Kent City Council declined to purchase Flock Safety license plate cameras, opting to postpone the decision to October. Photo via Flock Safety

How are communities around Portage County using automatic plate readers?

Kent city leaders may be leaning away from purchasing automated license plate readers, but leave city limits and you’re probably on camera.

Typically mounted on roadside poles, the plate readers (known as ALPRs) capture the rear of a vehicle and its license plate as it drives away. Flock Safety — the company that provides the cameras — is rolling out an upgrade that also enables them to capture video feeds.

Flock’s video feed could enable police to search for a person with certain characteristics wearing specific clothing. By signing data sharing agreements with other local, state or federal agencies, local police can also set alerts to be notified when another department’s camera does the same. 

Many communities in and around Portage County already use ALPRs, and data sharing agreements are quite common.

Aurora has four Flock cameras, and shares data with 22,729 cameras in and out of Ohio. Aurora Police Department Lt. Rob Hagquist declined to say how many agencies those cameras belong to, or where Aurora’s cameras are located.

“If we disclose the locations, then people will be able to avoid the locations,” he said.

Hagquist said the cameras have been valuable in discovering people with warrants that are entering the city, locating vehicles that are reported stolen, and solving car thefts.

Ravenna has 10 cameras: two in the downtown area and more at undisclosed city limits. The Ravenna Police Department retains its data for 30 days, and has sharing agreements with more than 300 cities.

“A lot of our crime is not the residents of Ravenna, it’s people coming in from different towns and different cities,” Ravenna Police Chief Jake Smallfield said. “They’re coming into Ravenna to commit crimes, so we strategically put our cameras to see who’s coming into our town.”

Brimfield Township police have four ALPRs, but did not respond to The Portager’s request for additional information.

Stow has 16 Flock cameras and shares with “most everybody on the Flock network,” SPD Capt. Bryan Snavely said, adding that if neighboring Kent also contracts with Flock, both cities will benefit.

“These are very valuable tools. They really provide us with actionable leads and evidence information that actually leads to results, something that we can use to solve crime,” he said.

The cameras can enable police to proactively prevent crimes should cameras capture a known vehicle or person of interest; and they can ensure effective and efficient reaction times once a crime has been committed, he said.

Portage County’s fourth city, Streetsboro, does not use ALPRs, but city police said they understand some individual retailers in the city might.

Mogadore Village police used state grant funds to purchase and install two Flock LPRs in early June. One camera is located on South Cleveland Avenue; the other is on Mogadore Road.

Windham has six ALPRs at the village’s entrance and exits, and has sharing agreements state and nationwide. 

Windham Police Chief Rick Garinger called the cameras “tremendous,” saying they have pinpointed vehicles associated with local crimes and helped police locate a missing juvenile.

But, since a recurring state grant does not seem to have come through, Windham’s use of Flock cameras may be coming to an end.

“They’re not cheap,” he said. “I think it was $18,000 for the six that we have.”

Bainbridge Township, directly north of Aurora, has two Flock cameras on Route 43. One is on the Geauga-Portage County border; the other is at the Bainbridge Township-Solon border. 

Bainbridge police installed the cameras when the area around the former Geauga Lake Amusement Park morphed into a massive retail area and businesses began reporting “push-outs,” aka shoplifting incidents, said Bainbridge Lt. Kurt Dreger.

Store personnel might not have the suspect’s license plate, but can tell police the color and kind of vehicle, and the approximate time it left the parking lot, Dreger said. The Flock cameras can pinpoint the vehicle, allowing police to pull up the owner’s license plate and compare their driver’s license photo with the store’s video surveillance data. A match is a success.

“That would be a very common way that we use those license plate cameras,” Dreger said.

Tallmadge, which shares a small border with Portage County, also has 16 Flock cameras, TPD Capt. Jeremy McGee said. None of the cameras are at the Tallmadge-Portage County border, the nearest one being at the East Howe/North Munroe Road roundabout.

+ posts

Wendy DiAlesandro is a former Record Publishing Co. reporter and contributing writer for The Portager.

  1. I find it rather ironic, or perhaps just irritating, that cameras and other equipment used to capture motorists running red lights or breaking other rules of the road is generally deemed unwanted, as an invasion of privacy, yet a device that records each and every vehicle via license plate number is thought of as helpful in “fighting crime”.

    It is laughable logic at best.

    More to my personal irritation is that those ‘red-light cameras’ (https://www.nbc4i.com/news/politics/legislation-that-would-restrict-the-use-of-traffic-cameras-heads-to-governors-desk/) could actually be used to get flagrant law-breakers off the roads, e.g., people who challenge pedestrians in crosswalks (a frequent thing in my ample walking experience) or just folks who believe that running a stop sign when there’s no one there is okay. But it is okay to routinely, to consistently track each and every vehicle in an area and combine that data with other areas to effectively be able to track any vehicle nation-wide, data to “proactively” fight crime? The reasoning is simply faulty since a plate number cannot without doubt point to an actual person. And predicting crime, well, there’s plenty of fiction out there that shows quite nicely why that is a problem, not to mention more than a few cases of supposed empirical data used to justify kicking down doors and shooting people before someone says “oops, Google Maps gave us the wrong address, Chief!”

    I’m all for law enforcement, but I’m also for reason, and when you let the population theoretically do whatever it wants based on “rights” real, conceived, and otherwise imagined (and tolerated), law enforcement will *never* be able to protect us because everyone is armed and potentially dangerous. More “data” will just confuse things and the logical extent is to either get rid of law – chaos (see Hobbes) – or to support law enforcement no matter what they do, good or bad (necessary evil).

    We’re on a very large ship of fools (a very good film, btw). And we’re sinking fast.

    Let’s regulate society properly, smartly, and with full disclosure and transparency. Otherwise, data collection is just ripe for abuse, and humanity loves to abuse. It could be your kid tracked by local law enforcement because someone has deemed your child a “potential problem” or perhaps you put the wrong political sign in the yard. Think on that.

  2. As always, appreciate the local reporting! Regarding the reporting on Flock cameras, the questions I have, what are the statistics? We know the police love having them and say how they can do so much to protect our communities. I am always leery of general statements of how great something is without sharing any data to support the claim. How many arrests have been made? What are the crimes? And of course how extensively is this data shared? We all know data sharing has unintended consequences.

  3. Regarding the county ALPRs, is there any solid data? How many arrests, etc. as compared to previous years? Hang in there, Kent, and pave the roads before investing in these cameras.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *