‘It’s unbelievably dangerous’: Lynnwood chief warns against Council immigration enforcement proposal

Key takeaways: 

• The Council could vote Feb. 23 whether to cancel its Flock license plate camera contract amid immigration and surveillance concerns. 
• Lynnwood Police Chief Cole Langdon says the Council’s proposed immigration enforcement intervention measures could pose significant physical and legal danger for officers and residents. 

During a lengthy work session Feb. 17, the Lynnwood City Council debated the future of the city’s Flock Safety cameras and deliberated on a new resolution to protect residents from federal immigration enforcement overreaches. 

Flock cameras 

Lynnwood Police Chief Cole Langdon on Tuesday provided the Council with a breakdown of the City’s Flock camera program in light of recent controversy surrounding the technology both locally and nationwide related to heightened federal immigration enforcement. A Council vote on whether to end the contract is scheduled for the Feb. 23 business meeting. 

The City Council in January 2025 approved a two-year contract with Flock to install the cameras in high-traffic commercial areas with the intent to reduce crime and help police locate suspects. The program was funded by a $132,000 grant from the Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority, matched by $38,000 from the city. 

Just days after Lynnwood’s Flock cameras went live in late July, the department noticed a massive influx of searches of its database from out-of-state law enforcement agencies, despite only opting to share data with about a dozen neighboring departments. Lynnwood PD staff later discovered Flock had enrolled the department in a nationwide search feature, granting reciprocal access to the 80,000-camera network without the city’s informed consent, Langdon said. 

“It was a reciprocal agreement that we were not aware of,” the chief said. “This was not displayed or disclosed to us for quite some time.” 

The cameras were only live for four months before Langdon paused them in late October, after a University of Washington study found that out-of-state agencies accessed Lynnwood’s data, despite the chief’s promises otherwise. 

Within four months, Lynnwood’s 24 cameras were searched more than 100,000 times, with over 40,000 searches by external agencies. Langdon said he quickly realized the department lacked the manpower to audit the thousands of external searches and enforce each police department’s compliance with the City’s camera usage policy, especially given recent budget cuts and staff shortages. 

While there were negatives associated with the program, Langdon highlighted several successes while the cameras were operational. The Flock system helped Lynnwood police recover at least 10 stolen vehicles, and arrest multiple suspects involved in armed robbery, theft and rape of a child. 

After the cameras were paused, Langdon said if they had been active they might have helped police identify suspects in active investigations, including a hit-and-run pedestrian collision resulting in the death of a woman, a human trafficking case and another child rape case. 

“We have a person who lost her life,” Langdon said. “That’s something where this tool could have been a key component in the investigation. Not saying it would have solved it, but it would have helped us develop some leads.”

Currently, the Washington State Legislature is considering SB 6002 to standardize regulations on automatic license plate reader technology and “set an even playing field,” for departments using the technology, Langdon said. The Senate passed the bill Feb. 2 and it’s scheduled to go before the House Feb. 24. 

If approved, the law requires departments and vendors (including Flock) to delete camera data after 21 days, unless a vehicle is associated with an active case. It also explicitly prohibits law enforcement from using the cameras for anything other than criminal investigations, missing person cases and felony warrants and limits police’s ability to share data outside of court proceedings. Further, the legislation requires vendors to notify law enforcement of any upgrades and changes to the technology. 

Councilmembers expressed overall distrust in Flock and concern that the department didn’t report the breach to the Council when it was identified in July. 

“I don’t trust Flock, period,” Councilmember Isabel Mata said. “I understand this technology has been helpful to law enforcement… but I also believe that the harm, the broken promises and the loss of public trust that this company and product has done outweighs the benefits at this moment in time.”

While acknowledging LPD’s efforts, Councilmembers Robert Leutwyler and David Parshall also opposed the cameras. 

“I think [LPD] made a good-faith effort to implement this tool in a way that helps combat crime more effectively while maintaining public trust,” Leutwyler said. “There’s just so much power this tool comes with, and I don’t think even the state can retain control of that.” 

Councilmember Parshall noted: “The guard rails aren’t there yet, there’s too many questions at this point and not enough answers.” 

Immigrant protection resolution

In the second half of the meeting, Mata presented a draft resolution designed to reaffirm Lynnwood’s commitment to constitutional rights and align city policies with the Keep Washington Working Act. 

The resolution seeks to establish that no city funds, facilities or personnel will be used to assist federal immigration enforcement – in congruence with state law. However, the draft faced pushback from Chief Langdon in directing police to intervene if they witnessed unlawful conduct or excessive force by any law enforcement agency, including federal agents. 

Langdon warned that placing local officers in a position to challenge or physically intervene against armed federal agents poses extreme safety risks to both officers and residents and could subject the officers to federal criminal liability. 

“They [federal agents] have no duty to tell us what’s going on or what they are doing,” he said. “In fact, us going over there and kind of injecting ourselves into what’s going on is just fraught with so much risk, and it’s unbelievably dangerous what we’re asking our officers to do.” 

The role of local police is to support other law enforcement agencies to “secure the scene and then things are sorted out later on,” in the courthouse or ballot box, he said. Local police don’t have the power to restrict federal officers from places where the general public is allowed to gather, even if it is on City-owned property. 

“The federal government has no such understanding of our laws and no requirement to regard our laws,” Langdon said. “What I would like to do is remind our community that we are not in any way associated with the work of civil immigration enforcement and that we are committed to keeping them safe.” 

Councilmember Derica Escamilla prompted Langdon to provide protocol or a physical list of actions the department is comfortable taking if someone calls 911 to report ICE activity. If LPD can’t intervene, Escamilla said it’s still the duty of the City  and the police department to protect residents 

Council President Nick Coelho and Councilmember Leutwyler questioned the purpose of some sections of the resolution, since they echoed policies already contained in state law. Coelho proposed forming an “immigrant love task force” made up of City officials for a boots-on-the-ground approach to “look at ways we can show our love for immigrants in our community, rather than just focusing on trying to force a square peg through a round hole – which is kind of what we’re doing.” 

Mayor George Hurst at an earlier meeting said he was in the process of forming a similar committee made up of city officials, local immigrant support groups and other service providers. 

Mata agreed to rework the legislation and bring it before Council for further discussion and a potential vote in March. 

The meeting recording and agenda are available on the City’s website. 

— Contact Ashley at ashley@myedmondsnews.com.