Privacy and Police Work Collide in Crockett Camera Debate
By Greg Ritchie
Messenger Reporter
CROCKETT — Two residents brought concerns about government surveillance to the Crockett City Council meeting Monday, Oct. 19, questioning what police cameras record about people who have done nothing wrong.
During public comments, they urged council members to consider the risks of collecting drivers’ movements and sharing that information with other law enforcement agencies. Their objections went beyond whether they trusted the officers currently serving Crockett. They questioned how future officials might use the same technology and whether its crime-solving benefits justified that reach into everyday life.
Later in the meeting, Police Chief Clayton Smith stepped forward to explain the department’s license plate readers and address those concerns.
Privacy, data retention and access to information were among the questions being raised across the country, he said.
“Probably the hottest of everything is the misuse of it,” Smith said.
The Crockett Police Department (CPD) has operated license plate readers since 2022, according to Smith. Its equipment includes one mobile unit and three cameras that can be relocated around the city.
The readers photograph license plates and record when and where a vehicle passes. Police can check that information against alerts or search records in connection with an investigation.
Smith said officers must verify an alert, including whether the photographed plate matches the information returned by the system. An alert alone does not automatically establish grounds to stop a driver, he said.
Records collected by Crockett’s system are transmitted to the Texas Department of Public Safety and retained for 365 days, Smith said. Officers access the system through individual credentials and two-factor authentication, and searches require a case number and an explanation.
“It has to be related to criminal activities,” Smith said. “It has to be tied to a criminal case that we’re investigating.”
Smith explained that the system’s value extends beyond cameras inside the city. CPD shares information with 701 agencies and receives data from 1,840 agencies, giving investigators a way to follow leads across jurisdictions.
He cited Crockett’s block party shooting investigation, saying license plate technology helped identify suspects and connect the investigation with shootings in other cities.
“You can’t put a price tag on that,” Smith said of the information available to investigators.
But the same access requires oversight, he acknowledged. Searches leave an audit trail showing who accessed information and why. Smith said he knew of no local incidents involving officers misusing the system.
The department had reviewed searches every six months and was discussing moving to quarterly reviews, he said.
Councilwoman NaTrenia Hicks questioned the expense of maintaining a system that also records people who are not suspected of wrongdoing.
“So the taxpayers basically are having to pay for access for them to be tracked?” Hicks asked.
Precinct One Councilman Dennis Ivey pointed out taxpayers pay for any speeding tickets they get, too.
Smith said CPD budgets $5,724 annually for access to the system and its information. Grants have supported equipment purchases.
Hicks then raised Fourth Amendment privacy concerns and read from an announcement by Texas Comptroller Don Huffines restricting grant funding for license plate surveillance technology.
Smith responded that Crockett does not use Flock-brand cameras. He also distinguished grants already awarded to the city from restrictions that could affect future funding.
Hicks continued reading, pointing to language covering automated license plate readers and related systems beyond the Flock brand.
The comptroller’s Oct. 13 announcement applies to future grants administered by that office and restricts spending on qualifying equipment, software and services. It does not itself direct Crockett to remove its existing cameras.
Hicks remained opposed.
“Whatever the council chooses, I’m okay with it, but I cannot support that part,” she said.
Smith asked council members to consider what equipment they would want investigators to have if a crime affected their own families.
“If your house gets burglarized, your tractor gets stolen, your kid gets kidnapped, would you want every piece of equipment available to try to solve that case or find that suspect?” he asked.
City Administrator John Angerstein then reminded council members of the purpose of the agenda item.
“This was requested by council to be placed on for a presentation and discussion,” Angerstein said. “This is not an action item.”
Previous grant applications for the equipment had come before council, he said. Reconsidering its use could be placed on a future agenda.
The next item, however, brought the cameras back into the discussion.
Smith was seeking approval of a revised police policy manual. He described the existing policies as severely outdated, with some pages photocopied so often that the text ran sideways or off the page.
The revisions were intended to provide clear instructions for officers’ daily work. Councilman Christopher Price moved to approve the manual, and Councilman Dennis Ivey seconded the motion.
Hicks pointed out that the manual included the license plate reader policy. Approving it, she said, would include approving the policy governing the technology they had just debated.
She then turned to provisions concerning financial authority, questioning whether they bypassed council oversight by assigning responsibilities to city staff.
“You’re actually bypassing the council,” Hicks said, questioning the roles of the city manager, finance director and treasurer.
Smith explained that council members approve the police budget, while routine expenditures are handled within that authorization. Major purchases would still come before council.
Hicks asked how members could review departmental spending. Smith said expenditures were tracked through the city’s budget software.
She also questioned language allowing emergency expenditures. Smith described a police vehicle needing a transmission repair and explained why it could not wait for another council meeting.
“We have to have that car on the road,” he said.
Replacing an entire vehicle would be a different matter, Smith said, and would come before council.
Hicks continued asking about access to financial records.
“If I have any questions about any expenditures, that’s not micromanaging,” she said. “I can ask those questions.”
Smith said purchases were supported by invoices or receipts and that records were available.
Councilman Hudson Duren raised his voice as the exchange continued.
“This is not a budget workshop,” Duren said. “This is about policy.”
As Hicks continued trying to speak, Mayor Dr. Ianthia Fisher banged her gavel, looked toward Hicks and intervened.
“That’s enough,” Fisher said.
Duren then called the previous question to end debate. The procedural motion received a second and was approved.
Hicks sought clarification from City Attorney Donna Kaspar, who explained that approval of the motion had cut off discussion. The council would now vote on the original motion to adopt the revised police policies.
The manual passed 3-2, with Price, Ivey and Duren voting in favor. Hicks and Councilman Roy “Rocky” Simon voted against it.
Greg Ritchie can be reached at [email protected]
