Mayor Barrett requests to present Acting Deputy Police Chief Meaghan Pare to discuss Flock cameras and software utilized by the Haverhill Police Department for license plate monitoring
Minutes
Acting Deputy Police Chief Meaghan Pare addressed the Council regarding the Haverhill Police Department’s use of Flock Safety technology as an investigative tool. She explained that the system assists officers in solving crimes, locating vehicles, and developing investigative leads, but does not replace traditional police work or establish probable causes. The system captures vehicle and license plate information from designated public cameras and does not use facial recognition or collect demographic information. Access is limited to trained and authorized personnel, with searches logged and subject to audit. Routine data is retained for 30 days unless preserved as evidence, and data sharing with other agencies requires Haverhill’s authorization. Deputy Chief Pare stated the department currently has 19 Flock cameras, which have been in use since 2023.
Trevor Chandler of Flock Safety addressed the Council and clarified that Flock does not sell customer data and that the city owns its data. He explained that Haverhill controls data-sharing agreements and highlighted the technology’s use in investigations, including missing-person cases. Vice President Michitson asked about cybersecurity, access controls, data ownership, privacy, and the guardrails governing use of the system. Trevor Chandler discussed Flock’s security measures, including encryption, CJIS compliance, NIST certification, and SOC 2 Type II compliance. Deputy Chief Pare explained that data sharing with other agencies is not automatic and requires Haverhill’s authorization through an agreement or MOU, with access limited to designated cameras.
Council members discussed the balance between public safety and residents’ privacy and the need for clear policies and oversight. Vice President Michitson stated that he supports the use of Flock but believes the City should ensure appropriate guardrails are in place and consider adopting a policy or ordinance governing its use. Councilor Basiliere noted the potential public safety benefits, including assisting with missing-person and human trafficking investigations. Councilor Lewandowski asked how many cameras are in use and how long the system has been in place. Deputy Chief Pare confirmed there are 19 cameras and that the system has been used since 2023. Councilor Lewandowski noted that the city currently does not have an ordinance governing Flock technology.
Motion by Councilor Lewandowski to send this to our City Solicitor to work with the Police to establish some type of ordinance relative to the concerns regarding prohibited uses, access, data retention, etc. Second Vice President Michitson
Councilor Lewandowski supported Flock as a crime-solving tool while stressing privacy, access controls, search audits, and safeguards against improper or biased searches. She suggested creating a webpage with information and a complaint mechanism for residents. Trevor Chandler noted that Flock recently introduced an Audit Assistant tool. Councilor Ferreira opposed Flock cameras, citing privacy, surveillance, data aggregation, and transparency concerns, and supported exploring alternative public safety tools. She would recommend this going to a subcommittee for further review.
Motion by Councilor Ferreira to send to Public Safety committee further discussion and recommendation back to council. Second by Vice President Michitson.
Councilor Rogers asked whether the 19 cameras included in the five-year contract represented the maximum number of cameras and whether additional cameras could be added automatically. Deputy Chief Pare clarified that any additional cameras would require authorization and payment by the City and would need to come to the city for approval.
Deputy Chief Pare presented a video that shows how an officer would access the system to do a search.
Councilor Sullivan asked whether there had been any instances of misuse of the Flock system by a Haverhill police officer, and Deputy Chief Pare stated there had not. Councilor McGonagle stated he is in support and would like to give the Police Department every tool that is not overbearing. President Jordan asked about data retention, and Deputy Chief Pare stated that information is retained for 30 days, while the audit trail is permanent. She also stated that the system is not shared with federal agencies or ICE. Vice President Michitson asked about data downloaded before the 30-day deletion period, and Deputy Chief Pare stated that it would be handled under the department’s evidence policy.
Motion by Councilor Lewandowski to send a letter to the City Solicitor to work with the Police to
establish an ordinance to include guardrails for the use of Flock. Second Vice President Michitson
PASSED – Yeas 11, Nays 0, Absent 0
Motion by Councilor Ferreira to send Flock cameras to Public Safety committee for further
discussion and recommendation back to council. Second by Vice President Michitson.
PASSED – Yeas 10, Nays 1 (Lewandowski), Absent 0
Elizabeth Hamel (25 Albert Avenue) stated that she is not opposed to Flock cameras but questioned the cost to the City. Deputy Chief Pare stated that the five-year contract totals $137,000 and explained that, like all technology tools, Flock is an expense. Hamel also asked why cameras that are not working are not being updated. Deputy Chief Pare stated that the cameras operate 24/7 and that the Police Department submits a service ticket whenever an issue occurs.
Dale Leone (21 Race Street) raised concerns about Flock’s nationwide data-sharing practices, law enforcement access, and whether local information could ultimately be accessed by agencies such as ICE through intermunicipal sharing. He also questioned whether cameras could be reactivated without community approval. Trevor Chandler stated that there is no default statewide or nationwide sharing, no “daisy-chain” access, and that individual agencies control and audit their own sharing settings. He acknowledged that communication issues with maintenance teams could result in a camera being inadvertently reactivated.
Sven Amirian (45 Talmuth Avenue) expressed concern that Flock cameras could create a broad surveillance network by collecting and sharing vehicle and license plate information from individuals who have not committed crimes. He called for greater transparency and public oversight regarding data retention, access, and sharing, particularly with federal agencies, and asked the Council to review the City’s contract, including termination and early-exit provisions.
Andrew Ryan (33 Summit Avenue) stated that his concerns were not with the cameras themselves but with Flock’s history of privacy concerns and potential misuse and sharing of data. He cited incidents involving improper surveillance and data sharing and urged the City to address these concerns transparently, involve affected residents, and provide opportunities for public input. Trevor Chandler stated that a communication issue with the Littleton Police Chief resulted in cameras being turned back on but emphasized that there was no malicious intent.
Leah Allen (122 Rosemont Street) raised concerns about privacy, the City’s five-year contract price, and whether Flock could use residents’ data. She referenced ACLU research regarding changes to Flock’s terms, including provisions concerning continued use and potential sharing of customer data. Trevor Chandler stated that Flock does not sell data and explained that perpetual language in the contract is intended only to allow anonymized data to remain available as a reference for improving machine-learning accuracy, not for resale or unrestricted use. He also discussed Flock’s role in providing affordable public safety technology and increasing competition among vendors.
Corey O’Neill (Haverhill resident) urged the City Council to pause its Flock contract until Councilors have a full understanding of the system’s artificial intelligence capabilities, data retention, tracking, and privacy implications. He stated that searchable surveillance of individuals’ movements is fundamentally different from ordinary public observation and expressed concern about collecting information on people who are not suspected of wrongdoing.