Who wants Flock in Huntington? A 6-4 vote advances surveillance cameras

Mayor makes the case

At a July 13th council meeting, Mayor Patrick Farrell said Flock cameras had helped track a suspect in the killing of 33-year-old Jackie Harper, who was shot in Huntington less than a week earlier. He also pointed to a suspect in an earlier double killing involving a middle school basketball coach and his brother, a city worker.

Farrell argued that the technology could help solve cold cases, including the unsolved killing of four teenagers in Huntington on prom night more than 20 years ago. He said other mayors he met at a conference had described Flock as key to reducing crime. When a councilmember asked whether he had spoken with mayors who canceled Flock contracts, Farrell said he had not.

Residents voice privacy fears

Dozens of residents from Huntington and nearby towns spoke over seven hours. Many warned that the cameras could undermine privacy, enable surveillance of ordinary activities and invite abuse by Flock or police officers with access to recordings.

Some speakers read from George Orwell’s 1984 after 2AM. Several councilmembers also questioned whether the proposed contract adequately protected the city from lawsuits and whether the decision needed to happen immediately, given the opposition voiced at the meeting and in private outreach.

Council approves resolutions

The council approved resolutions allowing Farrell to move forward with Flock, voting 6-4. The decision followed an initial vote against a motion to table the contract indefinitely. During the meeting’s livestream, a camera began to shake. When the council chair asked whether it was thunder, someone off-screen referred to constituents watching in an upstairs auditorium and said, “That’s your taxpayers.”

A divided community

The debate centered on competing concerns: Farrell presented the cameras as a tool for investigations and crime reduction, while residents focused on privacy and the potential misuse of information. Councilmembers raised concerns about contract language and the timing of the vote.

The meeting showed strong opposition among many residents, but that resistance did not prevent the 6-4 approval. The council’s concerns about safeguards and legal exposure remained part of the discussion.