Resident urges Warren County to pause 'Flock' license-plate readers pending outside audit

Warren County Fiscal Court · December 18, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Tony Nelson told the Warren County Fiscal Court the county’s Flock automated license-plate reader network creates searchable location trails, citing ACLU and IPVM findings, and asked the court to pause the system, commission an independent audit and put any reinstatement to a public vote.

Tony Nelson, a Warren County resident, asked the fiscal court on Dec. 18 to pause the county’s Flock automated license-plate reader system and order an independent audit before the program proceeds.

Nelson told the court the system ‘‘is not just cameras. They are automated license plate readers’’ that create a ‘‘searchable, 30-day minimum digital trail of every resident’s movement.’’ He cited findings from the American Civil Liberties Union and technical reports from IPVM alleging data-sharing risks and misidentification errors, and said several jurisdictions have suspended Flock deployments in response.

Nelson asked that the county pause the program pending review by ‘‘a public safety committee’’ that would include an outside qualified auditing company, and that any decision to reinstate the system be subject to a citizen vote. He also said he has provided the court copies of sources he referenced.

Judge acknowledged receipt of Nelson’s materials and said the court would review them, but noted the matter was not on the meeting agenda and there was no formal action that day. The judge thanked Nelson for bringing detailed information to the court.

The public comment did not produce a staff report or a vote at the Dec. 18 meeting. Nelson’s claims about data-sharing and the system’s national sharing model were presented as assertions supported by external reports; the court did not resolve those claims during the meeting and directed staff to review the material as appropriate.

Next steps: The court said it would review Nelson’s materials; no police policy change, audit contract or vote was scheduled during the session.