Flock Exposed - Arrested For Speaking Out
Cuffed At The Podium
Springfield, Missouri. Resident Mylie Hyder stepped to the podium during a public hearing at a city council meeting and began, "Hello, my name is Mylie Hyder. I'm a Springfield, Missouri constituent, and I'm here to oppose the usage of ALPR cameras, most commonly made by Flock Safety. These cameras are not just surveillance." The mayor cut in, and her microphone was cut off. An officer approached the podium. She raised both middle fingers and kept speaking, saying the cameras are an invasion of our privacy. The officer told her she was under arrest, took her by the arms, and pulled her out of the room, adding that he could do this all night because he gets paid by the hour. The mayor then asked whether that concluded the public hearing, a council member said yes, and the meeting moved on to a city employee discussing sidewalk code.
She was one of two people cited or detained at that meeting, where tensions rose after the council voted to refer a review of the city's Flock cameras to committee, which prevented a scheduled public hearing on the subject from going forward.
Local coverage of the same meeting confirms the sequence of events at the podium during the public comment period.
The Gesture Is Protected
Crude language and rude gestures at a public meeting are not a crime in this country. In Cohen v. California, decided in 1971, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man who wore a jacket bearing a profane slogan in a courthouse, holding that the government may not outlaw a word simply because it finds it offensive. The Court observed that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric.
Source: Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
The raised middle finger has been treated the same way. In Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in 2019 that a driver who made the gesture at a police officer was engaged in protected expression, and that the officer could not lawfully pull her over again because of it. The court wrote plainly that fits of rudeness or lack of gratitude may violate the Golden Rule, but they do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Source: Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard, Sixth Circuit, 2019
Decorum Rules Have Limits
A board is allowed to run an orderly meeting. It can set a time limit, require speakers to sign in, and stop someone who will not yield the floor. What it cannot do is apply those rules only to the people it disagrees with. A rule enforced against critics of the camera contract and not against its supporters is not a decorum rule at all. It is viewpoint discrimination, and that is precisely what the First Amendment exists to forbid.
This is why the detail about the microphone matters so much. If the sound is cut the moment a resident says the word Flock, while other speakers on other subjects run their full time uninterrupted, the board has stopped moderating the meeting and started policing the message.
Why This Keeps Happening
Surveillance contracts tend to be approved quietly, often on a consent agenda, often without a public hearing. By the time residents learn the cameras exist, the money is spent and the equipment is on the poles. The public comment period becomes the only remaining door, and when a board closes that door too, people get angry at the podium. The anger is a symptom. The absence of a real hearing is the cause.
Speaking bluntly, or even offensively, to elected officials about how they spend public money is close to the center of what the First Amendment was written to protect. A citizen should not leave a public meeting in handcuffs for saying the wrong thing about a camera contract.
Questions to Ask Your Town
What written rules govern public comment at our meetings, and where can a resident read them before attending?
Who decides when a speaker's microphone is cut, and is that decision recorded in the minutes?
Has our board ever ended, shortened, or referred to committee a public hearing specifically when the subject was the camera contract?
Are the meeting video and audio recordings preserved in full, including any portion where a microphone was cut?
If a resident is removed or cited at a meeting, who reviews whether that removal was lawful?
Was our own camera contract approved with a public hearing, or placed on a consent agenda?
This page will be updated as more factual sources become available.