A federal intelligence center warned police that city council meetings about Flock “may be viewed by extremists as a desirable target,” and told them to be on the lookout for “emotional confrontations” between people who oppose surveillance and government officials, according to a copy of the warning obtained by 404 Media.
The warning, obtained by 404 Media, was issued by the Orange County Intelligence Assessment Center (OCIAC)—a government fusion center—in July to police in California. 404 Media recently obtained the bulletin using a Freedom of Information Act request.
This surveillance bulletin to cops is the latest evidence that police around the country have been told to be on edge during public meetings where people are participating in democracy and utilizing their First Amendment rights about unpopular things the government is doing. We have reported on a spate of people being illegally arrested for extremely minor procedural violations or for cursing at city council meetings about Flock and data centers while participating in constitutionally protected activities.
The warning is similar to others obtained by 404 Media and other journalists about the broader DeFlock movement and vandalism of Flock surveillance cameras. But this warning specifically tells police that there have been “no specific and credible threats found” related to city council meetings about Flock, but warns they should be on the lookout anyway. The warning noted that anti surveillance organizers could have been emboldened by the news that the Los Angeles Police Department ended its Flock contract, and may expect other local governments to do the same. The LAPD’s decision was “providing organizers and participants with a high-profile local example that could increase turnout and place additional public pressure on City Council members” to end their Flock contracts, the bulletin claims.
“City-hosted events (i.e., city council meetings) may be viewed by extremists as a desirable target. Partners are encouraged to review for signs of suspicious activity,” the warning reads. This suspicious activity includes “excessive clothing,” “unusual questions or behavior,” people loitering,” or “unattended bags or packages.”
The warning goes on to say that genuine interest in ending mass surveillance at a city council meeting “may present public safety risks,” which includes “large turnout exceeding room capacity,” “emotional confrontations,” counterdemonstrations,” “media presence,” “social media amplification,” and “disruption of council proceedings.”
Here is a full excerpt of the portion of the warning about protected activities that could apparently “present public safety risks:”
_
- Large turnout exceeding room capacity: If organizers mobilize significantly more attendees than the council chambers can accommodate, this can lead to long lines, frustrated attendees, overflow areas, or delays in the meeting.
- Emotional confrontations: Because the issue involves surveillance, privacy, immigration concerns, and public safety, speakers and attendees may have strong emotions. Verbal confrontations between supporters and opponents are more likely than at routine council meetings.
- Counterdemonstrations: Individuals who support the Flock camera program or emphasize its crime-fighting benefits may attend and express opposing views, increasing the potential for verbal conflict.
- Traffic and parking impacts: A well-attended meeting can create localized congestion around City Hall before and after the meeting.
- Media presence: Local television, newspapers, livestreamers, and independent journalists may attend because the issue has recently received regional media coverage.
- Social media amplification. Attendees may livestream or record interactions. Minor disputes can quickly spread online, increasing public attention.
- Disruption of council proceedings. Possible issues include:
- Interrupting speakers
- Shouting from the audience
- Refusing to yield the podium after time limits
- Coordinated chanting inside the chambers
- Attempts to delay or prevent the meeting from continuing
- Physical altercations: Heated disagreements between attendees with opposing viewpoints could escalate into minor physical altercations, particularly during emotionally charged interactions before, during, or after the meeting.
- Targeted threats or intimidation: Any credible threats, harassment, or intimidation directed toward elected officials, city staff, organizers, or attendees should be treated as a significant public safety concern and evaluated promptly.
- Extremist-related activity: Although there is no publicly available information indicating extremist involvement, politically contentious events may attract isolated individuals seeking to promote unrelated ideological causes.
_
We have seen numerous people illegally arrested around the country for speaking slightly too long, talking out of turn, or for cursing at city council members, none of which are illegal activities.
“The OCIAC recognizes that Americans have constitutionally protected rights to assemble, speak, and petition the government,” the warning ends. “The OCIAC safeguards these rights and only reports on First Amendment protected activities for operational planning in the interest of assuring the safety and security of the demonstrators and the public.”
