SAN MARCOS CITY COUNCIL
The San Marcos City Council voted five to two in favor of a motion to deny the San Marcos Police Department’s ability to amend the contract with FLOCK Group, Inc. regarding license plate recognition cameras at the regularly scheduled meeting last week. According to city documents, it currently has a contract with Flock Safety for 14 cameras in the amount of $47,068.49. SMPD was requesting additional equipment and software for the police department’s license plate recognition technology in the amount of $124,068.49. According to meeting documents, council approved LPR technology on August 15, 2017. In
SEE LICENSE PLATE CAMERAS PAGE 8 2019, council approved increasing the amount allocated in the budget to LPR by $11,000. City Council voted on April 19, 2022, to approve a sole source agreement with Flock Group, Inc, for LPR software to be used by the Police Department for $103,500. Additional cameras were purchased in both June and August of 2024.
Cindy Laird, a San Marcos resident, spoke in public comment in favor of approving additional FLOCK cameras, pointing out a case in which they proved beneficial.
“These readers are used in cities all over Texas, San Marcos included,” Laird said. “On March 10 of this year, an Austin news reporter Jamie White was shot and killed when he came across several individuals breaking into his car at his apartment complex. The case was cold until automated license plate readers helped Austin PD identify four juvenile suspects.”
Justin Randolph, a San Marcos citizen, spoke in public comment against the expansion of FLOCK cameras.
“I’m also a historian of American policing, and I fear we’ve approached a tipping point in civil liberties,” Randolph said. “How might these FLOCK cameras be used in the future? … How will further technological advancements, like artificial intelligence, change this surveillance in ways we cannot currently know?”
San Marcos Council Member Amanda Rodriguez addressed her comments to her colleagues, saying that, in previous conversations, many of them were able to acknowledge “the times we’re living in.”
“We are seeing people literally be disappeared off of our streets. They are not doing that without the help of things like what we’re talking about today,” Rodriguez said. “I have spoken to multiple attorneys. I’ve spoken to multiple city council members from other cities, including Austin who has some of the most robust policies in place; None of those policies matter nor does our department’s desire to protect our immigrant neighbors matter when it comes to a subpoena for this information. … Austin’s own police chief admitted to the fact that it was through an audit that they found that ICE was actually accessing their data, and they didn’t even know.”
San Marcos Council Member Saul Gonzales said although he sees the pros and cons of the cameras, he is wary of the security of the data.
“There’s not enough safeguards, right now, I’m just afraid that someone else can tap in there and get some information that they shouldn’t have,” Gonzales said. “That’s why I can’t support it.”
San Marcos Mayor Hughson asked San Marcos Police Chief Stan Standridge to clarify whether FLOCK would have the data obtained from the cameras.
“FLOCK is a portal,” Standridge said. “We have access to the portal to access, retrieve our data. It’s held by FLOCK because that’s what we’re paying them for.”
Kristen MacLeod, FLOCK Safety Community Engagement Manager, said the city owns the data and the guardian of the data is FLOCK.
“You are in full control,” she said. “The administrators of your system at the police department ... have full control to share or not share that information with other law enforcement agencies or not share that information with other law enforcement agencies. Because you own that data, FLOCK will never share or sell your data without expressed consent of you, our customer.”
MacLeod confirmed that the data can be shared with other agencies only if SMPD accepts the request.
Standridge said SMPD can choose to make the data “discoverable” by other agencies with three options: in Texas, within 50 miles or nationwide. He said they must then request access and SMPD can approve or deny that request. When asked by Hughson what had been done with the other 14 cameras, Standridge didn’t know. He said he could have the answer tomorrow.
Hughson said that’s worrisome because “now we don’t know.”
San Marcos City Council Member Alyssa Garza was in opposition to the camera expansion.
“I heard a lot that it reduces crime, but a lot of their success stories come from studies that they paid for. Independent review shows it mostly shifts crime around; it doesn’t solve it,” Garza said. “They say it’s safe, but there have been multiple cases of cops stalking people using this system. … This is a point that Councilmen Siegel brought up in Austin earlier, one of FLOCK’s biggest investors is tied to Palantir. That’s the creepy surveillance company that builds tools for ICE and military tracking.”
Standridge said he has evidence of specific crimes that FLOCK cameras have helped solve in San Marcos, not the “abuses alleged to be occurring.”
Rodriguez said there is no evidence to substantiate what Standridge is saying because no audits have been conducted. She added that, according to what Standridge shared on the message boards, SMPD shares data with 600 other agencies. She clarified that she is not worried about bad actors within SMPD but among any of those other agencies.
Hughson said she originally thought FLOCK cameras were great, but she had a similar concern to Rodriguez. She added that there were too many unknowns that she found scary.
“My concern is not our department; it’s how data from here gets used by others,” Hughson said. “I’ve learned some stuff tonight that’s giving me a real hard time to say that ‘Flock is good for America.’” The motion to deny the expansion of the contract with FLOCK was voted in favor of five to two, with San Marcos City Council Members Shane Scott and Matthew Mendoza voting against the motion.
