Two sides have emerged—for and against the use of Flock Safety and similar cameras—as a Haverhill City Council subcommittee is scheduled to debate placing guardrails on any such surveillance systems.
Last week, as WHAV reported, Mayor Melinda E. Barrett’s office said the city asked the company to remove its automatic license plate readers.
The Haverhill Police Patrolmen’s Association, representing rank and file police officers, said Wednesday they stand behind continued use of the cameras, while the Haverhill Chapter of the Merrimack Valley Project said it opposes such technology no matter the vendor.
“Flock Safety is a valuable law enforcement tool that assists officers in identifying stolen vehicles, locating wanted individuals, investigating serious crimes, and protecting the residents of Haverhill,” the police union said in a statement released by Association President Conor Clark.
Members of the Merrimack Valley Project say the group plans to ask for a total ban on such cameras “regardless of the company providing them.”
“Every Haverhill resident deserves the right to be heard when it comes to their privacy, because our voices matter and our rights deserve protection. Transparency, trust and respect must be at the heart of every decision that affects our community,” said Lillie Williams, a Haverhill leader in the group and member of Calvary Baptist Church. “Our privacy is not a privilege—it is a right, and the people of Haverhill deserve a seat at the table when decisions about it are made.”
The Merrimack Valley Project plans a press conference Thursday, at 5 p.m., on the steps of City Hall, ahead of a meeting of the Haverhill City Council’s Public Safety Committee.
The group won vocal support from Ward 3 City Councilor Devan M. Ferreira. A statement attributed to Ferreira said, “I have heard loud and clear from community members that they do not want Flock or any other ALPR system in Haverhill.” She added, she is “looking forward to putting forth a surveillance ordinance that honors their hard work and voice in this important issue.”
The Patrolmen’s Association said it “rejects any suggestion that our members are improperly utilizing this technology without credible evidence to support such claims.” It explained, “Our officers are trained professionals who understand the importance of constitutional rights, individual privacy and the responsibility that comes with access to law enforcement technology. Flock Safety is intended to serve legitimate law enforcement purposes, not personal interests or unauthorized surveillance.”
The Council’s Public Safety Committee plans to discuss proposed restrictions on the use of all similar systems when it meets Thursday, Nov. 12, 6 p.m., in City Hall.