The New Bedford City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to ask for the city’s 20 Flock surveillance cameras to be removed or covered while officials determine how to regulate their use.
But right now, authority over the Flock cameras rests with the police chief, a mayoral appointee.
Police Chief Jason Thody suspended use of the cameras earlier this month, after a New Bedford police officer was accused of using Flock cameras to track her former romantic partner.
A growing number of Massachusetts communities, including East Bridgewater, Auburn, Hopkinton and others, have either deactivated their cameras or ended their contracts with Flock amid local backlash.
Opponents of the cameras say they need to be removed to restore public trust.
“I don’t think it’s right that there is a system that has the capacity to track people going about the business of leading their innocent lives,” New Bedford resident Jane Vieira said outside City Hall. “Privacy is not secrecy; it is not guilt. It’s not — it’s simply privacy.”
Activists chanted “No Flock, New Bedford” outside City Hall as the council convened a special meeting to conclude business held over from last week, when the council halted the meeting because of vocal disruptions from Flock opponents.
More than 50 people observed the proceedings in the council chamber in silence, waving their hands in support of some statements and giving a “thumbs down” in opposition to others.
Ward 1 Councilor Leo Choquette said advanced surveillance technology, taken as a whole, violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable search and seizure.
“Flock, drones, facial recognition — all these things form a mosaic, OK?” he said on the council floor. “And now, that mosaic is violating the Fourth Amendment. I don’t know how this got out of hand across this country, but we the people need to stand up and stop it now.”
Privacy should not be something people need to earn, Councilor-at-Large Ian Abreu said. “People should be able to go to work, go to their doctor for healthcare, go to church, participate in a political meeting or in a gathering, or simply drive through their city without assuming that the government is creating a searchable record of their movements.”
The idea of surveillance cameras to fight crime in New Bedford was not entirely without support.
Councilor-at-Large Brian Gomes voted to remove the cameras temporarily, and he said he was not aware until recently of how often the cameras could be misused. But he also sees some room for surveillance technology in law enforcement.
“There’s a lot to learn,” he said. “I’m learning this, about these cameras and what they can do, what they can’t do. I want to make sure that the people of this city are protected — your civil rights are protected. But again, I’m not gonna throw the tools away that can make a safer community.”
The council passed four motions Tuesday on Flock cameras and other license-plate-reader technology. Three motions directed council committees to hold meetings or study the issue. The fourth requested that cameras be covered or removed until the council could enact legislation governing their use.
In early August, the Washington Post reported that authorities around the country have accused at least 50 law enforcement officers of using Flock and other license-plate readers for unauthorized purposes.
New Bedford resident Jenny Arruda said some locations in the city have cameras directly in front of homes.
“We believe that these devices are and will be used against the most vulnerable populations, especially the immigrant population, which we don’t want to see,” she said.
Opponents have also been concerned that the cameras could be used to track women who have abortions and live in states where abortion is illegal.
In Texas last year, a sheriff’s office tracked a woman after she had what authorities described as a self-administered abortion. A sheriff’s officer said in a report that the search was performed for the woman’s safety because of the amount of blood in her home and other specifics of the case.
In New Bedford, both the City Council and the Police Department are considering possible rules on license plate readers. The council could seek to ban them via ordinance.
In a written statement, Mayor Jon Mitchell’s spokesperson, Jonathan Darling, said that potential Police Department regulations would “better ensure appropriate use by law enforcement while respecting privacy interests” and would be informed by recent public discussions.
Copyright 2026 CAI
