MILFORD, CT — The Milford Police Department Employees Union has gone to the Connecticut State Labor Department to challenge the city’s decision to remove some Flock and license plate reader cameras. The union says the move puts officers at risk and should not happen before bargaining obligations are completed.
In its complaint, the union argues that the camera systems are part of safety protections already covered by its labor agreement. Milford police said nine license plate readers have been turned off and are expected to be physically removed by a vendor around Sept. 21. Some Flock cameras have also been deactivated, though others remain in service at entry points into Milford.
Union says camera systems help identify dangerous people and stolen cars
The filing says the technology gives officers tools they need in the field, especially when they are trying to identify suspects or spot threats quickly. The union described the Flock and LPR systems as essential safety upgrades rather than optional conveniences.
According to the complaint, the systems can provide real-time information about known and dangerous felons, wanted people, stolen vehicles and weapon or firearm data. The union says removing those tools before labor talks are finished violates the department’s bargaining agreement on officer safety.
The union also said it filed a demand on Aug. 6 to bargain over the impact of the removals. That request included a cease-and-desist demand aimed at stopping the cameras from being taken down before the process was complete.
Residents have pressed privacy and surveillance concerns during the debate
The camera dispute has unfolded over several weeks as Milford residents raised questions about how the technology is used and what happens to the information it collects. Privacy and surveillance were the main worries cited in the public debate.
Flock and license plate reader systems are often used by police departments to track vehicle movement and help investigate crimes, but they also draw criticism from people who say they can capture too much information about ordinary drivers. In Milford, that tension has become the backdrop for the union’s labor challenge.
The department’s partial shutdown shows the issue is already in motion. Some cameras have been turned off, while others remain active at the city’s entry points as the dispute moves into the labor-relations process.
Complaint says Milford must bargain before taking the cameras down
The union filed its complaint on Aug. 20 with the Connecticut State Labor Department. It says the city cannot remove the equipment first and sort out the labor issues later.
In the filing, the union argues that safety is a mandatory subject of bargaining under state labor law. On that basis, it says Milford violated the law by moving ahead with the deactivation and planned removal of the cameras before finishing that process.
The dispute centers on whether the equipment should be treated as a workplace safety issue for officers. That question now sits before state labor officials, who will decide how the complaint should be handled.
Nine license plate readers are off and scheduled for removal around Sept. 21
Milford police said nine license plate readers have already been deactivated and are scheduled to be physically removed by the vendor around Sept. 21. The department has not said whether any additional changes are planned beyond those removals.
Some Flock cameras have also been switched off, but the cameras that are still operating continue to watch entry points into Milford. That means the network has not disappeared entirely, even as parts of it are being dismantled.
The timeline adds urgency to the union’s complaint, since the physical removal is expected before the state hearing takes place. The union is asking labor officials to examine whether the city acted too soon.
State labor hearing is set for Sept. 8 as the dispute moves forward
A hearing before the State Board of Labor Relations is scheduled for Sept. 8. That meeting will give both sides a chance to present their positions on the camera removals and the labor-law questions behind them.
For now, the disagreement is focused on process as much as policy. The city has already begun turning off equipment, the union says officers’ safety is at stake, and residents remain concerned about privacy and surveillance.
The outcome could determine not only whether the Milford cameras stay in place, but also how similar disputes are handled when police technology becomes part of collective bargaining. The immediate question is whether the planned removals can move ahead before the labor process is resolved.
