Drivers caught speeding in school zones will receive a citation beginning Monday in Fairfield.

The school zone safety cameras will operate 24/7, seven days a week. Below is the list of school zones with speed limits and times:

Outside of posted arrival and dismissal times, drivers are expected to obey the posted speed limit, 25 or 30 mph, depending on the road.

City officials said consistent enforcement is designed to assist in changing driving behavior and keep roads safe. The goal is to reduce speeding, especially in school zones, but not just when drivers see children leaving school.

Originally Posted By M4A2:
The freedom to travel is not having to worry about your government watching and tracking your everywhere abouts. Then saying it's for your safety while making people criminals. Let the police do their job.

Someone can wrap up 30 tickets before the first one ever comes to their house. Higher insurance, lose of license, registration revoked, ya not funny for someone just trying to make a living. They don't care all they care about is money. When a cop pulls you over you most definitely will be changing your tune. This is all just a money grab and a scam on the People of Connecticut.

How many cops saved people just by pulling over speeders? Such as kidnappings, abductions, PTSD, robberies, drugs, illegal aliens, sex traffickers, etc. uninsured vehicles or misuse of license plates ...this one here is going to be big, - remember all the thefts of the emission stickers? The corner of your plate was torn off. Guess what, here it comes.

Pfft that's ok we got the OWNER of the vehicles license plate not the person, what a joke. We have a picture of your abducted daughter abductors vehicle (if its the right plate) hauling her away to be raped then tossed on the side of the road in a garbage bag, though a cop right there doing a speed trap would have stopped that.

What ever happened they have to prove you were doing the crime? Let the cops do their job this way there is definitive proof.

There are already many complaints on this and funny how the yellow lights are not set at their correct "to be lit time".

The 30-day warning period began Monday for automated speed enforcement cameras in Wethersfield, according to police.
....
In the 30 days leading up to the enforcement, warning notices will be issued and mailed to the registered owner, police said.

About the enforcement cameras:

The enforcement cameras have built-in radar that can detect when a vehicle is traveling over the speed limit. The camera will take photos of the vehicle once it’s activated. The photo will be used to gather information to mail a citation.

The fines are based on the first offense and subsequent offenses. The first violation carries a fine of $50; subsequent violations carry a fine of $75. There’s also a processing fee of $15.

The speeding citation does not count against insurance, as it is a civil fine.

Drivers can challenge the ticket. A written challenge to the town must be completed within 10 days from the date at the top of the Notice of Violation.

Beginning Monday, drivers caught speeding through certain Connecticut work zones can expect to hear from the state. Work zone speed cameras are now live, and drivers could face a hefty fine.

Drivers caught on camera going more than 10 mph over the speed limit in a work zone will get a written warning for their first offense. After that, they will receive a $75 fine. Drivers caught going 85 mph or faster will not receive a warning and will receive a $75 fine.

The system uses sensors to detect when a vehicle is traveling more than 10 mph over the speed limit. It then captures a series of photos and collects speed data.

A sworn law enforcement officer reviews those photos and data before a warning or citation is issued.

So far, Windsor has ended its contract, while Killingworth said Thursday it might be the second municipality in the state to make the switch.

Windsor Mayor Nuchette Black-Burke (D) and the Windsor Town Council voted July 6 to permanently turn off 16 Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras, ending the town’s contract with the system. The decision followed a 5-4, divided vote by the Town Council against bringing the cameras back.

Milford police are investigating the vandalism of three Flock cameras in the city last Wednesday.

The damaged Flock cameras were in the area of 1770 Boston Post Road, near Exit 40, and Boston Post Road near East Town Road, police said Thursday.

No suspects have been charged as of Thursday morning, police said.

Starting Sunday motorists can expect to see speed cameras in the I-91 construction zone in Meriden.

According to the Connecticut Department of Transportation drivers caught on camera speeding through the zone can expect to receive a warning ticket in the at first. The posted speed limit in this area is 45 miles per hour. Tickets will be mailed to those clocked at going at least 10 mph over the posted limit.

Personnel with the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection will review images prior to citations being sent out.

“I’ve seen a lot of crazy stuff lately, a lot of racing a lot of racing. So, I kinda agree with it,” driver David Rivera said, who travels I-91 daily.

“I have coworkers who live in Hartford and they get stuck behind this traffic forever,” driver Bob Chaille said. “Maybe in the middle of the night when nobody is out here and nobody is working, maybe there is a problem [with speeding] but whenever I’m traveling it, it’s bumper to bumper.”

While some are on board with the idea of curbing speeding, others have their doubts on the program’s effectiveness. As more and more towns and cities adopt road cameras, flags are being raised for drivers’ privacy.

“I don’t like the idea of having myself recorded, license plate recorded,” Chaille said. “That just seems like an invasion of privacy and a total waste of money. I think the money would be better spent finishing the project.”

The cameras are part of the DOT’s “Know the Zone” program. Cameras will capture a series of images as vehicles approach and leave construction zones which will show the distance and time a vehicle has traveled.

Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Meriden I-91 construction speed zone cameras going active.

Speed cameras in Meriden I-91 construction zone start Sunday

Originally Posted By edgephoto:
Wow, even people in Cheshire don't want them. That says something....

The automated license plate reader system is under scrutiny in Milford after several Flock cameras were vandalized.

One of the license plate readers was recently damaged near 1770 Boston Post Road, close to Exit 40.

Some people say they help make the community safer, while others raise privacy concerns.

In July, Milford police said three Flock cameras near Boston Post Road and East Town Road were vandalized. The investigation remains ongoing, and there’s still no word on any suspects.

The City of Milford said the cameras capture photos of the vehicle’s license plate, along with the time and date the vehicle passed by.

The city says it keeps the data for 30 days and can help solve crimes.

Community members previously told News 8 about how they felt about the license plate readers:

“It’s a breach of privacy because, like the red light cameras, it’s like there’s a red light camera here, but the Flock cameras they have no signage telling you that they are there, and I think it’s scary because I feel like AI is scary because I just think of like the Terminator,” Sailor Mullaney of Milford said.

“I think they are good to catch criminals and different things like that, so again I think they are good,” Darlene Miakos of Milford said.

Three municipalities, including Old Saybrook and Windsor, have canceled Flock Cameras out of privacy concerns.

Residents can voice their opinions at a Board of Aldermen meeting starting Monday at 7:30 p.m.

News 8 reached out to Flock Safety for comment and is waiting for a response.

Cities and towns across Connecticut are either reconsidering or doubling down on their use of Flock Safety cameras as questions arise around the use of its devices.

Killingworth is now the second town in the state to walk back on its two-year contract with Flock. Town leaders say the cameras did little to curb speeding drivers.

“We’re all trying to make the best decisions with the limited resources we have,” Killingworth First Selectman Eric Couture said. “Something like this can help the police, but there are obviously a large amount of questions.”

Flock Safety has spurred conversations around data privacy in recent years, specifically around data misuse and mass surveillance. Its devices often capture photos of the vehicle’s license plates along with the time and date the vehicle passed.  

“People feel like they are under constant surveillance and that their Fourth Amendment rights are being violated,” Milford First District Alderman Andy Fowler said. “The city is now having conversations to possibly reconsider its use of Flock cameras after a handful were vandalized.”

During a Monday night meeting in Milford, City Hall was filled with residents ready to express their concerns.

“The real issue is that these cameras are most likely in violation of the Fourth Amendment,” Milford resident Tristen Haller said during the meeting on Monday.

Other residents remained on the fence.

“I am for it because it helped solve a murder in my neighborhood on East Broadway, but I’m against it because I think they are collecting too much private information on our residents,” Milford resident Danielle Rhea said.

After the meeting, Milford did not make any decisions about its future with Flock. Milford’s police chief Keith Mello released the following statement on Monday:

“ALPR technology is an indispensable tool for investigation and crime prevention, enabling the immediate identification of vehicles connected to serious offenses. On average, our department leverages this system in support of six criminal investigations per day.”

Flock has previously stated that it does not sell its data to third parties. Yet, some remain skeptical over the use of the devices.

“Information has been useful for some police departments in solving crimes,” University of New Haven Professor of Criminal Justice Ken Gray said, noting the Cheshire Police Department’s recent use of its cameras to find the person responsible for tearing up a local grass field.

“Analysis of big data like this can be used to turn up all kinds of information and all kinds of connections,” Gray said.

Middletown city leaders heard questions from residents Monday night on a proposal to partner with Flock. A $50,000 contract has been drafted to use Flock drones — a tool the Middletown Police Department is calling game-changing for first responders.

“The drone will not fly unless it is going to an actual incident,” Middletown Police Chief Erik Costa said on Monday. “It does not fly independently just to view the city as a patrol officer would be driving around in his cruiser patrolling a sector of the city.”

The city says the system will not be used to read license plates and that data taken will only be stored for 30 days. The city currently does not have any Flock road cameras installed.

Middletown Common Council didn’t vote on anything regarding Flock during a meeting on Monday, with Mayor Gene Nocera stating that they were not ready to sign on to any agreements with the company.

The proposal is still being considered by the city.

There was more objection to Flock cameras in Connecticut on Tuesday night, this time in Cheshire.

The council members were not scheduled to talk about Flock cameras or automated license plate readers at Tuesday’s Cheshire Town Council meeting. But the public brought the issue to them as the debate sweeps across the state.

Invasion of privacy and access to driver records is at the center of most residents’ concerns.

“If an actual police officer wanted to follow you the way that these cameras do, they would need a minimum of a reasonable suspicion to be able to do so,” lifelong Cheshire resident Mike Rapetski said.

“This is not right. This is being shoved down our throats and I feel it should be definitely put to a vote,” Robin Tiso added.

The meeting comes one night after Milford held a very similar public comment session, which lasted hours. Some Connecticut towns have already removed the cameras or are working to do so. But police officials, including Cheshire Police Chief Fred Jortner said they have helped.

“Certainly, I am sensitive to the opinions of everyone,” Chief Jortner said. “However, here in Cheshire they have a great purpose and help us settle a great deal of crime. They are a useful tool.”

Flock has previously stated that it does not sell its data to third parties. The debate on the usage of these cameras in Connecticut and throughout the country continues.

News 8 reached out to Flock Safety, the company that makes the cameras. We have not received a statement at this time.

Two Democratic state senators and Gov. Ned Lamont are weighing in on a possible moratorium on Flock Safety cameras amid privacy concerns and data sharing.

A debate unfolded regarding the Flock Safety cameras at the town meeting in Milford this week. Several towns and cities across the state are either reconsidering or moving forward with adopting contracts with the surveillance company.

Sen. James Maroney (D-Milford) and House Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) are both looking for the state to pause and reassess the use of Flock Safety cameras on Connecticut streets.

The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection is also being asked to survey the number of cameras there are across the state.

The concerns are over who can see the information the cameras gather about everyone who drives by, and whether ICE is using that data.

In a statement sent to News 8, the CEO of Flock said it is following state rules about only sharing information with neighboring states.

“It’s a technical limitation now, and so we applaud them for making that decision and by and large support efforts by the lawmakers to make it clear what is and what is not permissible in the state of Connecticut,” CEO of Flock Safety Garrett Langley said.

“We passed a law about public property, being on public property in certain parameters around that. Now they’re on private property, there’s drones,” Senator Duff said.

Republican lawmakers like Sen. Jeff Gordon, who represents the 35th District, say they’re hoping for a bipartisan effort at the statehouse to enhance protections surrounding the use of Flock.

Governor Lamont said he would be open to signing a moratorium on Flock cameras.

Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Now people are vandalizing Flock cameras in CT...

3 Flock cameras vandalized in Milford, police investigating

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) is calling for a review of the increased statewide use of safety cameras and automated license plate readers (ALPR), saying that residents are “justifiably concerned” about privacy issues that can result from the technology.

Lamont is asking for all municipalities to pause installation of cameras and ALPRs until final guidance has been developed by the Connecticut Police Officers Standards and Training Council that outlines privacy provisions within existing Connecticut state statutes.

Lamont is requesting that the council develop guidance for local and state police departments within the next 30 days. Statewide police departments have been asked to wait for specific policies to be adopted within existing state statutes before implementing technology.

Lamont is requesting that the guidance do the following:

Identify camera and ALPR technologies in use today (including school zone traffic enforcement safety devices, work zone speed control cameras, fixed ALPR devices, drones, etc.) and the laws, regulations and/or rules for each of these technologies
Outline Connecticut law surrounding permissible use of the data collected by ALPRs and safety cameras: how long information may be stored, how it may be used, and how it may or may not be shared outside of local and state authorities
Discuss the relevant Trust Act, Shield Law, and data confidentiality provisions in state law
Recommend policies to be created and adopted by a local or state agency before further technology is rolled out by that entity
Lamont signed legislation in May that includes provisions intended to clarify some of these privacy concerns in state statutes.

Flock Safety released a statement saying:

“Flock welcomes Governor Lamont’s directive to conduct a review of public safety technology, including License Plate Readers. These tools play a critical role in modern public safety, and they must be used responsibly.

“We’ve been honored to collaborate with the Connecticut Police Officers Standards and Training Council (POST) and offer testimony before Connecticut’s Public Safety and Judiciary Committees leading up to the passage of Public Act 26-14, one of the strongest ALPR laws in the country. This law provides a clear framework and demonstrates how safety and privacy are not competing priorities.

“Flock leads the industry with innovative trust and compliance tools and has already built product guardrails that mirror the requirements of the law. We are confident in the safeguards we’ve designed, including creating a Connecticut-specific written attestation process for data sharing; limiting eligible sharing relationships to neighboring states as required by the law; and applying a 21-day retention period across Connecticut.

“Flock ALPR has made a real impact on Connecticut agencies’ ability to solve crimes, especially involving violent crime, missing people, and fleeing suspects when every minute matters. Just recently, authorities called their Flock system ‘vital’ in leading to multiple arrests in a deadly home invasion in Milford. In July alone, license plate readers in Connecticut alerted to nine missing people.

“We look forward to continuing to work with elected officials and law enforcement on transparency and accountability to keep this life saving public safety tool in Connecticut.”

Joe Cooper, deputy director of communications at the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT DOT), released the following statement:

“We appreciate the Governor encouraging the Connecticut Police Officers Standards and Training Council to take a closer look at public safety technologies, which serve different purposes and are subject to separate privacy requirements under state law. Both the Automated Work Zone Speed Control Program and Automated Traffic Enforcement Safety Device Program have strong privacy protections to ensure the safety benefits of these cameras are balanced with safeguards against misuse of data.”

Department of Emergency Services & Public Protection spokesperson Richard Green said in a statement:

“We acknowledge the privacy concerns raised by Governor Lamont about the use of safety cameras and automated license plate reader technology by municipalities in Connecticut. In coming days the Police Officers Standards and Training Council will be responding to the governor’s request, including policy recommendations for future use of camera and ALPR technology.”

State Sen. Stephen Harding (R-30th) released a statement saying:

“Let the damage control begin. Gov. Lamont signed this bill into law. And he apparently did so despite having significant unanswered questions about it? He signed it without knowing what type of technology would be deployed, where these cameras would be installed, and how the data would be used and shared? He signed it, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and now he’s attempting to clean up the big mess.”

New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker said in a statement:

“While New Haven does not use Flock as the provider for our safety camera system, safety cameras are an invaluable tool for the New Haven Police Department that are helping to keep our residents and community safe. Cameras help our officers respond to public safety incidents in real-time and provide critical evidence that support investigations that enable us to apprehend criminals and bring them to justice.

“At the same time, it’s important that camera technology has appropriate privacy protections, and we have worked very hard to strike that balance and maintain control of the data from our camera systems. We intend to continue to use safety cameras and license plate reader technology in a manner that appropriately balances the need to keep our community safe while also respecting the privacy of our residents.

“We are making significant progress on gun violence in our city, and these cameras have played an important role in that progress. While we understand the concerns of the governor and some legislators, we urge them not put additional restrictions on the use of cameras without collaborating and engaging with cities like New Haven.”

Flock Safety will implement new privacy and data retention policies as pressure grows on the automated license plate operator to prevent its technology from being abused or used to conduct mass surveillance.

The company announced Thursday that it will reduce its default data retention window from 30 to seven days, cutting the amount of time data will sit in Flock’s systems. Agencies can still change the retention period in coordination with state or local policy.

It will also introduce an option for cities to control which types of offenses call for other agencies’ access to the Flock cameras, in an effort to give “communities more control over data sharing” while still permitting collaborations when needed.

A juvenile and a man are accused of vandalizing license plate reader cameras last month on Boston Post Road in Milford, according to police.

Eyad Rahim, 20, of Milford, turned himself in to police on an arrest warrant on Aug. 1. He was charged with four counts of first-degree criminal mischief and three counts of first-degree conspiracy to commit criminal mischief.

According to police, there were two incidents of vandalism to the cameras.

The two suspects were arrested in connection with the three cameras that were damaged on July 15.

The other vandalism incident happened on July 3, when only one camera was vandalized, but authorities have not charged any suspects.

Police did not release any additional information on the juvenile.

Rahim is due in court on Sept. 1.

Originally Posted By PGAEMU:


I wonder if towns are setting up
cameras to monitor the cameras.

Milford residents will have the opportunity to voice their opinions on Flock cameras at a public meeting Wednesday hosted by police and city leaders.

DeFlock Milford, a group that has advocated to have these cameras removed, is expected to be at the meeting. They said many cameras were installed in Milford with no public vote.

Milford Police Union has a much different stance on the matter.

Last week, the union sent a letter to the mayor pleading to keep those cameras, saying shutting them down puts “police officers and the community alike at risk,” and adding the technology has helped solve crimes.

It comes as several communities across Connecticut have called for the cameras to come down over privacy concerns. Gov. Ned Lamont has also called for a statewide review of these cameras.

Another big concern Milford residents voiced at a public meeting last month was how long their data is stored. The city says it’s only accessible for 30 days, but people previously said they were skeptical of that.

“We make mistakes and you definitely made a big one with these cameras. all that I have to say is fix it,” Mark Lofthouse said.

“I am for it because it helped solve a murder in my neighborhood on East Broadway, but I’m against it because I think they are collecting too much private information on our residents,” Danielle Rhea said.

This comes as three Flock cameras were vandalized in Milford in recent weeks.

Wednesday’s meeting is from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at Parson’s Auditorium on West River Street.

Milford’s heated debate on the use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs), as well as speed and red light cameras, continues Wednesday night at a public town hall hosted by police and city officials.

Many community members are up in arms about risks to privacy and constitutional rights.

“They’re collecting everyone’s information, they’re treating everyone as guilty until proven innocent,” DeFlock Milford organizer Sarah Wood said. “People say, well, if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. But what happens when the definition of wrong changes?”

Earlier this week, Milford’s police union penned an open letter warning that “shutting down essential safety systems puts police officers and the community alike at risk.”

Milford residents like Bobby McNulty are in favor of keeping the cams.

“If you’re not guilty of any[thing], you should have no worry,” McNulty said. “A cop can get a call, ‘oh, somebody just hit my car and they ran off.’ If it happened on this corner, you have cameras. Bingo, there’s a make and color. Throw it in and you can catch them a lot quicker.”

Without getting into exactly which cameras were used, Milford Police Chief Keith Mello credited technology in the recent arrest of a homicide suspect from a murder on East Broadway.

“This technology was extremely important,” Mello said at a press conference in July. “It was vital to develop evidence in this case.”

Regardless of the benefits, Wood said installing them in the first place should have been a vote. Still, she’s grateful for the opportunity to speak now.

“I do want to thank the mayor, and I want to thank the police chief for holding this Q&A,” Wood said. “I think it’s really valuable for our leaders to hear from their community, and there can be an open dialogue.”

The public meeting is happening Wednesday night from 6-9 p.m. at Parsons Auditorium on West River Street.

News 8 will have a recap of the meeting at 10 and 11 p.m.

Originally Posted By sbhaven:
On a side note.......

The Newtown Police Department will be pausing the use of automated license plate readers.

The decision to halt use of the readers comes after a recent legislative council meeting where residents voiced concerns with them.

In a statement, the Newtown Board of Police Commissioners and the Newtown Police Department said they will suspend the use of the readers and work with officials and residents to find common ground on the issue.

During the pause, the department said it will provide the Board of Police Commissioners with documentation that confirm the devices are inactive and not being used for law enforcement searches or image collection.

Officials said the change is being made to show transparency.

The Board of Police Commissioners and the Newtown Police Department said they remain committed to working with local leaders to reach a decision that reflects the community’s values.

The Milford mayor held a press conference Wednesday afternoon to discuss the city’s use of automated traffic enforcement safety devices (ATESDs).

Mayor Richard M. Smith said he would recommend that the Milford Board of Aldermen adopt significant changes to the city’s ATESDs and automated license plate reader programs at a special meeting of the Board of Aldermen on Thursday.

Specifically, the mayor is seeking to suspend the operational use of ATESDs pending a comprehensive review of the city’s ATESD program. He is also seeking to restrict the use of all automated license plate readers (ALPRs), except those currently located at Milford’s entry points, according to a city statement.

The aforementioned suspension would give Milford a “needed opportunity” to review the program based on issues such as enforcement locations and hours, fines, subsequent violations, citation and hearing procedures, and citations involving leased or rented vehicles, the mayor’s office stated.

“Milford residents have raised legitimate questions about how these technologies should be used in our community, and I have listened,” Smith said in a written statement. “These technologies can serve important public-safety purposes, but their use must be accompanied by appropriate limitations, oversight, and accountability. I believe the changes I am recommending strike a better balance between public safety and the privacy and concerns of our residents.”

The topic of automated enforcement has been a conversation in Milford for months.

The local police union had most recently sent a letter to the city’s Board of Aldermen and mayor, stating that “shutting down essential safety systems puts police officers and the community alike at risk,” continuing the conversation surrounding automated safety systems in the city.

In Milford late Thursday night, the Board of Aldermen voted in favor of pausing the use of most speed, red light, and Flock cameras in the city.

The meeting was scheduled to start at 7:30 p.m., but they had to go into recess several times as protestors had started chanting outside the meeting more than an hour before it started and kept interrupting the meeting over several hours.

Calling this meeting contentious does not do this meeting justice. The people shouting in the audience made it almost impossible to hear what was being discussed by the Board of Aldermen.

The board’s vote finally happened after midnight on the mayor’s plan to pause the use of all speed and red light cameras and to pause the use of all the Flock cameras except the ones by the highway ramps.

It passed 9 to 5.

“I support the resolution. It reduces the points of, it reduces the number of…it limits the data. It’s not the end, it’s the beginning,” Milford Alder Jennifer Federico (D) said.

The board also voted to create a Public Safety & Technology Review Committee that would review the use of any camera system, the contracts, and the companies twice every year and report its recommendations to the board.

After voting on the mayor’s resolution to pause the cameras, the board quickly adjourned.

It’s worth noting the police union filed paperwork with the state labor department to get a cease and desist letter. They want the state to step in and keep the city from pausing the cameras.

“The Milford Police Union is in communication with the City Attorney,” they said in a statement on Friday. “Once we receive final, written documents, we plan to review the resolutions in order to evaluate our position on what was passed and what was not.  The police officers in Milford value their relationship with the community and they look forward to resolving the camera issues fairly and safely with all stakeholders.”

They requested a hearing for Sept. 8.

News 8 has reached out to Flock and the police union for comment.

Nine license plate reader (LPR) cameras have been deactivated and are scheduled to be removed around Sept. 21, according to a list released by the Milford Police Department.

The decision to remove the LPRs and pause all other speed and red light cameras came after an hours-long Board of Aldermen meeting on Thursday, Aug. 27. The LPRs were deactivated before last week’s meeting.

The following LPRs have been deactivated and are no longer operational:

• Gulf Street at New Haven Avenue (deactivated Aug. 12)
• Woodruff Avenue at Post Road (deactivated Aug. 24)
• Woodmont Avenue at Higgins Road (deactivated Aug. 24)
• Broad Street at High Street (deactivated Aug. 24)
• Anderson Avenue at Pepes Farm Road (deactivated Aug. 24)
• Merwin Avenue at Oxford Road (deactivated Aug. 24)
• U.S. Route 1 at School House Road (deactivated Aug. 25)
• U.S. Route 1 at CT Post Mall, main entrance. (deactivated Aug. 25)
• U.S. 1 at CT Post Mall, East Town (deactivated Aug. 25)

The physical devices are scheduled to be removed by the vendor on or about Sept. 21, according to the police department.

The remaining LPRs are located at entry points into Milford from neighboring towns, on Interstate 95, Route 15 and the Milford connector.

Following the resolution passed at the Aug. 27 meeting, the town’s speed and red-light cameras have been paused and are no longer recording violations.

The City of Milford and the Milford Police Department Employees Union came together Tuesday to discuss the use of Flock cameras, following a complaint filed by the union after a push to do away with the devices.

The police union previously filed a complaint with the State Labor Relations Board after city leaders discussed a proposal to pause and remove the cameras earlier this summer.

Recently, the Board of Aldermen came to an agreement to pause and remove cameras in residential areas, leaving others around entrance points along the city.

“I had heard from a lot of residents over the last several months; it is overwhelming that people do not want to keep the flock cameras in Milford,” Board of Aldermen member Toni Lombardi said. “I think [the city is] trying to find a happy medium and I appreciate that they’re at least trying to form a committee to investigate this further.”

In a statement sent to News 8, Attorney Marshall Segar, representing the police union, said:

“The Milford Police Department Employees Union and the City of Milford have met as scheduled by the State Labor Board. Based on these discussions and the content of the resolutions passed by the Board of Alders, the Union has withdrawn its petition for Interim Relief. The Complaint before the State Labor Board is still active and our next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 19. The Union and the City are committed to ultimately reaching a final understanding as soon as we can.”

The city’s attorney also reiterated the statement, noting “the city and the Union have had productive discussions and remain committed to working together toward a final resolution as soon as possible.”

The police union previously shared that while it supports the cameras, it also values its relationship with the community.

While many residents have concerns over privacy, other say they don’t mind Flock if used responsibly to solve crime.

“A lot of these crimes happen and they’re not from here; they’re coming in from somewhere else,” Vicki Washuk said. “People have the right to their opinion; seems like a lot of people are upset about it. I’m not really too upset about it.”

Residents have previously pushed back on the surveillance cameras at a handful of city hall discussions. Sarah Wood, who helped to organize previous protests against Flock cameras in Milford, said she still remains skeptical of the Flock cameras in the city and hopes residents’ concerns can still be considered during discussions on the complaint.

“We need to come to a better compromise,” Wood said, “We are concerned about this technology.”

Another town in Connecticut is wondering what to do with its Flock cameras.

Community members in South Windsor want to know who has access to the data and where it is stored.

The chief of police addressed the town council during a meeting

He showed a photo of exactly what the Flock cameras take pictures of: the license plate of the car, as well as the time and location.

Many people were still calling for the license plate readers to be shut down.

“Being surveilled without committing a crime, just passing by on your normal day, makes a lot of people unsettled,” resident Tim Appleton said.

On the street, it was also being debated.

“It’s a big moral dilemma. You’re spying on the citizens, but it also helps prevent crimes. It’s really up to the individual and how they view it,” Tyler Brown said.

“I personally think Flovk cameras are a disturbance to our community,” Ryan Tarbint said.

It’s the latest community in Connecticut to call for changes in how the cameras are used.

The most recent, Milford, voted to turn off some cameras.

South Windsor Police Chief Kristian Lindstrom talked about how the cameras are an important policing tool and said they help solve crimes and reduce victimization.

The chief said in the last year-and-a-half, Flock cameras have helped the department in 104 separate instances.

“It’s very difficult to put a price on a life and it’s easy for us to pass judgment that it’s not worth it,” the chief said. “But tell that to the one person whose loved one is missing and we find them.”

Back in August, Gov. Ned Lamont also weighed in, called for a pause on the installation of any new cameras, while asking for the Connecticut Police Officers Standards and Training Council to conduct a review.

The 30-day time frame for that review has since passed.

Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Milford's police union apparently filed a complaint about Milford's move to pause use of Flock cameras.

Milford Police Union, city leaders meet with state labor board over Flock camera complaint