MARIES COUNTY — Retired Maries County Sheriff Chris Heitman is urging county commissioners not to approve or ratify a reported two-year, $13,300 contract for Flock Safety cameras, arguing that Sheriff Mark Morgan lacked authority to enter into the agreement on behalf of the county.

In a written statement addressed and sent to the Maries County Commission and posted on Facebook, Heitman said he opposes the use of Flock cameras in the county because of concerns over privacy, data sharing, retention and potential misuse. He also raised a separate legal question over whether Morgan had authority to bind the county to the contract.

“I therefore strongly urge the commission not to approve or ratify this Flock contract and to vote against committing county funds to its implementation, renewal, or continuation,” Heitman said in the post.

Heitman cited Section 432.070 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, which requires county contracts to be in writing and signed by the parties or by agents “authorized by law and duly appointed and authorized in writing.”

He also pointed to Section 431.090, which allows a county commission, through an order entered into the record, to appoint an agent to make contracts on behalf of the county. Such a contract is binding if it is made in accordance with the law and the commission’s order.

Heitman contends the Maries County Commission did not provide Morgan such authority.

Missouri law, however, also contains a provision specifically governing county contracts. Section 50.660 states that contracts are to be executed in the county’s name “by the head of the department or officer concerned,” while also requiring that contracts creating a financial obligation meet written-contract, appropriation and certification requirements.

How those statutes apply to the specific Flock agreement would depend on the terms of the contract, the source and appropriation of the money, any commission action authorizing the expenditure and other circumstances surrounding the agreement.

Heitman also cited a 2019 Missouri Court of Appeals case, State ex rel. Sheriff Paul Vescovo III v. Clay County. The case involved a dispute between the Clay County sheriff and county commission over funding and control of the sheriff’s office. In its opinion, the Western District Court of Appeals stated that the sheriff did not have authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the county or his department.

Heitman argued that receiving grant money for the Flock system would not, by itself, resolve the question of contracting authority.

“Signing an agreement does not by itself establish that he possessed the legal authority to bind Maries County to it,” Heitman wrote. “The fact that grant funds were used does not change the underlying issue.”

Heitman also criticized the technology itself, saying law-enforcement officials elsewhere have raised questions about privacy, information sharing, data retention and potential misuse. He said those concerns make him particularly opposed to placing the system under Morgan’s control.

Flock Safety systems typically use automated license plate recognition cameras to capture vehicle information that law-enforcement agencies can search as part of criminal investigations. The technology has been adopted by departments around the country but has also generated debate over the scope of data collection and how information is retained and shared.

Heitman asked commissioners not only to reject the initial agreement but also to withhold county money for its implementation, renewal or continuation.

“The commission has an important responsibility over county finances and county obligations,” Heitman wrote. “If Morgan entered into this agreement without the required authority, the commission should not simply approve his action after the fact.”