Sierra Vista hears hours of public testimony on Flock license‑plate readers; city manager proposes pause to reconsider contract

Sierra Vista’s work session turned into a multi‑hour hearing on automated license‑plate readers (LPRs) after county and city law‑enforcement officials, a Flock Safety representative and dozens of residents took the dais to present technical details, success stories and sharp objections.

Cochise County Sheriff Mark Daniels told the council his office currently uses a different vendor and, after review, the county was not planning to adopt Flock. “At this time, we're not gonna go with Flock,” Daniels said, stressing the need to maintain public trust while using tools that aid investigations. Sierra Vista Police Department leaders described the department’s real‑time crime center, noted cases where LPR hits helped locate suspects, and laid out a draft policy that restricts use to law‑enforcement purposes, requires training, limits LPR cloud retention to 30 days unless data are downloaded to evidence.com, and requires verification through ACIC/NCIC before taking enforcement action.

Lily Ho, public affairs manager for Flock Safety’s Western Region, described how the company’s pole‑mounted cameras capture rear vehicle images and use AI for a vehicle “fingerprint” to locate vehicles when plates aren’t known. Ho said Flock does not use facial recognition, stores data on AWS GovCloud with CJIS and SOC 2 protections, and “we are not in the business of selling data,” adding that customers control their sharing choices through a transparency portal.

But public testimony raised legal, procurement and cybersecurity alarms. Cochise County Supervisor Frank Antonori said he and the board approved a state grant that, on first reading, included a line referring directly to Flock in procurement language; after reviewing the grant he said he became alarmed by that specificity and by research citing litigation and reported vulnerabilities. “We didn't realize...there was a referral to purchase Flock cameras, a direct referral from the state to buy Flock cameras, as part of that grant,” Antonori told the council.

Multiple residents and cybersecurity professionals pointed to language in Flock’s historic terms of service and order forms that they said granted Flock broad intellectual‑property rights over outputs and allowed disclosure under vague conditions. One speaker summarized Flock’s published terms: the company distinguishes ‘customer data’ (what the agency sees) from 'Flock IP' (the raw footage and derivative outputs) and reserves rights that some residents found concerning.

Councilmembers pressed staff and the vendor on alternatives, data ownership and enforcement of misuse. The sheriff and police chief said different procurement models exist—some vendors sell cameras and the agency owns servers, which local law enforcement prefers for control; others, including Flock’s standard model, involve leased hardware and cloud storage. Police staff said audits and criminal/internal‑affairs processes would apply to misuse and that officers could be decertified for improper use.

After extensive public comment and questioning, City Manager recommended pulling back on the most recent contract extension and directed staff to pursue alternatives and coordination with Cochise County and the sheriff’s office. The manager framed the recommendation as a staff action to allow months of additional technical review and potential repurposing of grant funds; councilmembers expressed verbal support for the approach but did not take a formal roll‑call vote during the session.

What happens next: staff will return to council with options, potential procurement alternatives and recommended policies. The work session record shows the vendor presentation began at SEG 1618 and the city manager’s recommendation was delivered at SEG 3335; the debate and public comments continued through the meeting’s close (SEG 3445).

Direct quotes from the session illustrate the divide: Sheriff Mark Daniels said, “At this time, we're not gonna go with Flock.” Chief Heiser told the public, “We will not be using [LPRs] for civil traffic violations, red light runners...that is not the intent here.” Flock’s Lily Ho said, “We are not in the business of selling data.”

No formal council motion or recorded vote on the contract was taken at the work session; the manager’s recommendation was framed as direction for staff to explore alternatives and report back.