Back the blue: More abuse of Flock cameras by the police

Pimping ain’t easy.

they can find grannies that made jan6 facebook posts but our major cities are crime hellholes and no one gets caught.

but put flock cameras in the burbs to track the soccer moms. do nothing chicken shite ticket regime rolls unabated

quote:

---

they can find grannies that made jan6 facebook posts but our major cities are crime hellholes and no one gets caught.

but put flock cameras in the burbs to track the soccer moms. do nothing chicken shite ticket regime rolls unabated

---

Its why they put dui checkpoints next to campus and not in the ghetto. The parents will bail them out and pay the fines.

Louisville Metro is suing to keep the surveillance private, even though it's run by the government and should be available in an Open Records Request.

It was requested by a public defender and they denied the request:

quote:

---

Last September, public defender Ryan Dischinger was gathering evidence for a case tied to an alleged burglary on West Jefferson Street.

Knowing the city uses surveillance cameras, Dischinger asked for copies of 24 hours’ worth of footage from a roughly three-block radius around the scene to see who may have been coming or going from the area.

Keeping with a recent pattern of refusing to disclose location details about the city’s surveillance apparatus, Louisville Metro government officials wouldn’t provide the recordings. City open records staff said releasing the footage to Dischinger would reveal the locations of various cameras and in turn make them less effective at fighting crime, could expose the city’s vulnerabilities to terrorism, and would cost taxpayer money relocating the cameras to new vantage points.

---

They then slow played the denial until the video reached the period where it is typically deleted:

quote:

---

Last month, city officials doubled down on their effort to keep the recordings secret by filing a lawsuit in Jefferson Circuit Court challenging a Kentucky Attorney General decision that determined Louisville Metro broke state open records law by denying Dischinger’s request.

But in a strange twist, the footage that Dischinger wants and the city has gone to court to protect apparently no longer exists. City open records staff indicated in a December response to Dischinger that the footage was erased, in line with the city’s practice of deleting surveillance video recordings after 30 days. Public documents show Dischinger wanted footage for Sept. 2 and submitted his request on Sept. 30. The city denied his request on Oct. 1.

---

But yeah, totally on the up and up.

LPM Article on Lawsuit

quote:

---

three officers repeatedly accessed the Sheriff’s Office’s Flock license plate reader database for reasons unrelated to legitimate law enforcement wo

---

sounds like the issue is with 3 dipshit officers rather than the cameras themselves. Doctors write phony scripts all the time every day but we don't suggest doing away with prescriptions.

They should all be torn down.

Locally they have been "discontinued" for the time being.. but they're all still up.

quote:

---

They then slow played the denial until the video reached the period where it is typically deleted:

---

This should be a Brady violation and cause for the case to be instantly dropped.

quote:

---

The VP of Flock used it to watch girls gymnastics competitions at a community center in Atlanta.

---

I’m no proponent of Flock, but wasn’t this story explained as he was using it in a sales presentation? Doesn’t make it right, but neither does calling him a pervert if that was the actual use in this situation

Flock cameras need be eradicated

quote:

---

They then slow played the denial until the video reached the period where it is typically deleted:

---

For a govt agency is a request that was made on September 30th and then denied on Oct 1st really slow playing it? I would hope some desk clerk isn’t making the decision to hand over that kind of video on the spot.

If the “after” part is policy then technically October 2nd was “after” 30 days (not sure if time of day video recorded also factors in & pushing it to a certain time on the 2nd). Did they deny it a minute before closing on the 1st and then had it auto delete after midnight on the 2nd? Is there any policy on appealing decision including not deleting the video until appeal decision made?

quote:

---

in line with the city’s practice of deleting surveillance video recordings after 30 days. Public documents show Dischinger wanted footage for Sept. 2 and submitted his request on Sept. 30. The city denied his request on Oct. 1.

---

Separately I think a court order should be required to get this kind of video, but that process should require video not being deleted once a reasonable and specific request made until a judge decides (if request made in time before a standardized deletion date). That request seems a little broad to just hand over without a court order. It also seems like the cops making the decision could have some major conflict of interest concerns.