Why two Connecticut towns are taking down their license plate cameras

A contentious year-long debate over license plate cameras in Windsor's town hall came to a close this month after the town council voted to take down its cameras.

Windsor has been at the center of the state-wide debate over the privacy of the technology, specifically cameras made by a tech company called Flock Safety.

Over the past year, Windsor held what felt to some in the community like regular meetings on the matter. Dozens of residents testified, petitions with hundreds of signatures were circulated and police officials re-worked multiple contracts before the town council made its final decision in July.

Windsor is the first town in Connecticut to decide not to renew its contract with Flock. Killingworth became the second last week, opting to take down the cameras over similar privacy concerns.

"For many councilors, including myself, it comes back to the data," Windsor's Mayor Nuchette Black-Burke told CT Insider Monday. "We opted not to move forward because there is no guarantee that Flock will not share our data."

Flock's license plate cameras have garnered significant scrutiny outside of Windsor's town hall. CT Insider reported earlier this year that out-of-state police were searching Connecticut license plate camera data for immigration enforcement purposes. The data was searched thousands of times by out-of-state agencies for "ICE," "ICE-assist" and "immigration" purposes, records showed.

Amid widespread concern about the cameras, the state legislature passed a series of regulations this spring on how police departments in the state can use the technology. Connecticut law enforcement agencies can now only share license plate data with Massachusetts, New York or Rhode Island under the new law, given the states agree to not use the data for immigration, reproductive care or gender-affirming health care investigations.

In a statement to CT Insider Tuesday, Flock emphasized the benefit that the cameras can have for law enforcement. 

"When a tool that helps law enforcement solve violent crimes, locate suspects, recover stolen vehicles, and find missing people is removed, public safety moves backward," said Paris Lewbel, a spokesperson for Flock. "That has real consequences: cases can take longer to solve, organized retail theft crews can operate with fewer obstacles, missing people may be harder to locate, and victims may wait longer, or indefinitely, for justice.

It is up to individual agencies to decide whether they want to share data within a national network.

Windsor first turned off the license plate cameras in February amid mounting concern from residents. Killingworth's cameras will be taken down in the coming weeks, according to the town's First Selectman Eric Couture.

Windsor's Chief of Police Donald Melanson told the town council in the July meeting that his department has been significantly affected by the February decision to turn off the cameras. 

"Probably on a weekly basis my officers ask me when are we turning it back on because it has been such a valuable tool," said Melanson. 

Melanson detailed a February incident in which the police were unable to identify two individuals that showed up at someone's residence to threaten them with automatic weapons.

"Officers are not able to obtain leads so many cases go cold without being able to use the system," he said.

In Killingworth, Couture said that the cameras did not prove to be as useful as he first anticipated. Killingworth installed four cameras last year in hopes that the technology would help support the town's resident trooper, as the town does not have a police department. 

"With all the concerns about security, back end security, and other organizations using them without permission, with all that information we thought 'ok, it's not providing us anything, it's not doing what we hoped it would, lets just end the contract and move forward from there,'" Couture told CT Insider.

Couture said that the day after he signed the contract, he started seeing news stories about federal agencies gaining access to local Flock data and began to have doubts about the system. 

"The decision to install them was made with the intention of supporting the trooper and doing the best we could to improve safety in the town, but it is that tension between security and liberties that we have to be mindful of," he said. 

In Windsor's July meeting, dozens of residents testified on the matter. Some residents urged the council to turn back on the cameras, citing public safety benefits, while others fiercely advocated for the cameras to stay off.

"Even if these cameras and these type of surveillance is legal, that doesn't make it right," Windsor resident James Chabot-Weingart said in the meeting. 

The town council decision in was prompted by a motion by council member William Pelkey to turn the license plate cameras on and renew the contract.

"I don't want to be in the position of knowing I voted to turn something off that could save a life," said Pelkey. The town council ultimately voted 4-5-0 in favor of keeping the cameras off. 

"I think the concern I heard from people is really not about the police department, its really not about not trusting the police or not wanting to even support the police, it's the data collection without consent," said council member Darleen Klase. "The control of the data by a private company of which people do not trust."

Klase also pointed to a previous Flock policy in which federal agencies were searching local police department data without their knowledge in a "pilot program." Flock has since publicly issued a statement on the matter and paused the program. 

For Windsor's mayor, Black-Burke, her vote came down to the company and contract in front of her. 

"This vendor cannot fully guarantee the protection of our residents and our data," Black-Burke said.

Read this story on ctinsider.com