From Calibre Press
Last week’s commentary from Chief Tyler Welsh in Hebron, OH titled “An Open Letter to Dishonorable Cops” focused on some officers’ widely-reported abuse of Flock camera technology. His thoughts drew considerable feedback from around the country. Here’s some of what we received:
A reader wrote:
This demands a second letter to agencies that use these technologies: PUT SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE. Require, or at least make possible, a review of every Flock inquiry. Do like our agency does and force the use of a known case number on the query page. Look at the logs. Check with the officer if something doesn’t feel right. Knowing that a deputy chief could show up at my door, concerned, is a great motivator to do the right thing.
Joel Johnston, a 28-year police veteran who served with the Vancouver Police Department and now offers law enforcement consulting writes:
A necessary article – and well-said! Honestly, I would have been hard-pressed to believe that such an article had to be written on this subject. Where is the gap here? Well, this opens up a huge can of worms. The scorn of law enforcement in the media as a result of rare, high-profile incidents that are usually (not always) misrepresented either deliberately or carelessly. This has profoundly impacted public perception and this has profoundly affected the profession through premature retirements and a lack of interest in the profession among young people.
In the interest of time, this is an oversimplification. But the reality is, a lot of cops have left a profession that has not been kind to them, and fewer want to join. So, what are we left with? High demand for numbers. Low supply of numbers. Basic economic principles provide answers to this obvious problem. Fewer applicants plus more vacancies equals lowered standards – in all areas, including ethical conduct, character, values, discipline, etcetera. And here we are. The selection process for law enforcement professionals cannot afford to compromise on hiring standards. The manifestation of problems may not be immediate – but is inevitable.
Another reader wrote:
Telling a drug addict or serial criminal to stop and mend their ways is seldom, if ever, effective. Knowledge is power and power with authority is an addictive drug. Flock is the drug delivery system. It’s too tempting, too easy to access, too easy to abuse.
In the majority of cases, the penalties are not severe. It’s not even a violation of law in many states, just a violation of agency policies. Politely asking serial abusers of Flock to stop is not going to work. Draconian penalties are in order. Long prison sentences, lasting non-appealable felony convictions, high monetary penalties, loss of qualified immunity in civil tort cases, stalking registry. You need a deterrent. This is where leadership can not be empathetic and soft handed. This is when leadership calls subordinates in a room, brings them to attention and then reads them the riot act—loudly and clearly—explaining what they are prohibited from doing and the penalties for violations.
The leader is not asking for opinions, feedback, or offering soft guidance. This is a straightforward talk-down, dress-down. If subordinates feel like they were collectively “punished” they will have to grow thicker skin. Being nice about it is not effective.
Strict rules of conduct and penalties are one half of protection. The second half is access. Make Flock databases and similar tools highly restricted systems. Like in the armed forces. The database can only be accessed from select segregated terminals. Those terminals are in a secure room with restricted access. Access is on a two-man system with a supervisor authorization on top. The officer who needs to access the system gets authorization for access for every instance. With a supervisor’s signature. The officer is accompanied to access the terminal by another officer or civilian, who is cleared, to witness the access. Both individuals sign in and sign out. There should a civilian clerk or desk duty officer acting as access control. No one is ever to access Flock alone or on their own whim.
Orders, rules of conduct and penalties will destroy the motive to abuse Flock. Access restrictions and a two-man rule will take care of means and opportunity. Lobby state assembly to make circumventing of Flock access process a felony. Do that and abuse of Flock will drop heavily.
Captain Don Bischoff (ret.) formerly with the Mohave County (AZ) SO commented:
Criminal charges should be filed against those who are abusing their authority with these and other systems.
Jim Lucas, a retired sergeant from the Carol Stream (IL) Police Department responded:
Amen!!! Isn’t this noble profession already getting dumped on enough?! Besides the obviousness of it being wrong, WHY on God’s green earth would an officer give people yet another reason to distrust us? For those of you doing this, you are blackening the eye of the profession we all worked so hard to get into!!! Rant over…well written Chief!!
Dale Gustafson (ret.) who served with the Homewood (IL) PD as Deputy Chief and Chief in Berkeley (IL) writes:
Great points, Chief! Some officers don’t want to hear it, but I’ve always believed that police officers should be held to a higher standard. Everyone makes mistakes – that’s NOT what we’re talking about here. The ALPR issue involves integrity issues which is where the higher standard should rest. A small percentage of officers have always thought they are smarter, slicker, or more cunning than other cops and this will be how they evade detection. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of officers have the integrity and the skills to right the wrongs the integrity-compromised officers commit. The challenge is convincing the public that only a small number of officers lack the integrity to use their investigative resources legitimately.
Special Agent Jim Brewster (ret.), who served with the Iowa Dept. of Public Safety’s Criminal Investigation Division, writes:
Some in law enforcement have always ‘bent the rules’ for personal reasons. These are the cops that give the rest a bad name. As technology has progressed, it gives this type of cop even more power to abuse the system. Some jurisdictions have addressed this abuse through legislation to punish the abusers. In Iowa, it is a felony for a person in an official law enforcement capacity to obtain private information of others for personal gain. The law also mandates immediate dismissal from their position and de-certification of their law enforcement credentials.
There will always be cops that abuse their power. The key is to punish those responsible so that the police profession remains an honorable calling.
From another officer:
Flock should not be anyone’s surveillance system for any purpose, period. It’s a gross overreach of government and should be utterly destroyed by any means necessary. The founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew about this kind of naked tyranny disguised as “public safety.”
A reader writes:
Totally agree Chief. Unfortunately, now that this has become an issue, way too many people will be seeking to totally eliminate flock cameras and agencies will be further restricting access by the troops.
Leave it to the few knucklehead cops to screw things up for the rest.
Sgt. John Converse (ret.) formerly with the Rockville (MD) Police Department writes:
The Washington Post had an investigative report on abuse of Flock by some officers a couple of weeks back. I was shocked so many officers were foolish enough and unethical enough to abuse the system. WaPo did mention the consequences to officers which usually involved termination and often prosecution. Mention of punishment was almost parenthetical in nature.
Today, WaPo (which is nowhere near the paper it used be) felt a need to publish two full sections of the paper, largely blank, but rehashing its previous reporting. It seemed a bit much for a paper that no longer has Metro, Style, or Sports sections, but I guess self-aggrandizement and another opportunity to bash the police was too much to resist.
Both Flock and the law enforcement profession are working to reduce opportunities for Flock abuse, but that’s not good enough for the Posts.
My former agency removed the non-Flock ALPR’s from cruisers for public relations purposes. Agencies forced to remove ALPR’s should endeavor to publicize cases where the technology would have resulted in apprehension of a suspect or recovery of a victim, but did not.
It occurs to me that ALPR’s would be a great way to deter and/or apprehend many stalkers victimizing women.
From another reader:
I’ve stopped using Flock and all LPRs even though I have access to them. I have never abused them, but, the scrutiny is on. You have less risk abusing NCIC than LPRs. Neither are good but everyone has jumped on the bandwagon of “Flock is bad” and the police chiefs and sheriffs, just like this one, are happy to send you down the river publicly. Easiest way to get rid of an officer you don’t like: accuse them of abuse of Flock. Everyone will be lining up to crucify you even if it’s not true. But you can’t accuse me of abusing Flock or LPRs if I never use them.
Remember kids…the admin types are always looking for reasons to hang you. Don’t give them ammo.
Reader Gene Harris writes:
I am a retired Police Sergeant, Flagstaff AZ PD, and I agree with everything you said. We are only as good as the last attaboy and one ah shit wipes out a lot of attaboys! That said, I advocated getting FLOCK cameras out of my current town in Texas because of the growing abuse nationwide, and because of the abuse I see in other countries where a tool ostensibly for the good of citizen safety is turned on the people to suppress and surveil them.
Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1775, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
The statement context was a taxation issue involving the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Penn family during the French and Indian War, but it is as applicable today outside that context. We live in a mostly free country and the continuous erosion of freedom in the name of public safety does not bode well for us as a country, especially in light of many running for government office at all levels whose purpose is control.
Finally, a reader writes:
Rotary International’s guiding motto is “One Profits Most Who Serves Best.” These six words encapsulate that which everyone in our profession should strive for. I echo the article above, if you aren’t a professional serving the public with honor and integrity go sell shoes, cut grass or do anything else but public service. Your community deserves no less than your best.
