Flagstaff council moves to revisit renewal of Flock Safety license-plate reader contract amid privacy concerns

Flagstaff City Council on Oct. 28 heard extended public comment and technical briefings before directing staff to bring consideration of the city's Flock Safety automated license-plate reader (ALPR) contract back to a future regular agenda with additional safeguards to evaluate. The council did not vote to cancel the contract at the meeting.

The council, police and city staff framed the system as an investigative tool. Flagstaff Police Chief Sean Collier said the department has used the Flock system for about a year and that every search is "logged, audited, and accountable," adding, "We do not use this technology to surveil people. We do not share data without cause." He told the council the department had used the system in hundreds of incidents and said it assisted more than 270 victims in the previous 12 months.

Why it matters: The Flock system detects license plates and alerts officers when plates on a department hot list are seen; supporters say it narrows investigations and speeds responses to serious crimes such as kidnappings and hit-and-runs. Opponents contend the cameras create a persistent map of people's movements, can be misused by third parties, and pose special risks to immigrants and marginalized groups. Hundreds of residents, civil liberties advocates and several local organizations told council they want outright cancellation or far stricter legal protections.

What staff and police described: Deputy Chief Colin Seay and the city's chief information officer, CJ Perry, gave statutory and technical context for how the system works. Perry said the city's IT review found the vendor supports standard encryption and third-party audits (SOC 2 Type II and other government frameworks) and that the vendor-built transparency portal could be linked to the city website. The department described internal controls: hot-list entries require supervisor approval, searches must be justified and are subject to audit by the department's professional standards office.

Police described typical uses to the council: locating vehicles linked to burglaries, stolen plates, missing persons and hit-and-run cases; the department said Flock alerts can produce leads faster than traditional investigative methods. Chief Collier told the council, "I have the ability to go into the administrative portal and deactivate it today" if misuse were discovered.

Public concerns and calls for limits: Dozens of residents, civil-rights groups and legal advocates opposed continuing the contract without stronger laws, independent oversight and contractual guarantees. Speakers cited national reporting that federal agencies and third parties have accessed ALPR data in other jurisdictions and recounted instances elsewhere in the country in which erroneous hits led to armed stops. Taylor Searchie, a resident, urged enforceable legal penalties and said, "We can design legally defined avenues for fruitful police work to be done while also protecting our civil liberties." Victim-services and prosecutors also spoke: Ammon Barker, Coconino County attorney, told council that investigators and prosecutors rely on tools that can speed cases for victims and said the technology has produced arrests in serious crimes.

Council direction and next steps: Council members asked staff to return the contract renewal to a future regular agenda and requested that staff bring back concrete proposals and monitoring steps. Specific items discussed by council and staff to be developed before final approval included: reducing data-retention from the vendor default (current retention cited in the briefing: 30 days) to a shorter period (a number of council members favored 14 days); building and publishing a city transparency portal with audit metrics; establishing a citizen advisory group to review policy and audits; regular reporting (a six-month check-in was requested); and maintaining the city's ability to turn off sharing or the system immediately if misuse or unauthorized sharing is discovered. The council did not adopt new ordinance language or a final contract amendment at the meeting.

Dissent: Councilmember Aslan said he preferred canceling the contract rather than renewing it; Councilmember Garcia said she opposed moving the contract forward under current terms. Several other council members supported the staff direction to return the item for formal council action after the safeguards were drafted.

Numbers, scope and clarifications from staff: Staff said there are 32 active fixed LPR cameras and 4 mobile/flex cameras in the city (36 total), roughly 411,000 vehicle scans in a 30-day period (about 100,000 unique scans per day), and the department reported 270+ incidents in the prior 12 months in which the system contributed to victim services or case leads. The department reported roughly 2,000 hot-list alerts entering the community monthly and said officers conduct approximately 450 plate searches per month. The police and IT briefings emphasized that the system records still photos of rear license-plate areas (not facial recognition), that searches require justification, and that sharing with external agencies is logged and auditable.

What council asked staff to return with: staff were asked to draft specific contract amendments, a proposed citizen advisory composition and charter, a transparent public-facing portal and audit summary, a recommended retention period and an operational plan for an initial review (six-month check-in) to evaluate whether the controls are working. Council members also asked staff to test options for narrowing external agency access during the interim and to confirm that the city can immediately disable access if misuse is found.

The council's action at the work session was procedural: staff will bring the contract renewal and related safeguards back to a future regular council meeting for a formal vote.

Provenance: The petition and staff briefings began during the Oct. 28 work session item introduced by Mayor Daggett; the public-comment period that followed included more than 40 speakers and the council discussion and direction concluded the item. The police chief and IT director provided the technical and audit descriptions the council requested.