Flock cameras have no business in Lewiston | Letter

Lewiston’s New Surveillance System Draws Scrutiny Amid Supreme Court Ruling on Geofence Warrants

Lewiston, Maine – In a move that has raised questions about privacy and law‑enforcement technology, the city’s police department began a 60‑day trial of an AI‑enabled camera system in October 2025. The program, supplied by the company Flock Safety, was funded in part by a U.S. Department of Justice grant awarded to the city in June 2025. Although the trial has ended, the cameras remain installed and the city has yet to terminate its contract, a decision that has prompted calls from residents and local officials to reconsider the system’s use.

A Supreme Court Decision That May Impact Local Surveillance

In the case Chatrie v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6‑3 ruling late in its last term to invalidate a policing method known as a “geofence warrant.” A geofence warrant compels a technology company—such as Google—to hand over location data for every mobile device within a specified area and time frame, regardless of whether a suspect has been identified. The Court found that the practice violates the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches, describing it as a “mass, dragnet search of innocent people guilty of no crime.”

The decision, while focused on mobile‑device data, has implications for a range of mass‑surveillance tools, including automated license‑plate readers (ALPRs) and camera networks that collect and analyze imagery on a large scale. “Automated license plate readers are like a geofence warrant, a mass surveillance tactic and a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment,” one local resident said. That perspective has fueled debate over the legality and ethics of Lewiston’s camera system.

From DOJ Grant to City‑Wide Cameras

The Lewiston City Council’s June 2025 approval of a portion of the DOJ’s Byrne Community Grant—intended for “surveillance camera technology”—provided the financial groundwork for the city’s partnership with Flock Safety. The grant money was earmarked to fund a 13‑camera network that was installed across key downtown locations. The city’s police department signed a 60‑day trial contract with Flock Safety in October 2025, allowing law‑enforcement officers to test the system’s capabilities and performance.

The cameras use artificial‑intelligence software to recognize faces, vehicles, and other objects in real time and to trigger alerts when specified patterns are detected. Flock Safety’s technology is marketed as a “smart camera” platform that can help reduce crime and improve public safety by providing officers with immediate situational awareness.

National Concerns Over Flock Contracts

The national profile of Flock Safety has been clouded by a wave of contract cancellations. According to a report cited by a local news outlet, 82 Flock contracts have been terminated across the country. The cancellations stem from concerns about the company’s privacy safeguards, data security protocols, and the potential for misuse of the system’s analytics.

In contrast, Lewiston has not yet decided to end its partnership with Flock. “Unlike Auburn, Lewiston has not decided to end funding,” the letter writer noted. Auburn, a nearby city, recently chose to terminate its own Flock contract after a review of privacy concerns and community backlash. Residents of Lewiston have called for the city to “follow Auburn’s lead” in ending the contract and removing the surveillance network.

Community Response and Legal Implications

The letter was written by Matthew Roy, a resident of Lewiston, and published in the city’s local newspaper. While the piece is a letter to the editor and not an official city statement, it reflects a growing sense of unease among citizens who fear that the cameras could infringe on constitutional rights.

City officials have yet to weigh in on the matter publicly. The police department’s chief has defended the system as a tool that helps officers respond more quickly to incidents, but has acknowledged that the system’s deployment follows the DOJ’s grant guidelines and state regulations.

Legal experts point to the Chatrie ruling as a potential benchmark for evaluating the constitutionality of mass‑surveillance technologies. Some argue that the court’s focus on the lack of a specific suspect in a geofence warrant could translate to scrutiny of systems that indiscriminately collect data from the public, such as the Flock camera network.

Next Steps for Lewiston

The city council has not yet taken formal action on the Flock contract, and no definitive timeline exists for a potential termination. In the meantime, the camera system remains active, and officers continue to use its real‑time alerts. Residents and advocacy groups are calling for a comprehensive review of the system’s privacy safeguards, data retention policies, and oversight mechanisms.

Whether Lewiston will follow Auburn’s example remains to be seen. The Chatrie decision adds a new layer of scrutiny to the discussion, reminding local officials that technology designed to protect public safety must also respect constitutional limits on government intrusion.

For now, the conversation in Lewiston centers on balancing the promise of smarter policing tools with the fundamental right to privacy—a debate that will likely echo across cities nationwide as new surveillance technologies proliferate.