A debate over privacy, public safety and government oversight of automated license plate readers has intensified in Charlton, with more than 160 residents signing a petition calling on town officials to reconsider the community’s use and planned expansion of Flock Safety cameras.

The issue came before the Charlton Select Board Sept. 8 and again on Sept. 22 after resident Michelle Chalmers raised concerns about the town’s use of Flock automatic license plate reader, (ALPR) technology.

The Select Board tabled the matter to be further considered at the upcoming Special Town Meeting, which is scheduled for Monday, Oct. 19, at 7 p.m. at the Charlton Middle School Auditorium, 2 Oxford Rd. A citizen’s petition regarding ALPRs is included on this meeting’s warrant as Article 15. 

At the Sept. 8 meeting, Chalmers told the select board that approximately 160 signatures had been collected from residents concerned about the cameras.

“The response was overwhelmingly supportive and crossed political lines,” Chalmers said. “Residents may have different reasons; privacy, government overreach, data sharing, costs, constitutional concerns or lack of public discussion.

“But they do agree that a technology that is capable of recording and searching our movement should not operate or expand without transparency and democratic oversight.”

Chalmers emphasized that her concerns were not directed at the Charlton Police Department itself.

“This is not an attack on the Charlton Police Department,” she said. “We can support our police and do, while still requiring oversight of powerful technology.”

Flock’s Falcon cameras are designed primarily to capture vehicle information as vehicles pass a camera. Flock says its cameras capture between six and 12 images of a vehicle during a session and can identify information such as license plates, vehicle make, model, color and other characteristics. 

Chalmers voiced her concerns about the technology from a privacy perspective.

“These cameras do not begin by recording a person suspected of a crime,” she said. “They record data on all of us, every passing vehicle - its plate, location, time - and makes those records searchable afterwards.”

Her comments came shortly after a Massachusetts court ruling concerning the state’s use of ALPR technology.

On Sept. 2, a Suffolk Superior Court judge ruled that Massachusetts State Police could not withhold records concerning the locations of its ALPR cameras and audit information showing when, why and how frequently officers searched ALPR databases. The ruling followed a yearlong public-records dispute involving the ACLU of Massachusetts.

“The public has a right to basic information about how government surveillance operates,” Chalmers said.

Chalmers asked the select board to place the issue on the next available agenda, publicly announce the meeting date, and refrain from expanding the system, adding cameras, renewing the contract or authorizing additional discretionary spending before the public discussion.

The board subsequently placed the matter on its Sept. 22 agenda.

Chalmers returned to the issue Sept. 22, again emphasizing the number of residents who had signed the petition.

“More than 160 residents signed the petition requesting action on these cameras,” she said. “Those residents represent the first perspectives; this is not simply my personal concern. It is a community request for transparency, accountability, and a decision by our elected officials.”

Chalmers said town counsel had determined that decisions involving the contracts fell under the authority of the select board.

“The responsibility for deciding whether Charlton continues, expands or discontinues the system therefore rests with you,” she said.

She acknowledged that license plate readers can have legitimate law-enforcement uses.

“We recognize that license plate readers may assist police in certain investigations,” Chalmers said. “This effort is truly not about opposing our police department or dismissing legitimate public safety needs.”

Her concern, she said, was whether those benefits justified the collection of information involving people who were not suspected of crimes.

“It is about whether the benefit of the system justifies automatically collecting and making searchable the vehicle location information of people who are overwhelmingly suspected of no crime.”

According to Chalmers, Charlton currently has four operational Flock cameras and a separate agreement for four additional cameras that, according to the police department, have not yet been received or installed.

“The board has an opportunity to act before the system doubles in size,” she said.

Chalmers asked the board to discontinue Charlton’s use of Flock, stop installation of the four additional cameras, prevent automatic renewal of the contract, and direct the town administrator and town counsel to investigate legally and financially appropriate options for termination and possible refunds.

“Tonight we are asking the board to respond with a clear and recorded decision,” she said.

Other Charlton residents also spoke against continuing or expanding the Flock system. Christopher Willow raised concerns about cybersecurity, arguing that the cameras and their associated data could be vulnerable to digital attacks. Brian Powers began his remarks by emphasizing his support for the police department.

“I want to say clearly that our local police department is fantastic, and I deeply appreciate the work they do to keep our community safe,” Powers said. He then argued, however, that residents should have been more involved in the original decision to deploy the cameras.

“I want to acknowledge that most locals don’t even know that we already have six operational Flock cameras hidden across town,” he said, identifying locations including the library, Stafford Street, Route 169 near Amazon and the Mass Pike.

Powers described the growth of ALPR technology as a broader concern, arguing that what began as an investigative tool has developed into a larger interconnected system.

“What started as an isolated safety tool has rapidly scaled into a massive centralized corporate surveillance network; and now we are talking about expanding our local footprint even further,” he said.

He also raised questions about the town’s contractual and financial exposure.

“I’m here to address the immediate operational, financial, and legal liabilities this specific contract brings to town,” Powers said.

Powers pointed to nearby communities that he said had discontinued or suspended relationships with Flock, including Southbridge, Auburn, Douglas, Grafton and Boylston.

“If our closest neighboring towns have determined that Flock is a liability, Charlton must ask, why are we doubling down by expanding it?” Powers said.

He also urged the select board to have town counsel examine the contract before the town moves forward.

“Because Flock uses uniform, boilerplate agreements nationwide, the contracts that Southbridge and Auburn found to be unacceptable are likely the exact same contracts that Charlton has signed,” Powers said.

“We need our town council to review this immediately before we deepen our financial and legal exposure.”

Powers also cited claims about potential errors in automated vehicle identification and their consequences for police investigations. He said independent audits had identified instances in which vehicle reads could contain significant errors.

“I strongly support efficient public safety, but tools of this magnitude require deep public debate, clear metrics of success, and strict oversight,” Powers said.

He asked the board to pause expansion, consider a moratorium on the existing cameras and direct town counsel to review the contract.

Another Charlton resident, Zach Stiffler focused on civil liberties and the Fourth Amendment.

“I’m here to ask the select board to terminate its contract with Flock and remove all existing cameras,” Stiffler said.

Stiffler argued that Charlton’s crime rate should be considered when determining whether the town needs a permanent system capable of recording vehicle movements.

“Charlton already has one of the lowest crime rates in the state,” he said. “So, before we create a permanent infrastructure for tracking vehicles, recording the movements of innocent residents which can be accessed not only by local agencies but federal agencies, some of which are actively engaged in dismantling civil liberties, we should ask two simple questions: is this level of surveillance truly necessary in a town with an admirably low crime rate? And more importantly, does the potential harm to innocent citizens outweigh its benefits?”

Stiffler also cited cases from outside Massachusetts in which he said people had been affected by ALPR systems. 

He cited Lindsay Isaacs of Florida, Eva Pizzarelli of Rhode Island, or Chrisianna Elser of Colorado.

“These are just the first instances in which individuals have suffered despite law enforcement acting in good faith; and I believe if mass surveillance becomes the norm, it is reasonable to assume it will not be the last.”

“A cursory Google search will provide no shortage of examples including four that have occurred in Massachusetts,” he added.

“The erosion of the Fourth Amendment is no longer a hypothetical concern,” he said. “It is occurring in real time and affecting innocent citizens.”

No members of the public who spoke during the Sept. 22 discussion expressed support for continuing the Flock system, but police officials offered a different perspective on how the technology works and why the department uses it.

“The technology takes six still images per second,” Lieutenant Anthony Gribbons said. “It is not a continuous video feed. Sometimes if a vehicle is traveling too fast, it does not catch it.”

Flock’s own description of its LPR technology states that cameras generally capture six to 12 images of a vehicle during a session, rather than continuously recording video. 

Gribbons spoke in defense of the ALPRs. “It’s set up on an algorithm, it works on the algorithm,” Gribbons said. “It’s not a recording; it doesn’t record voice.”

Chief of Police Daniel Dowd also spoke in support of the system. “It gives us a better chance of finding a missing person, finding an elderly person with dementia,” Dowd said.

During the discussion, as an example of the technology’s public safety value, members of the board referenced an incident involving a report of a possible shooter traveling toward Bay Path High School. Board members said Flock cameras helped law enforcement identify and locate the suspect’s vehicle, allowing officers to detain the individual before a shooting occurred.

Some of the discussions surrounding Flock involved distinctions between the different types of cameras offered by the company.

Charlton officials said the town’s contract involves Flock Falcon license plate reader cameras, which should not be confused with the Condor model.

Falcon cameras are designed to capture vehicle information as vehicles pass. Flock says its LPR cameras can identify license plates as well as characteristics such as a vehicle’s make, model and color. Its Condor model is a video-camera system that is capable of live and recorded video, remote pan-tilt-zoom controls and digital zoom. 

That distinction is significant because some of the more expansive capabilities discussed by critics, including continuously recorded video and remotely controlled camera views, relate to Flock’s video products rather than the Falcon LPR system that the Charlton contract includes.

At the center of the disagreement is how Charlton should balance the investigative benefits of ALPR technology against concerns about privacy, data retention, information sharing and government oversight.

The cameras are designed to collect information about vehicles passing their locations, rather than specifically targeting people suspected of crimes. But because vehicles can be identified by license plate and other characteristics, critics argue that the resulting database can reveal patterns of where vehicles have traveled.

Supporters of the technology, meanwhile, point to its investigative value. Rather than relying solely on eyewitness accounts or manually searching hours of conventional surveillance footage, police can search ALPR data for vehicles matching information connected to an investigation.

The Massachusetts court ruling cited by Chalmers adds another layer to the debate. The Sept. 2 decision concerned records maintained by Massachusetts State Police, not specifically Charlton’s Flock system, but it addressed public access to information about government use of ALPR technology. The court ruled that camera-location information and audit records showing when, why and how often officers searched the database were not exempt from disclosure under the public-records law provisions at issue.

For Charlton, the immediate question is not whether ALPR technology exists, but whether and under what conditions the town should continue using it.

After hearing from residents, police and board members, the select board did not vote to put a pause to the Flock contract.

Instead, the board tabled the issue for consideration at the upcoming Special Town Meeting.

Chief Dowd said that he would not proceed with installation of the four additional Flock cameras before that meeting.

The decision leaves Charlton’s existing cameras in operation while the town considers whether the current system should continue, be modified, be expanded or be discontinued.

For residents who have raised concerns, the October 19 Special Town Meeting represents another opportunity to press for greater transparency and oversight.

For the police department, the upcoming meeting presents an opportunity to provide accurate and informative data that could shed some light on the potential benefits of using ALPRs. 

The debate is ultimately centered on a question that communities across Massachusetts and the country are increasingly confronting: how much information about ordinary people’s movements should be collected by public agencies, what safeguards should govern that information, and how much public oversight should be required before such technology is deployed or expanded.

Charlton residents will have an opportunity to weigh in when the issue comes before the town at the Oct. 19 Special Town Meeting. W