Benton County commission rejects $42,000 license‑plate reader contract after privacy and liability concerns
Loading...
Summary
After public testimony and lengthy debate, the Benton County Commission voted down a sheriff‑sponsored resolution to spend $42,000 on AI‑trained license‑plate readers from Flock/Lock Safety, with residents and at least one commissioner warning of legal exposure and data‑retention risks.
The Benton County Commission on Wednesday declined to authorize $42,000 to contract with Lock/Flock Safety for AI‑trained license‑plate readers, rejecting a sheriff‑sponsored appropriation after multiple residents and commissioners raised privacy and legal concerns.
“Tonight, I stand in opposition to resolution 20 25 11 17‑8,” Tim Vick, a Benton County resident, told the commission during the citizens forum, saying the contract could expose the county to legal and financial liability and that ongoing litigation in other states raises questions about the system’s public‑records status. “With the legality of surveillance systems, like flock, still working its way through the courts, what does the legal future hold for our county if the commission elects to proceed with this resolution?”
The resolution, introduced by Sheriff Tim Christopher to appropriate $42,000 from the unassigned general‑fund balance, would have funded installation of cameras and a service contract said to use automated license‑plate recognition and vectorized metadata. Speakers opposing the measure argued the vendor’s public statements about data retention and deletion did not match material in the contract and press reports, and they urged delay until the county attorney reviewed procurement and liability language.
“Flock owns that data in perpetuity. They can do whatever they want with it and they can sell it. It’s in the contract,” Robert Jackson said in a prepared technical presentation, disputing the vendor’s claim that video and metadata are erased after 30 days and describing how the company’s vectorized files could be aggregated and queried.
Supporters, including several commissioners, said the cameras have aided investigations and located missing people. “If these cameras save one child … what price can you put on the life of that child?” Commissioner Bane said, summarizing a case from another county in which a camera alert reportedly helped locate a missing juvenile.
Commissioners also raised procurement questions: some said the city of Camden has ordered cameras and that the county might coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions; others asked whether the purchase had been competitively bid and whether county counsel had reviewed the contract. Commissioners asked the sheriff’s office and the appointed county attorney to review contract language, ownership of data, and the procurement pathway.
After public comment and extended debate, the chair announced the resolution had failed. The commission recorded the result in its meeting record and moved on to other budget and appointment items.
The commission did not adopt an immediate follow‑up or referral to a committee at the meeting; commissioners asked staff and counsel to review the contract and procurement process. The county’s formal decision on a future or revised proposal will appear in a subsequent agenda.
