Delegates Issue Friday Deadline For Flock To Answer Questions

State lawmakers have warned surveillance company Flock Safety they may compel company officials to testify if they don’t respond to questions by Friday.  

In August, lawmakers heard from Kevin Kane, director of Government Affairs for Flock Safety at a legislative interim meeting.  

Del. Tristan Leavitt, R-Kanawha, asked several questions about the company’s security and the scope of their technology.  

He said such information is critical as elected officials consider legislation to regulate automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems like the ones offered by Flock and other companies.  

“We do not want to end up in a scenario where technology is widely deployed that can be hacked and leave West Virginians vulnerable to their information being misused,” Leavitt said. “So, it is important that we get this information so that we can know exactly, you know, what different types of laws could address these issues.”  

Reporting from Mother Jones, a nonprofit progressive magazine, has found that at least seven West Virginia communities have already spent or are planning to spend opioid settlement funds on ALPR systems from Flock and Motorola. The city of Huntington approved a contract with Flock Group in July to install camera systems in the city that is now the subject of a lawsuit and a ballot initiative. 

Leavitt said at the August hearing Kane was candid in his lack of information to properly answer certain questions.    

But over the past two months, Leavitt and at least three other delegates have sent two public letters containing 19 follow-up questions and data requests to Flock. 

“That was the witness that we had. Those were the questions that he indicated to get back to us more information on, and they are a company that has the vast majority of the market share,” Leavitt said. “It’s estimated at 80% of all automated license plate readers in the country are Flock products, and they are also the ones that have had major controversy around how they present their products to the public, and how that compares to how they present it to law enforcement or to other customers.”  

An Aug. 14 letter asks Flock to provide information and documentation of topics ranging from “Security Incidents & Unauthorized Access”, data sharing practices and the system’s accuracy. The letter is signed by Leavitt, Del. Ryan Browning, R–Wayne, and Del. Patrick Lucas, R–Cabell.  

Dan Haley, chief legal officer for Flock responded with a ten-page letter Sept. 1, addressing each overarching topic – if not answering every question – in the Aug. 14 letter.  

Leavitt isn’t satisfied with the answers he’s received, as exemplified by the opening of the Sept. 3 letter he, Browning and Lucas sent to Flock. They were now joined by Del. Chris Phillips, R–Barbour, chair of the House Government Organization committee. 

“Thank you for your September 1 letter. We appreciate the opportunity to correct the misimpression, reflected in your response, that a two-page exercise in corporate reframing constitutes an answer to nineteen specific information and document requests,” the letter reads. “We also welcome the chance to set the record straight on where clarity was lost—not in a “fast-paced, live exchange,” but in the two weeks your legal team had to draft a considered written response.” 

Flock followed up with a single page Sept. 16. 

“While we felt our prior correspondence addressed the questions posed, it is evident from your most recent correspondence that those answers were not satisfactory,” Flock’s response reads. “To avoid any further misunderstandings, we believe it would be beneficial to meet with you again. We would welcome the opportunity to sit down together to discuss your remaining questions and review our answers directly.” 

Leavitt said Flock’s offer is to meet with him and other lawmakers behind closed doors.  

“We scheduled a public hearing for a reason. Those interim meetings are open to the public. We want that information to be had by West Virginia citizens, so that whatever decisions we make, the public can also be informed about why we’re doing what we’re doing, and to help guide us.” 

In their latest letter dated Oct. 5, Leavitt and colleagues give Flock until Friday, Oct. 9 to respond publicly or face compulsory process. 

“In layman’s terms we could issue a subpoena requiring -- the same way that a judge might require -- that Flock safety provide the documents and the answers that we have requested, or also provide testimony if necessary,” Leavitt said. “That kind of subpoena would require that they produce documents that were kind of sufficient to show the answers to the questions we were asking, so that we can be able to make the determinations around what laws should be there.” 

ALPRs continue to attract considerable public interest, made difficult by what Leavitt says is the public not understanding all the nuances of how the technology works. He believes this is an issue where the legislature can play a helpful role in communicating information, as well as their responsibility to legislate.  

“I think it’s in Flock’s interest to help this information be known so that they can kind of clear the air on what, until now, has been a very unsatisfactory series of interactions,” Leavitt said. “Because I think where it stands right now, a lot of people are wondering how we can trust a company like this if they won’t even answer questions straightforwardly from the legislature.”