or by an agent acting on behalf of the government, is constitutional. But it is hard to understand how anyone would come to the conclusion that the founders of our nation would accept mass surveillance when they were in opposition to the British government's writs of assistance and general warrants centered on officials having broad authority to search people and property without individualized suspicion.

Mass surveillance is the modern reincarnation of the British general warrants our nation was founded to destroy. The authors of the Constitution specifically drafted the Fourth Amendment to outlaw the writs of assistance that allowed officials to search anyone, anywhere, without specific evidence. To argue that mass surveillance is constitutional, or that the founders would accept the bulk collection of citizens' data, ignores the very grievance that sparked the American Revolution.

An edit. All State constitutions contain a provision that protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures too, as the Bill of Rights was not originally a constraint on the States till after the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted.

Real patriots are already taking action on these cameras. Doesn't matter how big the check is to the council members. Good luck

tu ag said:

---

19 year-old was arrested in College Station for vandalizing 2 flock cameras.
Looks like detectives spent a lot of time investigating this one and tracked the guy down.
https://www.kbtx.com/2026/09/15/college-station-flock-safety-cameras-vandalized-covered-with-american-flags/

---

Quote:

---

...traffic camera footage helped investigators identify the suspect and his vehicle...

---

Quote:

---

Traffic camera video from the early morning hours of Aug. 28 showed a man...

---

Exactly what kind of traffic cameras were used in this investigation? Surely not the New AI traffic cameras help College Station track congestion and safety that "do not record license plates, identify drivers, or track vehicle makes or colors " and "carry no enforcement capabilities."

Stucco said:

---

and "carry no enforcement capabilities."

---

So they put out a PR piece about how the new AI cameras that can be seen at all the intersections are just a traffic tool only. Then only a few days later, they're using them to make an arrest. They're proving the entire point about why they cant be trusted. If the tool exists, they're going to use it to the maximum effect. They cant help themselves! NO matter what they tell us, when the time comes, they just do whatever they want.

Facebook

I was reading through the comments on Rusty's facebook page about it. I thought we might be slightly biased here because we are usually more in tune with local happenings. But there are over 600 comments from people voicing heavy support for the guy. All different types of people. I dont see how they'll ever find 12 jurors to convict him. Major disconnect between the people and government on this one.

Rusty, if you're reading, please follow up regarding the use of traffic cameras for investigating individuals for potential criminal activity.

College Station mayoral and city council candidates, if you're reading, how do you feel about traffic cameras being used for law enforcement investigations?