A Community at the Crossroads: Part 2 — The Limits of Policy
What do Mountlake Terrace’s policies really say—and are they enough in the age of Flock?
Welcome to Part 2 of this series on what Mountlake Terrace’s adoption of Flock license plate reader (LPR) technology says about trust, oversight, and our city’s values. If you missed Part 1, you can read it here:
👉 Part 1 — From Trust to Tension
Who’s Really Following the Keep Washington Working Act?
Washington’s Keep Washington Working Act (RCW 10.93.160) was designed to prevent local and state agencies from helping federal agencies like ICE and CBP with immigration enforcement. But not every department appears to be honoring it.
Recent reporting from KING 5 and the Tri-City Herald shows that multiple agencies across central and eastern Washington are openly resisting the law. Some departments ignore it. Others, like the sheriffs in Franklin and Benton counties, claim it’s unconstitutional or that it conflicts with their duty to public safety.
👉 Federal, state tensions over WA immigration law enforcement cooperation
👉 Tri-City sheriffs say they won’t comply with WA immigration law
This raises the stakes for a city like Mountlake Terrace. Even if we’re not directly participating in immigration enforcement, if we are using systems like Flock that may share data independently—or with departments that do—then we may still be complicit.
1What’s in Mountlake Terrace’s Own Policies?
MLTPD has built a solid internal policy framework. But that doesn’t mean we’re fully protected.
The MLTPD policy manual includes several provisions that align with the spirit of Washington’s Keep Washington Working Act and reflect a genuine effort to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
428.3 – Victims and Witnesses
Officers are instructed not to initiate immigration-related inquiries based solely on someone’s role as a victim or witness. The goal is to ensure community members can report crimes without fear of triggering immigration enforcement.428.4 – Federal Requests for Assistance
Requests from federal immigration officials must go through a supervisor. The department may provide “support services” like traffic control, but the policy offers no clear limits—raising concerns about accountability.428.5 – Information Sharing
Officers are allowed to share immigration status information with federal officials, and the department cannot prohibit them from doing so. This reflects the requirements of 8 USC § 1373 and RCW 2.28.310. It’s particularly relevant in the context of systems like Flock, where license plate data can be accessed across jurisdictions without clear limits or tracking.428.8 – Washington State Immigration Restrictions
This is the most detailed section and closely tracks the Keep Washington Working Act. It prohibits officers from collecting or sharing immigration-related data unless it’s tied to a criminal investigation or compelled by a court order or law. However, the phrase “except as required by law” creates ambiguity that can undermine the policy’s strength.
Other relevant policies include:
Policy 402 – Bias-Based Policing
Emphasizes fair and impartial treatment and explicitly prohibits bias-based policing.Policy 617 – License Plate Recognition
Added with the Flock contract, this policy prohibits immigration-related use of ALPR data, but only governs MLTPD’s handling, not how others use it once shared. Since this series started with concerns about the Flock system, you might expect more focus on this section. But in truth, Policy 617 largely does its job within the narrow scope it covers. The broader risks come not from what's written here, but from what isn’t written anywhere else.
These are strong foundations—but they are not airtight.
When “Support Services” Cross the Line
Across the country, federal raids have been carried out by masked, unmarked agents. Elected officials—including U.S. Senators—have been arrested or physically removed for attempting oversight. Military force has been used to suppress protests.
So when MLTPD policy allows for “support services” during federal immigration enforcement, we have to ask: What, exactly, would we be supporting?
These recent examples show why “support” is not a neutral word. What seems like simple assistance—like traffic control or peacekeeping—can quickly entangle local police in controversial or harmful actions:
Minneapolis: Masked ICE and DHS agents conducted a raid using unmarked vehicles, drawing widespread concern over the erosion of transparency and accountability.
Los Angeles: U.S. Senator Alex Padilla was forcibly removed and handcuffed while attempting to ask a question at a press conference. He had identified himself and was acting in an official oversight role. The incident raised national concerns about suppressing lawful political speech.
Newark: Mayor Ras Baraka was reportedly detained by federal agents while touring a similar site, raising alarms about the suppression of democratic access and visibility.
Los Angeles: In response to protests over immigration enforcement, President Trump deployed National Guard troops and Marines to guard federal facilities—effectively using the military in domestic law-enforcement support roles.
These events are extreme, but they highlight just how dangerous it can be to blur the boundaries between local policing and opaque federal operations.
In this context, MLTPD Policy 428.4, which permits the department to assist with federal immigration operations through “support services,” becomes especially concerning. Even something as seemingly benign as traffic control could be construed as legitimizing enforcement activities that violate civil rights.
The Tension Within the Policies
Mountlake Terrace’s policies on immigration-related information sharing reflect a real and unresolved tension, one that originates in state and federal law, not just local decision-making.
Policy 428.5, titled Information Sharing, affirms what federal and state laws require: the department cannot prohibit its officers from sharing immigration status information with federal authorities. This stems from 8 USC § 1373 and RCW 2.28.310, which explicitly prevent any local agency from blocking this kind of communication. Officers aren’t required to share, but if they want to, the department cannot stop them.
Just a few pages later, Policy 428.8, which implements the Keep Washington Working Act (RCW 10.93.160), appears to say the opposite: that officers shall not share immigration-related information, except as required by law. This phrase is often the only qualifier on otherwise clear restrictions.
So which policy governs?
428.5 says: officers may share info, and the department can’t stop them.
428.8 says: officers may not share info—unless required by law.
Technically, both policies can be true—but in practice, they create a gray area. This isn’t unique to Mountlake Terrace: the tension comes from overlapping federal and state mandates, and likely exists in other jurisdictions too.
Still, for a community that prides itself on leading with integrity, we should not be satisfied with vague limits and blurry boundaries.
At one time, language like “except as required by law” may have reassured communities that federal overreach would be limited. But in today’s climate, it raises serious questions. The definition of “the law” has become far more fluid. Federal agencies like the Department of Justice have adopted interpretations that many view as unconstitutional. At the same time, some local law enforcement leaders have already pledged to reject federal directives they believe would harm their communities.
So when we see “except as required by law,” we have to ask: Whose law? Whose interpretation, and whose values? And if that interpretation conflicts with our values, will we still comply? What happens when local principles collide with federal priorities?
That’s the challenge. And it’s why policy alone isn’t enough.
“We Are Not Followers. We Are Leaders.”
Are our policies different from those of other departments? Maybe. Maybe not. I haven’t done a full comparison. Many other cities now use Flock cameras. Most haven’t clarified their stance on immigration-related data-sharing or reaffirmed community values in the face of today’s shifting legal climate.
So why should Mountlake Terrace go further?
Because—as Councilmember Erin Murray reminded her colleagues before the Flock vote—“We are not followers. We are leaders.”
That’s the standard we’ve set for ourselves. And it means we cannot settle for minimal compliance or generic policies. Leadership means going beyond what is required. It means anticipating harm, not reacting to it after the fact. It means setting the tone, not waiting for others to do so.
It’s also why this moment calls for more than just a reaffirmation of what’s written in the manual. We need a clear and durable statement that says: We don’t follow these policies simply because the law requires it. We follow them because they reflect who we are, and who we strive to be as a community.
Adopting one of the most powerful surveillance tools available to local governments makes it even more important to pair that decision with strong safeguards. Policies are a start—but without clear values, public commitments, and accountability, the risks of Flock only grow.
In Part 3, we’ll explore how other cities are responding and what Mountlake Terrace can do now to lead with clarity, courage, and values.
More soon,
Dustin
Note: I’m not an attorney, and my read of the Mountlake Terrace Police Department’s policy is from the perspective of a concerned and engaged resident. But in conversations about public trust, how a policy reads to a non-expert matters too. If a policy feels confusing or leaves questions unanswered, that in itself is worth examining. I’m always happy to be corrected, and I’ll pass along any clarifications I receive. ↩