Flock license plate readers: Difference between revisions

Line 56:

===Washington state judge declares Flock footage as public records ''(6 Nov 2025)''===

An Oregon resident filed ~~FOIA~~ requests at various police departments in the state of Washington regarding information collected from Flock cameras. The cities of Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley filed a motion to reject the resident's request, with their attorney stating that publicizing Flock footage may be a violation of privacy that could lead to stalking.

An Oregon resident filed public records requests at various police departments in the state of Washington regarding information collected from Flock cameras. The cities of Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley filed a motion to reject the resident's request, with their attorney stating that publicizing Flock footage may be a violation of privacy that could lead to stalking.

~~The~~ judge dismissed the motion ~~and declared~~ that the camera footage was "so broad and indiscriminate" with no distinction between criminal activity and casual civilian activity that the data had to be released to the public.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingalls |first=Chris |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge orders police to release surveillance camera data, raising privacy questions |url=https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/investigators/judge-orders-washington-police-release-surveillance-camera-data-privacy-questions/281-c2037d52-6afb-4bf7-95ad-0eceaf477864 |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=KING5}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Peterson |first=Jenna |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge denies request to exempt Flock footage from Public Records Act |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-denies-request-to-exempt-flock-footage-from-public-records-act/ |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=Herald Net}}</ref>

Some exemptions are given to deny public records request, particularly due to investigations. However, the judge dismissed the motion, declaring that the camera footage was "so broad and indiscriminate" with no distinction between criminal activity and casual civilian activity that the data had to be released to the public.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingalls |first=Chris |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge orders police to release surveillance camera data, raising privacy questions |url=https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/investigators/judge-orders-washington-police-release-surveillance-camera-data-privacy-questions/281-c2037d52-6afb-4bf7-95ad-0eceaf477864 |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=KING5}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Peterson |first=Jenna |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge denies request to exempt Flock footage from Public Records Act |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-denies-request-to-exempt-flock-footage-from-public-records-act/ |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=Herald Net}}</ref>

The judge stated:<ref name=":5" /><blockquote>“I do think that the information at stake does have serious privacy implications, but that’s not the analysis for the intelligence information exemption,” she said. “You also have to make a finding that this is specific intelligence information that is compiled by investigative or law enforcement agencies, and the information that’s being compiled here does not relate to a specific case or investigation. The public already knows that these cameras exist and are operated. Many of them are in sight. The information does not disclose particular methods or procedures for gathering or evaluating intelligence information.” </blockquote>

===Norfolk federal lawsuit ''(February 2025)''===

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 ===Washington state judge declares Flock footage as public records ''(6 Nov 2025)''===
-An Oregon resident filed FOIA requests at various police departments in the state of Washington regarding information collected from Flock cameras. The cities of Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley filed a motion to reject the resident's request, with their attorney stating that publicizing Flock footage may be a violation of privacy that could lead to stalking.
+An Oregon resident filed public records requests at various police departments in the state of Washington regarding information collected from Flock cameras. The cities of Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley filed a motion to reject the resident's request, with their attorney stating that publicizing Flock footage may be a violation of privacy that could lead to stalking.
-The judge dismissed the motion and declared that the camera footage was "so broad and indiscriminate" with no distinction between criminal activity and casual civilian activity that the data had to be released to the public.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingalls |first=Chris |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge orders police to release surveillance camera data, raising privacy questions |url=https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/investigators/judge-orders-washington-police-release-surveillance-camera-data-privacy-questions/281-c2037d52-6afb-4bf7-95ad-0eceaf477864 |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=KING5}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Peterson |first=Jenna |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge denies request to exempt Flock footage from Public Records Act |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-denies-request-to-exempt-flock-footage-from-public-records-act/ |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=Herald Net}}</ref>
+Some exemptions are given to deny public records request, particularly due to investigations. However, the judge dismissed the motion, declaring that the camera footage was "so broad and indiscriminate" with no distinction between criminal activity and casual civilian activity that the data had to be released to the public.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingalls |first=Chris |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge orders police to release surveillance camera data, raising privacy questions |url=https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/investigators/judge-orders-washington-police-release-surveillance-camera-data-privacy-questions/281-c2037d52-6afb-4bf7-95ad-0eceaf477864 |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=KING5}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Peterson |first=Jenna |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge denies request to exempt Flock footage from Public Records Act |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-denies-request-to-exempt-flock-footage-from-public-records-act/ |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=Herald Net}}</ref>
+The judge stated:<ref name=":5" /><blockquote>“I do think that the information at stake does have serious privacy implications, but that’s not the analysis for the intelligence information exemption,” she said. “You also have to make a finding that this is specific intelligence information that is compiled by investigative or law enforcement agencies, and the information that’s being compiled here does not relate to a specific case or investigation. The public already knows that these cameras exist and are operated. Many of them are in sight. The information does not disclose particular methods or procedures for gathering or evaluating intelligence information.” </blockquote>
 ===Norfolk federal lawsuit ''(February 2025)''===