Residents demand city, Police Department cancel Flock contract

NEW BEDFORD — More than 100 people gathered Tuesday night at the Casimir Pulaski School auditorium to express privacy concerns over Flock cameras and to demand that city officials remove them from the 20 locations at which they were quietly installed almost two years ago.

Two dozen residents took to the mic during the three-hour meeting, which decidedly got heated with boos, heckling, and as one person called it, passion.

In response, one city councilor has since filed motions to hold a hearing with city officials, and discuss whether the removal of the cameras, also known as license plate readers, is “the appropriate policy outcome.” 

Listening to residents was New Bedford Police Chief Jason Thody, who joined the department in July 2025, about half a year into the agency’s use of Flock, and city councilors who ultimately, and reportedly unknowingly, signed off on a budget that contained a vague line item for the Flock system.

The New Bedford residents join a chorus of voices locally and nationally, some of whom have successfully pressured their municipalities to cancel or deactivate contracts, or altogether ban the license plate reader technology. 

The meeting featured remarks from Thody, a Flock representative whom Thody invited, and a technology expert from the ACLU of Massachusetts before the floor opened for questions. 

“I find this situation entirely unacceptable. This was done in the darkness of night,” said Ben Comeau. “To be honest, most of my ire isn’t even directed towards the Police Department. … I think it is mostly towards the City Council who rubber stamped this appropriation without even bothering to Google.”

At least nine city councilors were in attendance. 

“The weight of that mistake hangs around your necks. You need to commit to holding this in chambers, forcing people to testify to what they knew and when. You need to terminate this contract and not renew it,” Comeau said. 

Asked why the city did not get public input before adopting Flock, a city public information officer referred the question to the New Bedford Police Department. Spokesperson Holly Huntoon in an email Tuesday said the department “does not typically make public announcements regarding acquired technology or equipment, although the use of technology is often referenced in public releases and posts when it is instrumental in a specific case.”

“As with other investigative tools and public safety equipment, the installation of Flock cameras did not require a public input process, nor is this an established or common practice,” Huntoon’s statement read. “The department has procured and implemented equipment and technology over the years including ShotSpotter, Axon Body Worn Cameras, and approximately 259 cameras throughout the city, all without a public input process.”

NBPD put out a press release when it adopted body-worn cameras. It did not when it installed Flock cameras. The mayor’s office also sought approval from the City Council in 2024 for a five-year contract with Axon for body-worn cameras. It did not for Flock. 

Asked about the difference in approach, public information officer Jonathan Darling said  because the body camera contract exceeded three years, state law requires legislative (in this case, City Council) majority approval.

In response to the public outcry, Ward 1 City Councilor Leo Choquette filed a motion Wednesday morning calling for the immediate cessation of the use of the Flock cameras until an ordinance is adopted “regulating usage.”

“Until the City Council has had significant time to thoroughly discuss Flock and its potential pros AND cons to the community, we will ask the Mayor to deactivate the cameras,” Choquette wrote on Facebook. “We need to turn them off until we have a better idea how we as a City will proceed…and that will take months. In the meantime, I say shut them off.”

Councilor-at-large Shane Burgo, who chairs the Ordinance Committee, also filed a motion for the committee to “consider whether the appropriate policy outcome is either the complete removal and abolition of automated license plate reader systems and other similarly invasive surveillance technologies within the City of New Bedford, or, in the alternative, establishing ‘Municipal Automated License Plate Reader Privacy and Transparency Standards.’”

He also filed a motion with the council’s Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods to hold a public hearing with representatives from NBPD, the City Solicitor’s Office and the IT department to ask questions about the city’s use of Flock cameras and other surveillance technology. 

“Based on last night’s overwhelming feedback, we may end up looking at an ordinance that restricts/removes the usage of this type of equipment altogether,” Burgo said in an email Wednesday morning. 

Throughout the meeting, shouts from the audience included “We want them out,” “propaganda,” “Flock this,” “get a real job” and “weasel” – the last two being directed at Karl Bach, public affairs manager for Flock since May, according to his LinkedIn.

Bach showed a pre-recorded video from the company that discussed how the system works and helps to solve crimes. Attendees interjected. 

“I sense from the room here that many folks are opposed to this technology entirely,” said Gideon Epstein, policy counsel with ACLUM, a statement met with applause. “We hope that local leaders will listen to residents’ concerns and act on those concerns.” 

Police Department responds

Thody in his opening remarks said the Police Department must strike a balance between privacy and keeping New Bedford safe by solving crimes. He said Flock is “involved in just about every investigation we do” at the department.  

“My goal today is not a sales pitch to keep Flock,” he said. “We just canceled our contract with ShotSpotter because I just didn’t think the technology at this point was worth the money we were spending on it. And I’ve got no problem getting rid of technology if I don’t think it’s correct for our application.”

Thody shared that patrol officers currently have more limited access to Flock than higher-ranking officers: they can only access data from neighboring towns. 

“That doesn’t mean it can’t be abused, in full transparency,” he said. “While I can’t eliminate [abuse], I can address it severely and punish it.” 

He said he’d be open to considering a further reduction and other “safeguards,” such as turning off automatic access for other departments and reducing officers’ access by requiring supervisory approval.

According to Dartmouth Police Lt. Keith DaCosta, the Dartmouth Police Department does not allow automatic access to the town’s Flock data and cameras, of which there are five. Outside agencies must request information from Dartmouth, he said. 

“Say New Bedford or State Police want information from our Flock, we also need their call number or investigation number,” DaCosta told The Light.  

NBPD currently shares with about 125 agencies in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. It previously had nationwide sharing, but deactivated it in late 2025, The Light previously reported. 

ACLUM’s Epstein said he is concerned with automatic data sharing, saying even if residents can trust their own police departments, they cannot readily trust the dozens or hundred others with direct access. 

NBPD internal audits missed immigration tag 

This week, The Light reported based on data it obtained that a patrol officer had used an immigration tag as the reason for a search in January. The department’s policy prohibits the sharing of any data for federal immigration enforcement.

The department only found out about this search tag after The Light inquired, Thody confirmed. He previously said internal audits are conducted by the detectives division and Professional Standards Unit (which undertakes internal affairs investigations), but that they missed this one. 

“It is something that they should’ve seen and asked the question well before now,” Thody told The Light. “I’m going to address it… they did not pick up on that in that audit and they should’ve.”

Huntoon said the department “recently” enabled a Flock “Audit Assistance feature” to “identify potential anomalies or unusual search activity, such as repeated searches of the same license plate over an extended period, allowing supervisors to review activity for compliance with department policy.”

Thody also addressed this “immigration” search during the meeting after being asked about it by a resident, saying the search was not immigration related.

In an email to The Light, Huntoon provided a similar explanation, saying the search was done in response to a spate of shootings possibly involving a Kia. 

“Flock’s offense-type dropdown menu does not include an option for a general investigation or administrative inquiry. As a result, the ‘Immigration (civil/administrative)’ selection was used because the officer was conducting a general search related to ongoing shootings,” Huntoon wrote. “[The officer] conducted this search from a mobile device in the field and selected this with the intention of selecting an ‘administrative’ search. The fact that ‘administrative’ is included as a part of the immigration dropdown is a concern we will be bringing up with Flock Safety.”

While Thody was explaining this, people shouted “nobody believes you” and “explainable doesn’t mean excusable.” Thody was firm, saying he would not fire the officer based on what they found after looking into the search. 

Epstein said the dropdown option is not much better than the freeform text entry officers previously used as it still remains challenging, if not possible, to confirm every officer is being honest with every search. 

Residents ask city councilors to take action

ACLUM’s Epstein said the City Council has the authority to act, citing New Bedford’s city code. He also said they can adopt an ordinance called CCOPS (Community Control Over Police Surveillance) that ensures public comment and a council vote before any surveillance technology can be deployed. ACLUM provides draft ordinance language online for municipalities to adopt. 

Nick LeBlanc, who has a Flock camera in front of his home, said the “harm has already been done” and that “it did not need to be this way.” He demanded the City Council refuse to fund Flock’s contract renewal and pass a moratorium on the use of the technology in the city. Other residents asked for removal and contract cancellation as well. 

The city budget came up a few times in residents’ comments. The line item for the Flock program in the fiscal year 2027 budget listed Insight Public Sector, a third-party vendor. In the description column, the line item reads “annual subscription.” 

Another line item in that budget section mentions cameras in the description column: “Camera support contract 48 street cameras.”

Huntoon in an email confirmed the Insight subscription for Flock also provides camera support. 

“The description field in the budget is manually entered for informational purposes, and there is no prescribed format for what must be included,” she said. “In this case, the expense was simply described as the annual subscription. The description does not change what is included under the contract.”

The Police Department’s purchase of the equipment in 2024 used a state grant, “Project Safe Neighborhoods” that covered the Flock system through fiscal year 2026.  

“To continue the program, the department included $36,450 in its FY2027 operating budget to fund the annual subscription and camera support,” Huntoon said. “Separately, in FY2026, the department purchased the Flock mobile security trailer using funding allocated through the City’s Downtown Safety Initiative.”

The next City Council meeting is scheduled for Aug. 20, when the motions will be heard. They will then be referred to the respective committees. The Ordinance Committee meets next on Sept. 8.

Email Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org.

---

More stories by Anastasia E. Lennon

Flock furor: Here’s what to know about the police cameras in New Bedford and South Coast

July 27, 2026July 28, 2026

City, state reps question Justice Dept. motives for voter list request

July 13, 2026July 13, 2026

Trump administration to send election monitors to New Bedford for primary

July 9, 2026July 10, 2026