By Amber Angove-For the North Star Reporter
Questions over privacy, warrants and the sharing of police surveillance data took center stage at Monday’s Town Council meeting as members examined the town’s use of automatic license plate readers known as Flock cameras.
Police Chief Richard McQuade appeared before the council on Sept. 14 to discuss the department’s use of automatic license plate recognition technology, or ALPRs, through Flock Safety.
“We as a police department have been hearing people’s questions, and I’m here today to answer those,” McQuade said.
The cameras capture license plate information that can be searched by law enforcement during investigations. McQuade described the technology as a tool that can give officers a starting point, rather than establish that a crime has occurred.
“ALPR technology can provide a potential lead,” he said.
McQuade said access to the data from the cameras is limited to six officers within the North Attleborough Police Department. He acknowledged the possibility of misuse, telling the council, “I can’t sit here and tell you an officer won’t abuse the technology,” while arguing that safeguards and department policies are intended to limit that risk.
He further defended the technology saying, “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”
As an example, McQuade described an August case involving a woman who had obtained a restraining order against a man. He said ALPR technology could help alert police if the man’s vehicle was detected near locations such as the woman’s home or workplace.
“It’s our eyes and ears, it’s a force multiplier,” McQuade said.
Several councilors, however, questioned how the technology affects the privacy of residents whose vehicles may be recorded even when they are not suspected of a crime.
“We answer to the people, we clearly see that there’s an interest in this, so we are here asking questions,” Councilor John Simmons said. “I have no doubt that this is a helpful tool. But are we willing to sacrifice some of our liberty to have that tool?”
Simmons said the council should establish the facts surrounding the system and determine both its benefits and potential impacts to residents. He asked whether police need a warrant before accessing ALPR information during an investigation. McQuade said they do not, arguing that waiting to obtain a warrant could undermine the ability to use the technology quickly.
Councilor John Costello also raised concerns about the lack of a warrant requirement.
“I struggle with the lack of warrant requirement,” Costello said, arguing that the issue could run counter to efforts to maintain a positive relationship between residents and the Police Department.
Costello said his concerns also extended beyond ALPR technology itself to Flock Safety as a company. He referenced a Feb. 9 interview with Flock CEO Garrett Langley on “Econ 102 with Noah Smith.” Costello quoted Langley, comparing Flock Safety to how children respond when they know a parent can see their actions.
“If we look at our kids as a proxy, like the level of punishment…it doesn’t matter to a 5-year-old, they do something if they think they’re going to get away with it,” Langley said in the interview, as referenced by Costello. “And as soon as they find out that as a parent you have all-seeing eyes, they stop doing bad things.”
Questions also focused on the scope of North Attleborough’s camera network. In response to Councilor Daniel Donovan, McQuade said the town owns seven Flock cameras. Privately owned cameras may also operate within the community, he said, including three at Lowe’s.
Councilor Laura Wagner raised questions about both the cost and reach of the system. McQuade said each town-owned camera costs approximately $3,000 per year.
“I want to understand the network itself,” Wagner said.
McQuade explained that Flock systems are designed to share information across participating law enforcement agencies, allowing police to follow the movement of a vehicle beyond municipal boundaries.
“The Flock networks are shared,” McQuade said. “The whole purpose of the technology is sharing.”
That prompted further questions about whether North Attleborough can control what ultimately happens to information collected by its cameras. McQuade said the policy prevents the department from sharing its data with federal law enforcement. Wagner questioned whether another community could access North Attleborough’s information and subsequently share it under its own, less restrictive policies.
“They could, but the chances are slim,” McQuade said. “It’s not gonna happen here,” referring to Massachusetts.
Wagner responded that such sharing has happened elsewhere, even if it has not occurred in North Attleborough.
Donovan followed up by asking whether the department is notified when another community accesses information gathered by North Attleborough’s cameras. McQuade said he did not know. McQuade went on to challenge some of the privacy concerns surrounding the cameras.
“I don’t understand the privacy argument in public,” he said.
State Rep. Adam Scanlon, D-North Attleborough, later addressed the council and requested that the town pause its use of Flock while officials further examine safeguards surrounding the technology and determine whether North Attleborough should continue its relationship with the company.
Scanlon cited Carpenter v. United States, a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning the government’s acquisition of historical cell-site location information. The court held that acquiring the extensive cell-site records at issue constituted a Fourth Amendment search and generally required a warrant supported by probable cause.
Costello proposed a narrower step: temporarily pausing reciprocal data sharing with other communities until after an upcoming public hearing to allow community input, while allowing North Attleborough’s cameras to remain in operation.
McQuade continued to defend the department’s use of the system and asked residents to trust how North Attleborough Police use the technology.
“Put your trust and faith in us,” McQuade said.
Donovan said he “largely agreed with the chief,” while Councilor Keith LaPointe opposed making a formal request to the town manager to pause the technology.
The proposal ultimately failed on a 3-4 vote, meaning the council would not formally request a pause.
North Attleborough’s use of Flock Safety and automatic license plate readers is scheduled to return before the Town Council on Sept. 28