Members of the Buchanan County Board of Supervisors are seeking legal guidance on whether the county can prevent the use of Flock license plate recognition cameras outside Grundy and whether the town can continue operating cameras within its limits without county approval.
The cameras prompted a spirited discussion during the board’s Sept. 14 meeting at the Buchanan County Government Center on Slate Creek.
Knox District Supervisor Trey Adkins said he does not believe Buchanan County needs Flock cameras anywhere. He questioned whether the county could adopt an ordinance or take other action to prevent additional cameras from being installed.
“My question is, I don’t think we need any of that in the county, so would we not need an ordinance to allow anybody to put those up in the county?” Adkins asked.
Flock cameras photograph passing vehicles and record license plate information. Law enforcement agencies can search that information when investigating crimes or attempting to locate vehicles connected to alerts.
County Attorney Lee Moise said the county could prevent the cameras from being placed in unincorporated areas by refusing to approve an agreement or provide money for the service.
“It looks like the way that we can stop it is just by not approving a contract,” Moise said. “Because they do this through law enforcement with a contract. I think if we don’t approve the contract or the budgeting of the contract, that will stop it.”
Moise said other localities have taken that approach.
The discussion then turned to cameras already being used by the Grundy Police Department within the town limits.
Adkins said his opposition extended to those cameras, noting that Grundy is located within Buchanan County.
“I don’t know the reason behind putting them up,” Adkins said. “I’m not a big fan of Big Brother, and I don’t think the citizens are.”
Adkins asked whether the Board of Supervisors could stop the town from operating the cameras.
“My question is, the town of Grundy is in the county of Buchanan, which we govern, and the question is, can we put a stop to it?” Adkins said.
Moise initially said Grundy is a separate governmental body with authority over matters within its town limits.
“The town council does have authority over the town of Grundy,” Moise said. “I think that they can do what they have jurisdiction over in their town.”
Adkins questioned whether the town should be able to operate the cameras without approval from the county.
“Even with the town?” Adkins asked.
Rocklick District Supervisor Craig Stiltner also questioned whether the town should have been required to obtain county approval before entering into an agreement for the cameras.
“I don’t agree with that,” Stiltner said. “I think that needs to be researched.”
Stiltner said his understanding was that the Town of Grundy had already entered into a contract and was paying a monthly fee for the cameras.
“The town signed a contract, a month contract with them,” Stiltner said. “And they pay you so much for putting them up in the town.”
Garden District Supervisor and board Vice Chairman Jeff Cooper, who presided over the meeting in Chairman Tim Hess’ absence, asked Moise to determine the extent of the town’s legal authority.
“What we need to know from you is, can the town do that without our approval?” Cooper asked. “That’s what these guys want to know. That’s what Trey wants to know, and that’s what Mr. Stiltner wants to know. So let’s find that answer.”
Moise said he believed Grundy could enter into its own agreement for cameras operating within the town. He said residents who object to cameras located within Grundy might have to take their concerns to the Grundy Town Council.
The county, however, could reject any proposed agreement involving cameras in areas outside the town, Moise said.
Adkins said he had received considerable criticism and questions from residents about the cameras.
“I’m getting blistered on this,” Adkins said. “I didn’t know they were up until they told me.”
Moise said the matter first came to his attention approximately a month before the supervisors’ meeting. He said he then spoke with Grundy Town Manager Dennis Ramey about how the town was using the cameras.
“When this came up about a month ago, I talked to Dennis Ramey,” Moise said. “And Dennis has assured me that they are not using it for traffic enforcement.”
Moise said he was told the cameras were intended to assist law enforcement during serious incidents, including Amber Alerts, rather than issue routine traffic citations.
“It’s for, like, if there’s an Amber Alert,” Moise said.
Moise also referred to a theft involving an ATM at New Peoples Bank as an example of an investigation in which images collected by a license plate camera might have helped identify a vehicle or suspect.
“The reason that they actually did it was that somebody had broken into the ATM, I think, at New Peoples Bank,” Moise said. “And if they had a camera like that, they might have been able to identify who did it.”
Adkins was not persuaded by the example. He said the truck used during the ATM theft had itself been stolen, meaning an image of its license plate might not have identified the person responsible for the crime.
“The truck was stolen that was used at New Peoples Bank,” Adkins said. “The Flock camera’s not going to do any good.”
Adkins compared the cameras to gun-control laws, arguing that restrictions and surveillance primarily affect law-abiding citizens while criminals find ways to avoid them.
“A Flock camera, in my opinion, is like a gun law,” Adkins said. “Law-abiding citizens will follow the gun law because they’re afraid to go to jail. But you’ve got thugs that will be packed with guns. That’s why gun laws don’t work.”
Cooper directed Moise to research the legal issue and determine whether Grundy can operate the cameras without the county’s consent.
“What you need to do, Mr. Moise, is confer with these guys and find out if that’s a fact, if they can do that,” Cooper said.
Cooper said the answer would also clarify where residents should take their complaints. If the town has independent authority, objections to the cameras within Grundy would need to be presented to the Town Council. If the cameras require county approval, the Board of Supervisors would address the issue.
The board took no formal action on the cameras during the meeting. Moise was asked to determine what authority the county has over the cameras already operating within Grundy and whether additional cameras could be installed elsewhere in Buchanan County without the board approving a contract or funding.
