Skip to content

Mayor Schaunaman Doesn’t Want State’s Surveillance Cameras in Aberdeen

Aberdeen mayor Travis Schaunaman is taking a stand against the surveillance state that his fellow Republicans are so eagerly expanding. Mayor Schaunaman has asked the public to weigh in on the state’s proposal to install its license plate readers in Aberdeen:

I have concerns about this type of surveillance technology and personally do not support bringing these cameras into Aberdeen, but I want to hear from our community.

The state has already purchased the equipment and would cover maintenance costs. ๐™„๐™ฉโ€™๐™จ ๐™–๐™ก๐™จ๐™ค ๐™ž๐™ข๐™ฅ๐™ค๐™ง๐™ฉ๐™–๐™ฃ๐™ฉ ๐™ฉ๐™ค ๐™ฃ๐™ค๐™ฉ๐™š ๐™ฉ๐™๐™–๐™ฉ ๐™š๐™ซ๐™š๐™ฃ ๐™ž๐™› ๐˜ผ๐™—๐™š๐™ง๐™™๐™š๐™š๐™ฃ ๐™˜๐™๐™ค๐™ค๐™จ๐™š๐™จ ๐™ฃ๐™ค๐™ฉ ๐™ฉ๐™ค ๐™ฅ๐™–๐™ง๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™˜๐™ž๐™ฅ๐™–๐™ฉ๐™š, ๐™ฉ๐™๐™š ๐™จ๐™ฉ๐™–๐™ฉ๐™š ๐™˜๐™ค๐™ช๐™ก๐™™ ๐™ฅ๐™ก๐™–๐™˜๐™š ๐™˜๐™–๐™ข๐™š๐™ง๐™–๐™จ ๐™ค๐™ช๐™ฉ๐™จ๐™ž๐™™๐™š ๐™˜๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ฎ ๐™ก๐™ž๐™ข๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™จ ๐™ฌ๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™๐™ค๐™ช๐™ฉ ๐˜พ๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ฎ ๐™–๐™ฅ๐™ฅ๐™ง๐™ค๐™ซ๐™–๐™ก [Travis Schaunaman, FB, 2026.08.10].

Schaunaman goes on TV to expand on his Constitutional resistance to blanket surveillance:

โ€œI am opposed to these. I feel like these definitely stand in the way of the Fourth Amendment, which protects our rights against searches and seizures. And I donโ€™t like the idea that governments are just tracking people who have no probability of criminal behavior,โ€ Schaunaman said [Grant Green, “License Plate Readers in Aberdeen? Mayor Gathers Feedback on Proposed Flock Cameras,” KSFY, 2026.08.10].

Attorney General and Republican candidate for U.S. House Marty Jackley assures us big government will only use everywhere-cameras to protect us:

LPR technology has been instrumental in several critical South Dakota investigations, including recovering a 9โ€‘yearโ€‘old girl abducted in Clark County in 2023, and in the investigation into the disappearance and death of 14-year-old McKenna Wendel. Any use of this technology by law enforcement has been and must be governed by strong privacy protections to safeguard the rights of the people they serve. Any use of this technology must be limited to only major crimes and occur with the support of local authorities [Attorney General Marty Jackley, in Green, 2026.08.10].

I’m glad there are still some Republicans like Schaunaman who aren’t scared into giving up their principles of limited government and the Fourth Amendment.

12 Comments

  1. Those cops won’t be able to trace the pretty girls? What the flock?

  2. sx123

    Behind every street cam is some pervert using AI to track my daughters.

  3. Scott

    Just a heads up, the City Council are doing a work session at 4pm Monday just prior to their scheduled meeting to address this matter. That is open to the public and I believe there will be no webstreaming for this meeting.

  4. Donald Pay

    Once you step outside your door you are in public. You can be tracked, whether it’s by an old fashioned gumshoe, or a camera. . I don’t have a problem with these cameras. I have a problem with the people who run the cameras or the AI outfits that run the cameras. I don’t trust THEM.

  5. Porter Lansing

    Denver removed it’s 110 FLOCK cameras for the “personal surveillance intrusions” named above.

  6. Ben

    John Oliver covered this last week.

  7. Ben

    The issue, not Aberdeen.

  8. Heckifino

    Government should not routinely collect and retain local information about thousands of innocent people simply because that information might someday be useful in an investigation.

    The concern is even greater in a small community. A large metro area one plate observation may reveal relatively little, but in a community of 10 to 30,000 people, a relatively small number of strategically located cameras can potentially reveal a great deal.

    Put cameras on a major highways and entrances to town and you could begin establishing when particular vehicles enter and leave. cameras near schools, hospitals, government buildings, employers, churches, bars, casinos, and the information becomes considerably more revealing. Intact, small community should have more protections in some respects. Imagine an officer, dispatcher, employee, or authorized user, recognizing a plate belonging to: an ex spouse; a local, elected official; a school administrator; and employee; a reporter; a political opponent; someone involved in a custody dispute. Searching someoneโ€™s movements becomes much more consequential when the person conducting the search already knows who owns the vehicle.

    The flock system says itโ€™s a LPR collects license plate images, vehicle characteristics, timestamps, and camera locations. The information is generally retained for 30 days and can be searched retroactively. This means the system isnโ€™t simply asking. โ€œis this car stolen?โ€œ Itโ€™s also creating a database that can potentially answer. โ€œ where has this car been during the last 30 days?โ€œ

    South Dakota does not have a state law that specifically governs LPRโ€™s. Therefore the government is deploying the technology before establishing the rules. Flock searches are logged and agencies control access however, and audit log doesnโ€™t prevent an improper search; primarily helps discover one afterwards.

    I donโ€™t advocate banning LPRโ€™s altogether. I do, however, advocate not deploying it broadly in South Dakota until South Dakota establishes statewide safeguards.

  9. VM

    Where there is potential for abuse, there will be abuse.

  10. grudznick

    Mr. Pay and grudznick know how slow gumshoes work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *