09/02/2026
Yes, the Cameras Are Back Up. No, Please Don’t Touch Them. 😂😅
I recently watched a video discussing automated license plate reader cameras, and I thought it was worth addressing because his position is pretty much exactly where I stand on the issue. If you haven’t seen it, Sheriff Judd from the Polk County Sheriff’s Office has a great video on the topic.
I inherited the Flock camera system when I became Chief. The contract had already been approved, the Town had already spent the money, and the cameras were already here. I didn’t bring them to Fowler, and I don’t have some personal attachment to keeping them forever.
What I do believe is that, while we have them, they should be used responsibly, sparingly, and for legitimate law enforcement purposes.
Our cameras have been operational since January. I believe the first Facebook complaint about them and their locations came sometime in July. With that in mind, I think the way we have actually used them provides some important context.
Since becoming operational, the system has been accessed in connection with only four significant incidents:
• An attempted ATM robbery in another jurisdiction.
• A possible homicide investigation here in Fowler.
• An armed and dangerous fugitive who had injured a law enforcement officer and was wanted by another jurisdiction. Information from the system assisted in locating the individual and ultimately contributed to their apprehension.
• A string of burglaries occurring in a nearby jurisdiction.
Of those four incidents, only one was actually a Fowler Police Department investigation. The other three involved using a resource available to us to assist neighboring law enforcement agencies with serious criminal investigations.
That is what I believe this technology should be used for.
I support this technology because I have seen what it can do when we’re trying to locate a dangerous person, identify a vehicle associated with a serious crime, or develop a lead when investigators don’t have much else to work with.
But supporting a law enforcement tool does not mean supporting unlimited government surveillance.
There should be rules. There should be audits. Access should be limited to legitimate law enforcement purposes. Searches should be documented, and misuse should have consequences.
I also want to be clear about something: I can speak for Fowler.
I can tell you how we use these cameras, why we access them, and what I expect from the officers who have access to them. I’m not going to pretend I know everything happening on the private side of this technology, nor am I going to speak for every company, agency, or government entity that may use similar systems.
I’m a small-town guy. The officers working here are small-town guys and gals. We aren’t the federal government. We aren’t some intelligence agency sitting in a room tracking everybody’s movements. We live here too. We shop at the same stores, drive the same streets, send our families to the same schools, and see you at the gas station.
We want to do what is right and what is best for the people who live here.
I don’t care where you went to dinner. I don’t care whose house you visited. I don’t care where you go to church, what doctor you see, where you shop, or what you’re doing on a random Tuesday afternoon.
That’s none of my business.
And just because technology may give the government the ability to learn something doesn’t automatically mean the government has any business learning it.
There is a balance between public safety and personal privacy, and I believe we have an obligation to protect both.
I also completely understand that some people simply do not want these cameras in Fowler. That’s a legitimate position. You don’t have to agree with me about their usefulness.
If you oppose them, come to a Town meeting. Talk to your elected representatives. Come talk to me. Ask questions. Ask how they’re being used. Ask to see the policy. Question whether they’re worth the money. Tell the Town Board you don’t want the contract renewed.
That’s how local government is supposed to work.
To date, we have not had anyone come to a public meeting to raise a concern or ask a question about the cameras. Instead, we’ve now had cameras physically moved or taken down.
Please don’t do that.
The cameras are back up, and the Town just paid to have them put back up. They are Town property purchased with taxpayer money. Having them repeatedly reinstalled ultimately costs the same taxpayers you may be trying to make a point for, and tampering with Town property can potentially result in criminal charges.
For what it’s worth, if the Town Board decides tomorrow that Fowler doesn’t want these cameras anymore, I’ll take them down personally and invite anyone to assist. I won’t fight them on it. My job is to serve this community, not force a piece of technology on it.
Until that happens, I’m responsible for the equipment the Town has entrusted to this department, and we’re going to continue using it carefully, sparingly, and for legitimate public safety purposes.
Technology is going to continue advancing. Pretending these tools don’t exist isn’t realistic, but neither is blindly accepting every new capability simply because it might make our jobs easier.
Government should be willing to explain why it is using a tool, how it is being used, what safeguards are in place, and where the line is drawn.
Public safety matters. Privacy matters. Accountability matters.
I believe we can protect all three.
And on a slightly less philosophical note…
The cameras are back up. Please stop touching my cameras. 😂
Ben Chappell
Chief of Police
Fowler Police Department
