Norman council studies Flock license-plate readers amid privacy and legal questions

The Norman City Council held a study session Tuesday, Aug. 19, to review a proposal for leasing Flock automated license-plate reader (LPR) cameras for use by the Norman Police Department. Deputy Chief Jackson and a Flock representative described how the cameras work, estimated costs, data-handling safeguards and machine-learning training practices, while council members raised concerns about privacy, legal authority in Oklahoma and long-term controls on system upgrades.

The discussion matters because LPR systems raise both public-safety and civil-liberty questions: proponents told the council the cameras help recover missing people, solve hit-and-runs and provide investigative leads, while critics and some council members warned about potential misuse, third-party sharing and unclear state law about using LPR-derived evidence in criminal prosecutions.

Trevor Chandler, identified in the meeting as director of public affairs for Flock, described the company’s LPR product and its deployment model. Chandler said the cameras capture license-plate images and keep them on a rolling 30-day retention schedule and that the company stores data in AWS GovCloud with end-to-end encryption at CJIS standards. “We have…it's very customizable, including auditing and transparency protections,” Chandler said, adding that Flock does not perform facial recognition and that private customers and municipalities can choose whether to share data with other agencies.

Deputy Chief Jackson told council that the department uses Flock as an investigative tool, not a substitute for officers. Jackson said department policy “specifically prohibits the use of the [Flock] capturing of those tag information for anything other than law‑enforcement purposes or public‑safety related issues,” and emphasized that the department would not use the system to enforce immigration status. Jackson and Norman analysts described real-world cases in which images from LPR cameras in neighboring jurisdictions helped identify vehicles connected to robberies, missing people and kidnappings.

Council members pressed several technical and legal points. Chandler said Flock’s standard pricing discussed in the meeting is $3,500 per camera per year (the presenter said some early-installation promotions can reduce the first-year cost and that a one-time installation fee may be waived in some contracts). City staff and Flock estimated an initial pilot of about 10 cameras (roughly $30,000 per year under the quoted price) but said 15 cameras would cover a larger portion of the city; the presenters described that as an estimate rather than a final procurement plan.

On data and machine learning, Chandler said fewer than 1% of images nationwide are selected for anonymous machine‑learning training; those images are stripped of metadata and not tied to location, time or other identifying context. Chandler said agencies retain ownership of their data and that Flock segments each agency’s data, requiring explicit opt-in for sharing with other jurisdictions. Norman police staff described account controls and auditing: searches require a case number and a stated reason and are recorded in an audit trail that includes the user and the case number.

Several council members and staff raised legal uncertainty in Oklahoma. A city legal staff member summarized that an Oklahoma statute expressly permits district attorney counsel to use automated license-plate readers to enforce compulsory liability-insurance laws, but noted a McLean County district-court decision (Judge Edwards) that suppressed LPR-derived evidence in a particular interdiction case; the legal staff said that ruling applies to those parties and that no binding Oklahoma Supreme Court precedent resolves the broader statutory question. One council member referenced legislation (identified in the meeting as bill 1620) that had failed in the state Senate and said general legislative clarity on statewide LPR use was unresolved.

Other issues raised included whether Flock has ever been breached (Chandler said the company had not experienced a breach and that contracts require notification), how private customers (for example homeowners associations or businesses) interact with law-enforcement accounts (Flock representatives said private customers may share camera feeds with police but do not obtain law‑enforcement alerts or CJIS data), and how upgrades or optional features—such as analytic tools beyond basic LPR—would be controlled. Chandler and police staff said agencies can decline upgrades and that contract language can specify that only LPR functionality is permitted; Chandler said Flock often encourages agencies to adopt explicit policy statements limiting uses.

No procurement vote occurred. The council discussed collecting public feedback and follow-up information from other nearby agencies that use the product (Moore, Oklahoma City, Purcell and Del City were cited as local users). Staff was asked to gather additional information, including local use cases, sharing relationships, and details about how many private Flock cameras already exist inside city limits. The chief indicated staff would help coordinate follow-up briefings with neighboring agencies for council members.

The discussion closed with council members urging staff to return additional information and to solicit constituent input before any formal approval. No decision to lease or purchase equipment was made at the meeting.