Pittsboro residents press town leaders over Flock ALPR contract as police defend system

Several Pittsboro residents urged the Board of Commissioners on April 13 to cancel or renegotiate the town’s contract with Flock, an automated license‑plate reader (ALPR) vendor, saying the technology risks long‑term privacy harms and that contract terms appear to let a vendor use or share data beyond local control.

“Section 5.3 of the contract gives through subjective language ample legal precedent for Flock to quietly back up and sell this footage before the jurisdiction has a chance to follow through on their policy of limited data retention,” said Tyler Patterson during the public‑comment period, identifying himself as a local small‑business owner. Several other speakers—Tanya Garcia, Logan Frederick and Yan Ber among them—detailed national reporting and lawsuits alleging misreads, misuse of ALPR data and improper employee access at other jurisdictions.

Police Chief Johnson, who outlined the department’s use and safeguards in a later presentation, said the system is a case‑driven investigative tool designed to assist detectives after crimes or when a NCIC/NC IJ alert is triggered. “It’s a picture in time,” Chief Johnson said, adding that the department restricts searches to documented incidents and logs every access in an audit trail. He told the board the department records a 30‑day retention period for most data and that searches must include an incident or call‑for‑service reference.

Carrie McCormack, identified in the meeting as a Flock public‑affairs manager, told commissioners that contract language makes the town the customer and owner of customer data and that the company’s system creates metadata and audit logs that agencies may review. “The end customer of that which would be the community or the police department owns that data,” she said.

Still, residents pressed the board on real‑world risks. Logan Frederick, who said he works on AI systems, cited national reports of misreads that led to mistaken confrontations and published records alleging improper employee access to camera feeds. “All this risk of false positives and abuse—and for what?” he asked.

Chief Johnson described cases where ALPR data contributed to locating a missing person, identifying suspects in vehicle break‑ins and assisting in an assault investigation. He also said the department has restricted participation in nationwide sharing and now limits the town’s ALPR visibility to other North Carolina agencies following public concerns; he said that change was implemented in February 2026.

Board members did not vote to change policy or to cancel the contract at the meeting. Commissioners applauded the department’s responsiveness to public concerns, and the board passed a motion asking the chief and town staff to consult the Chattam County attorney about the contract’s legal language and report back to the board with findings and any recommended changes.

What happens next: The chief and staff are to meet with the county attorney to review contract provisions (including any clauses residents read as allowing vendor perpetual use or disclosure) and return to the board with legal guidance and, if necessary, recommended revisions. The department also offered to provide periodic transparency reports on search activity, cases assisted and any audit findings.

Authorities and rules referenced: North Carolina statutes on ALPR data retention were discussed during the presentation; Chief Johnson cited N.C. Gen. Stat. 20‑183.30 through 20‑183.33 in describing state guidance on license‑plate data retention. The presentation also referenced the town’s internal ALPR policy and the contract with Flock.