The Glocester Town Council voted Thursday to remove the town's Flock Safety license plate reader cameras, after nearly two hours of resident testimony against the surveillance system and a split debate among councilors. The motion, made after residents spoke, passed on a voice vote with at least one councilor opposed.
The vote came before the council learned, later in the same meeting, that ending the contract early is likely to cost the town money. Under questioning during council correspondence, the Chief of Police said the town remains "on the hook" for the full 60-month agreement, which he said has about two years left at roughly $5,000 a year. One councilor summed it up as "$10,000 to $15,000 that taxpayers are using now."
What the system does, according to the police
Chief Jeffrey Jenison told the council the automated license plate reader system was installed in December 2023 under a 60-month agreement, and that the cameras photograph vehicles and read plates rather than monitor people. He said the system captures plate numbers along with vehicle color, make, model and features such as roof racks or stickers, but does not use facial recognition and does not identify drivers or passengers.
Every search requires a documented investigative reason entered through a dropdown menu, he said, and the system flags repeated searches of the same plate for an internal audit. He said audits since 2023 have found no misuse, and that the department has recorded 50 cases with positive outcomes, including recovered stolen vehicles, hit-and-run investigations, missing persons cases and narcotics investigations.
He also confirmed the department shares camera data with other agencies, including departments in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and said he can switch that sharing off with "a click of a button." Images not tied to an investigation are overwritten every 30 days, he said, adding that this is what the vendor has told him. Pressed by a resident on how he knows where the images go, the chief acknowledged he relies on that information.
Residents object
Roughly ten residents spoke, nearly all against the cameras. A resident said she was speaking for 400 people who signed a petition against the use of Flock Safety readers in Glocester, and argued Rhode Island has no state law regulating automated plate readers. She cited reported misuse cases nationally, including officers using plate data to track women, and said a California study of 1,500 reports found a high rate of misread plates.
Mary Baker said she did not know the cameras existed, where they are, or who approved them. "I think the lack of transparency about their implementation speaks to the heart of the matter," she said, and told the council that federal immigration authorities have tapped into the Flock Safety network elsewhere. She noted the cameras did not prevent recent high-profile shootings.
Robert Thompson, of Reservoir Road, described how private a phone call was in 1970 and said residents are being asked to trust a for-profit company. He questioned why a camera sits on private property in front of a liquor store. David Goldsmith, of Cooper Road, framed the issue as artificial intelligence, saying image technology improves faster than the promises made about it. Marie Sweet, of Chesnville Road, said she does not oppose police use of the tool but wants to know who else has access to the data.
Another resident said Glocester's crime rate is already among the lowest in the state and nation, and objected that a camera sits across from the pavilion where residents gather and hold protests. Another said the town's website offers no way to find out what the cameras do or when they were approved.
How the council split
Councilors acknowledged they had voted for the system without fully understanding it. One said she was "really disappointed" that the council did not know in 2023 that cameras were being installed, and said she would vote against keeping them. Another said he seconded the motion to renew the contract, and that the council "had knowledge, but maybe not the full knowledge."
The council president said he would be a hypocrite to defend the First and Second Amendments at the State House while giving up the Fourth, and described the expansion of surveillance as "death by a thousand cuts."
One councilor argued at length for keeping the cameras, calling it "an invaluable tool" and pointing to local control, the department's access protocols and the 30-day data purge. "It doesn't stop crime; it helps solve them," he said, adding that private businesses and cell phones already track residents. He said he would have supported restrictions on data sharing instead. He voted no.
How we got here and what happens next
According to the council's discussion, the town first approved the cameras on January 31, 2022, paid for with forfeited asset funds rather than tax dollars. In 2023 the town entered the five-year commitment now being ended.
The council did not vote Thursday on how to pay any early-termination cost, or set a date for removal. Glocester's next regular meeting is scheduled for August 20, 2026, when the council is also due to take a first reading on a senior tax exemption ordinance amendment. This account is drawn from the Glocester Town Council's published meeting recording.