LEAGUE CITY, Texas – League City voters will get to say whether Flock cameras should stay or go—but they will not necessarily get the final word.
City Council voted Tuesday night to place a proposition on the November ballot asking residents whether the city should continue using Flock Safety’s automated license-plate reader cameras.
The referendum is non-binding, meaning the election results will advise council but will not legally require the city to keep or remove the cameras. City Council will retain the authority to make the final decision.
Mayor Nick Long proposed putting the referendum on the November ballot.
The mayor described the debate as a rare bipartisan issue, with supporters and critics on both sides of the political divide.
“There’s really no question that they work,” Long said. “They have helped in some fairly high-profile crimes, including murders.”
However, Long said the technology’s effectiveness does not eliminate concerns about possible misuse or how information is handled after it enters Flock’s system.
“The real issue is we’ve seen the abuses in neighboring cities,” Long said. “Where’s the data going on the company side, and how can we protect that data?”
Recently, police officers in Baytown and Pasadena Police Departments have resigned over alleged Flock camera misuse.
“It is a huge privacy concern,” Long said. “It’s a privacy concern from the data being accessed on our end and on the company’s end.”
Flock cameras take still images of passing vehicles and record their license plates, exterior characteristics, location, date and time.
According to League City police, the system can identify a vehicle’s make, model, color and other distinguishing features. The cameras do not use facial recognition, identify drivers or passengers, record conversations or provide live video.
They are also not used to issue speeding or red-light citations.
Police use the information to search for vehicles connected to criminal investigations, wanted people and public-safety alerts.
The department says vehicle images and location data are generally retained for 30 days before being automatically deleted. Information identified as evidence in an investigation may be kept longer under the department’s standard evidence procedures.
Accordin to the city website, League City police have 55 active Flock cameras, with another 16 awaiting permits from the Texas Department of Transportation.
The cameras are placed along major roadways, at neighborhood entrances, near parks and at other locations across the city. Police can also access privately owned Flock cameras when a business, homeowners association or other owner voluntarily grants access.
League City first approved funding for 42 Flock cameras as part of its fiscal year 2023 budget. In December 2023, council approved a five-year agreement valued at nearly $900,000 covering 70 cameras.
The city says the technology helped with 305 criminal investigations during a recent 12-month period, including homicides, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, fraud and narcotics cases. Police also credit the system with helping recover approximately $1 million in stolen property this year.
According to the city, League City’s Flock data is shared with 436 Texas law-enforcement agencies and the FBI for law-enforcement purposes. The city says it does not share its data directly with ICE, Border Patrol, businesses, homeowners associations or other private organizations.
During Tuesday’s council meeting, Harris County prosecutor Whitney Rasberry told city leaders she has personally seen Flock cameras help investigators solve serious cases.
“These cameras are absolutely essential to solving crime,” Rasberry said.
She cited the capital murder case against Devan Jordan in League City, telling council she did not believe that case would have been solved without Flock cameras.
Other speakers argued that Flock’s crime-solving benefits do not outweigh the privacy risks created by collecting information on every passing vehicle, including those driven by people who are not suspected of crimes.
“I did not sign up for my body to be photographed everywhere I go,” one speaker told council.
Another resident said he supports local police but does not want officers relying on a tool that he believes compromises residents’ privacy.
League City resident Julius Segelquisd said he is not necessarily concerned that the city’s police officers will misuse the system. His larger concern is whether Flock can prevent information from being accessed or shared beyond the department.
“I don’t trust Flock as a company to keep that information secure to just our police department,” Segelquisd said. “We cannot trade off our privacy and our freedoms from being tracked by government institutions for perceived safety—or even actual safety.”
Segelquisd supported giving residents a vote but questioned whether council members would follow the results of a non-binding referendum.
“Council could conceivably just choose to ignore it,” he said.
He urged voters to ask candidates running for mayor and City Council whether they will commit to following the referendum results.
What happens if the cameras stay?
Long said the city is already developing an online transparency portal that would include information about the cameras’ locations, use and access, except for information protected by law.
He also proposed creating a citizens accountability committee that could work with the city auditor to conduct regular reviews.
Those audits could examine whether officers document case numbers when accessing the system, whether searches comply with department policies and whether Flock properly stores and deletes the information it collects.
Long said more work must be done before the city can assure residents that sufficient safeguards are in place.
“I don’t think we’re at a point where we can definitively say we’re doing everything to protect that data,” Long said.
Why put it on the November ballot?
Long said the city moved quickly to place the referendum on the November ballot because League City is already holding mayoral and council elections.
He said adding the proposition to that ballot will not create an additional election expense. Waiting until May and holding a separate election could cost the city approximately $85,000.
Long also expects the November election to attract more voters than a special election focused only on Flock cameras.
“This is why I think it’s a great issue to be brought to the voters in our first-ever referendum of the citizens,” Long said.
The proposition will ask voters whether League City should continue using Flock cameras. Regardless of the outcome, City Council will still have to take separate action to keep, modify or end the program.