Dayton commissioners advance ALPR expansion amid public privacy concerns

The Dayton City Commission on Jan. 6 advanced city-manager calendar items that include a grant-funded expansion of automated license‑plate readers (ALPRs) operated by Flock Group Inc., renewing debate about privacy, data retention and local controls.

Residents filled the podium during public comment to oppose the expansion, citing risks that ALPR data can be used by third parties and federal agencies. "I don't view Flock as an effective tool for our police departments and the risk that it poses to marginalized communities is a big detriment," said Spencer Glaser, who said he had reviewed ACLU reporting about Flock systems. Joyce Propst McAlpine asked the commission to "conduct an audit of the use of the data collected from cars traveling through Dayton" to ensure it "isn't being used for purposes not allowed in your contract."

City and police officials responded to the concerns in a presentation before commissioners. Dayton Police representatives told the commission the city stores ALPR data in a partitioned cloud environment under contract conditions. "The data that we have from our flock is our data — Flock doesn't have access to it, and that's by contract," a police representative said during the meeting. Officials further said the department retains ALPR records for 30 days unless the information becomes evidence in a criminal case, when statutory retention schedules apply.

Commissioners pressed staff for more transparency and auditability. Commissioner Fairchild said the city should review the surveillance ordinance "given the changing environment" and asked for an audit to reassure residents about storage and sharing. Staff and police agreed to provide a surveillance report and to explore whether an audit could produce logs showing who accessed data and for what purpose.

Proponents emphasized that the current expansion is grant-funded and targeted to neighborhoods that requested the technology. City staff said community engagement included nine public meetings in the neighborhoods proposed for deployment and that safety plans have been developed with residents.

The discussion left several procedural next steps: staff agreed to enter related downtown working-group documents into the meeting record, to provide additional information about community outreach, and to return with audit/reporting details to address residents' concerns. Commissioners also agreed to consider formal ordinance review and to examine whether additional codified safeguards are needed.

The commission did not adopt a new ordinance or cancel existing contracts during the meeting; commissioners asked staff to prepare follow-up materials and to report back so the body could consider next steps at a later date.