Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges removal of Flock Safety license‑plate cameras, questions police contract and data access
Summary
During petitions and comments, Anna Shelton told the council that 20 Flock Safety cameras are operating around Garner under a five‑year, $257,600 police contract and said she fears mass surveillance and third‑party data access; she urged the town to remove the cameras and offered literature for interested residents.
At the petitions and comments portion of the June 2 Garner Town Council meeting, resident Anna Shelton urged the town to remove Flock Safety automated license‑plate‑reader cameras that she said are operating in multiple locations around Garner.
"Flock Safety is a private startup tech company that has erected 20 surveillance cameras on roadsides all around Garner," Shelton said, naming the vendor and describing how the systems log license plates and vehicle details. She told council she believes the Garner Police Department signed a five‑year contract worth $257,600 and called for the town to consider whether that deployment is appropriate for a community she described as "quiet." Shelton also alleged that Flock employees in other jurisdictions accessed cameras in sensitive locations and said that data‑management practices create privacy and trust risks.
Shelton asked the council to "follow Pittsburgh and remove these cameras," arguing the town should prioritize other uses of public funds such as affordable housing or hiring officers. The mayor thanked her for raising the issue and noted staff had heard similar concerns from other residents.
At the same meeting, resident Sam Adams raised an unrelated public‑safety concern about people smoking marijuana on trails at White Deer Park and asked whether signage, trail patrols or an anonymous non‑emergency reporting method could help.
What this means: Shelton's comments put the privacy and procurement dimensions of the Flock deployment on the public record. Councilmembers did not take formal action on the cameras at the June 2 meeting; the petitions and comments segment is reserved for non‑agenda remarks and the council will not deliberate on those items immediately. Residents concerned about the cameras were invited to share Shelton's literature after the meeting.
