Flock Safety presentation draws residents’ privacy concerns; Select Board schedules deeper review

WELLS, Maine — An informational presentation by Flock Safety and Wells Police on automated license‑plate readers (ALPRs) prompted lengthy public comment Monday, with residents and board members asking for a detailed workshop, legal review and clear policy guardrails before the town commits to any purchase.

Dan Delgroso, Flock Safety territory manager, described the system as a law‑enforcement tool that captures vehicle images and license plates (no facial recognition) and said data are police‑owned and automatically deleted after 21 days. “There’s no facial recognition. There’s no personal identifying information,” Delgroso said during the presentation, and he stressed that every search in the platform must include a reason and creates an auditable log.

Several residents raised legal and financial concerns. One public speaker pointed to litigation and settlements elsewhere, alleging that ALPR programs tied to immigration enforcement and broad surveillance have produced lawsuits and multimillion‑dollar liabilities — citing Maricopa County and ongoing litigation in other jurisdictions. Another resident said independent studies show a very low rate of “useful” ALPR hits in some places and warned of data security risks and potential misuse by officials.

Police representatives said the tools are intended to augment investigations — for example, locating vehicles in missing‑person or AMBER‑alert cases and linking vehicle sightings across jurisdictions through national databases such as NCIC. Local officers said the system can be configured to allow one‑way access (Wells can receive alerts without sharing its local data) and that multifactor authentication, audit trails and internal policy would be used to reduce misuse.

Board members and the public asked for specifics before any commitment: cost estimates (installation and recurring subscription fees), the legal interface with national systems, written access protocols, who can run searches and under what authority, retention and deletion practices, and whether the town can opt for one‑way or networked data sharing. The board agreed to hold a staff workshop that will include police protocols, detailed cost breakdowns and proposed safeguards; if the board later decides to pursue a contract it said the town would consider additional public input at that time.

Residents urged caution and said any future vote or contract should be preceded by independent legal analysis and community engagement. The board did not vote on procurement Monday.