THOMASVILLE- Monday night the Thomasville City Council made a motion to enter into a contract with Flock Safety Systems for a camera/license plate reader/shot detection system, despite opposition from several citizens, who claimed the system was consistent with racial profiling. 

The council first heard from Jennifer Dyson.

Dyson provided the Council with a petition signed by neighbors who did not want the Flock system integrated into the community. 

“They feel like their privacy will be in jeopardy,” she said. 

Resident Lucinda Brown was also against the Flock system, stating the American Civil Liberty Union was adamantly opposed to Flock for the reason of racial discrimination. 

“What the ACLU says is that communities of color have disproportionately experienced the egregious effects of limited surveillance and this is not purely a historical lesson, it is happening now,” she said. “When you do surveillance in three places, all of which are black communities… you are discriminating against us.” 

Brown asked that the Mayor table the vote until he could further research the system to see what the ACLU is saying. 

“They are fighting against this Flock system across the United States, and it will do nothing but make it to where we will be extremely concerned about the police activity in Thomasville,” she concluded.  

Mayor Jay Flowers thanked Brown for her comments, before giving Antwon Mitchell the floor. 

“Flock is not good for us,” he told the Council. “I feel like you are trying to watch us and watch everything going on in our community; we are being racially profiled.” 

Thomasville Police Department Major Shane Harris then addressed some of the concerns that had been brought up. 

Harris first explained that the motion they would enter into would be a sixth month trial system, as Flock is already used in 1,500 cities across the United States. 

Once the trial is over, there is no obligation to the city. 

“If we choose to not enter into that agreement until a year later, there is no ties to the police department as far as financials,” Harris said. 

As part of the trial and contract, Flock sets up the location of the cameras in an area where no reasonable expectation of privacy would be expected. Council members were provided with an example of Flock reading a license plate on a public street after a vehicle had been stolen. 

“On a public street, there is no expectation of privacy,” City Attorney Tim Sanders said. 

Harris said this is also important because the TPD has received numerous reports of cars racing lately and Flock can detect tires screeching and send an alert to officers, while triangulating the area. 

“Once something has been detected in the area, we can go back and look at Flock for evidence and support,” he said. 

Council member Wanda Warren raised the concerns of profiling with Harris, questioning how the locations were chosen. 

“When we first started looking at this product, we were asked to provide data on where the most gun shots occurred,” Harris explained. “We went to our office and pulled out data that plotted every area we had been called to for gunshots. We printed that map and sent it to Flock. Their engineers then decided the camera placements suggestions.”

Harris reiterated the only place the police department asked for a camera at was the entrance to the City. 

“It lets us know who is coming in,” he said. “There is nothing bias to the camera, it’s just letting us know if there is a stolen car or broken glass or gunshots going off.” 

Warren thanked Harris for the explanation and shared with the crowd that she, nor any other council member of officer is targeting any community or group. 

“Everyone knows where I live,” she said. “That would be targeting me. We all know there is crime in this city and the job of our safety personnel is to help us erase this crime. They are trying to do everything they can to do that.” 

Mayor Pro Tem Todd Mobley then asked Harris if residents could request where the Flock cameras are placed. 

Harris informed the crowd that neighborhoods can come together and privately purchase one if they would like. He said he knows the community thinks the police were the ones who wanted to place a camera at Villa North Apartments, but they were actually contacted by the property owner and asked to place one there. 

“I told them that this is public money and we cannot put public money on their private property,” he explained. “If they wanted to buy a Flock system, they can do that with their own money.” 

Flowers thanked Harris for his further explanation, before asking for a motion to enter the sixth month trial contract. 

The motion was granted 3-1, with Council member Terry Scott opposing.