CONROE, Texas – More than 50 automated license plate reader cameras are positioned around Conroe, quietly capturing information from vehicles traveling through the city.
Some residents say the cameras make them feel safer. Others see them as an invasion of privacy.
Recommended Videos
“I think if it involves everybody, then everybody should be involved,” Conroe resident Brayden Spratt said.
Spratt said he supports using Flock cameras when they help police investigate crimes but believes there need to be safeguards against misuse.
“I think it’s fine if it’s used in a positive way, like discovering the burglars and stuff,” Spratt said. “But if it is used for ex-partner stuff, then yeah, I can see that being a problem. Like only used in the way it needs to be used basically.”
That debate over public safety versus privacy is now headed back to Conroe City Hall.
Conroe City Council to consider putting Flock cameras on November ballot
The Conroe City Council is expected to vote Thursday night on whether to place a binding proposition on the Nov. 3 ballot that would allow voters to decide whether the city should stop using automated license plate recognition technology.
The proposal comes weeks after council members unanimously voted July 23 to indefinitely table two proposals related to the cameras. One would have created a citizens advisory committee to study the technology, while another would have explored putting the issue before voters.
If approved by council, Conroe’s proposition would differ significantly from one approved this week in League City.
League City Council voted unanimously to place a nonbinding Flock camera referendum before its voters in November. The result there would serve as an indication of public opinion but would not require the city to remove the cameras.
The proposed Conroe measure would be binding and would call for the city to stop using license plate recognition technology if voters approve it.
Residents divided over cameras
KPRC 2 spoke with several residents near Flock cameras in Conroe on Thursday.
Their views of the technology varied widely.
Jaquan Eady said he sees the cameras as another tool for keeping his community safe.
“There’s a lot of burglaries and people walking around at night not doing stuff they’re supposed to be doing,” Eady said. “I feel like it’s better for the community.”
When asked whether the cameras raised privacy concerns for him, Eady said they did not.
He also said he supports allowing residents to make the ultimate decision.
“I think the city should have a vote and its people because we live here,” Eady said. “It’s important.”
Another Conroe resident, Sharonda Walters, had the opposite reaction.
“I don’t like them,” she said, telling KPRC 2 she believes the cameras are an invasion of privacy and that knowing they are operating throughout Conroe does not make her feel safer.
Spratt and fellow resident Dayna Hiland expressed a more middle-ground view: the technology can have legitimate law enforcement uses, they said, but residents deserve input over technology that collects information about vehicles traveling through their community.
“I just think that everyone should have their opinion,” Hiland said. “Other people should be able to vote.”
“It’s their privacy and everything,” she added.
How many Flock cameras are in Conroe?
Conroe has more than 50 Flock cameras, according to city records.
The cameras are automated license plate readers, commonly called ALPRs. They capture images of passing vehicles and can record information including a vehicle’s license plate, make and model, distinguishing characteristics and the time and location it passed a camera.
Conroe’s system is capable of processing hundreds of thousands of vehicle reads each day. Police Chief Jon Buckholtz previously said officers conduct roughly 60 searches of the system daily and that Flock data had helped investigators solve dozens of crimes.
Police and supporters argue the cameras can quickly give investigators leads in cases involving stolen vehicles, burglaries and violent crimes.
Flock says its cameras do not use facial recognition. The company says access to the system is controlled by individual law enforcement customers and searches are logged to individual users.
One Conroe resident has spent months fighting for records
Few residents have pushed the issue more aggressively than James Fletes.
Fletes told KPRC 2 his concerns began simply by noticing more cameras going up while driving around Conroe.
“We just kept seeing more and more of them be put up, and that kind of prompted me to look into them a little bit more,” Fletes said.
His questions eventually led to an extensive public records request seeking contracts, policies, emails and records related to access and use of the city’s Flock system.
“We’ve been fighting that for about 150 days now,” Fletes told KPRC 2 Thursday.
The Texas Attorney General’s Office recently ruled that Conroe had to release some information the city sought to withhold in response to Fletes’ request. The ruling also allowed the city to withhold certain information considered confidential or sensitive.
Fletes said records he has obtained have raised additional questions for him about how the program was approved, funded and expanded.
He told KPRC 2 he is particularly interested in obtaining records showing which outside agencies have accessed Conroe’s camera system and who is allowed to access the city’s data.
“Those are the documents that we really look forward to getting,” Fletes said.
Fletes has also organized a petition seeking to end Conroe’s participation in Flock. The petition had gathered more than 1,500 signatures by late July.
Despite his opposition to the cameras, Fletes said he believes the final decision should rest with voters — even if voters ultimately decide to keep them.
“Maybe we don’t represent the vast majority of people. Maybe people do want to keep them,” Fletes said. “And I think that should be left up to voters.”
Concerns grow over potential misuse
Fletes said one of his biggest concerns is not just what the technology can do when properly used, but what can happen when someone with access abuses it.
“We’ve already seen officers abusing these cameras to stalk their exes or family members or people who they have a grudge with,” Fletes said. “So the cameras have great benefits, but I just don’t think that those benefits outweigh what the community is feeling.”
Law enforcement agencies across the region have faced investigations involving alleged misuse of license plate reader databases, adding fuel to a broader debate over who should have access to vehicle-location data and how agencies should monitor searches.
Fletes also argues the mass collection of information from vehicles not suspected of being involved in crimes raises constitutional and privacy concerns.
Flock and law enforcement agencies have disputed the characterization of ALPR systems as tracking individual people, pointing out that the cameras are positioned along public roadways and collect information about vehicles.
Flock announces major changes as criticism grows
The debate in Conroe coincides with significant changes announced by Flock Safety on Thursday.
The company says it is strengthening privacy, accountability and security requirements across its network as scrutiny of automated license plate readers grows nationwide.
Among the biggest changes, Flock is reducing its recommended default data retention period from 30 days to seven days.
Flock also announced it is:
- Requiring multi-factor authentication for customers
- Expanding audits and proactive monitoring designed to identify potential misuse
- Increasing customers’ control over how data is shared with other agencies
- Strengthening controls surrounding searches and access
- Increasing transparency about data ownership, security and agency policies
Flock says data captured by its devices will now default to deletion after seven days, although agencies may have different policies or legal requirements governing retention.
Even with new safeguards, Fletes said his fundamental concern remains unchanged: cameras inevitably capture information from far more people than those suspected of committing crimes.
“I’m all for when they post the arrest, like this camera led to this arrest and helped us. That’s great,” Fletes said. “But what about all the people whose data is being shared in this database who have not committed any sort of crime?”
Supporters say don’t take away a valuable police tool
Conroe police have defended the technology as an important investigative resource.
That argument resonates with some residents.
Eady said concerns about potential misuse should not outweigh the cameras’ ability to help protect the community.
“They’re trying to keep our neighborhood safe,” he said.
Fletes acknowledged that removing the cameras could mean officers lose a tool that makes investigations easier, but he said he does not believe that means police cannot effectively investigate crimes without them.
“I’m sure that’s a great tool to use, but we survived without that for many years,” Fletes said. “I have confidence in our law enforcement. We have great officers here.”
For residents like Spratt, the answer may fall somewhere between removing the cameras entirely and allowing their use without stronger oversight.
“More training and more protocol setting,” Spratt said when asked what could address his concerns.
Whether Conroe residents will get to make that choice themselves now rests with City Council.
If council members approve the ballot proposition Thursday, Conroe voters will decide in November whether automated license plate recognition technology has a place in their city.