Roanoke council approves 75 Flock 'Raven' acoustic sensors despite privacy and accuracy concerns

Roanoke City Council voted 5–2 on April 20 to adopt an ordinance permitting the installation of 75 Raven acoustic gunshot‑detection sensors from Flock Group Inc. (doing business as Flock Safety) in public rights‑of‑way across the city.

Supporters, led by Deputy Chief Puckett of the Roanoke Police Department, said the sensors are intended to reduce response times to outdoor gunfire by triangulating loud acoustic events and alerting officers even when no caller reports the incident. “It is gunshot detection, and we are requesting 75 sensors citywide,” Puckett said, adding the department overlaid locations of past “shots fired” calls with sensor coverage to select sites. He told council the project would be funded through a federal Byrne grant and run under a two‑year contract; staff estimated the grant expenditure at roughly $57,000.

Opponents in the public comment period pressed council to reject the encroachment. Megan Lyle Peterson, a resident who addressed the council at the public hearing, said the company’s technology and its AI components are imperfect and risk false alerts and discretionary police actions: “these, you know, softwares are not perfect and there is actually a high error rate,” she said. Justin White, a cybersecurity professional, told council the devices are internet‑connected and described instances elsewhere of unauthorized access to camera systems. Jaren Manio, who urged a “no” vote, summarized published critiques and local examples, saying tests and audits showed high failure rates and citing Martinsville’s recent decision to remove a similar system.

Puckett responded to accuracy questions by noting Raven is designed and trained to detect impulsive acoustic signatures associated with gunfire and to ignore human voices. He acknowledged systems have missed some indoor incidents and that no acoustic system is perfect, saying the system is intended for outdoor detection and to reduce the time to reach victims and scenes. Puckett described monthly audits of system use, supervisor review of queries, and an anticipated data retention practice that deletes recorded incident data after 21 days similar to local license‑plate reader policies.

Council members pressed staff on contract terms and oversight. Councilmember Nash asked what internal safeguards exist to prevent misuse; Puckett said access to the alert database would follow current criminal‑investigation rules and monthly supervisory audits that are reported to Virginia State Police. Councilwoman Sanchez Jones asked whether the city could terminate the contract early; the city attorney said that question depended on contract language and that council was voting on the encroachment permit rather than final contract execution.

When the roll was called on the ordinance allowing the encroachment, the vote was Sanchez Jones Aye; Vice Mayor Maguire No; Nash Aye; Vollison Aye; Powers Aye; Hagen No; Mayor Cobb Aye. Mayor Cobb and legal staff said that final installation and any contract signature would follow additional review of contractual termination language and data‑security provisions.

What happens next: the encroachment permit authorizes placement in the right‑of‑way, but installations require the subsequent contract, vendor onboarding, and site work. City staff said they plan a review about six to eight months into deployment to evaluate effectiveness, and council requested a briefing on the contract’s termination clauses before any devices go live.

Why this matters: proponents say acoustic sensors can cut precious minutes in emergency response and help locate outdoor shootings when callers do not report incidents promptly; opponents warned of privacy harms, inaccuracies that can lead to unnecessary police‑community contacts, and documented legal and technical problems in other jurisdictions.

The council action authorizes the encroachment but leaves oversight, contractual controls and a formal evaluation plan to upcoming implementation steps.