Cedar City tables Flock Safety contract renewal after hours of technical briefing and public comment

Cedar City’s council on July 8 declined to renew/extend its Flock Safety contract that night and instead voted to table the proposed renewal for two weeks after a detailed presentation from police and remote staff from Flock Safety and more than two hours of public comment.

Police Chief Darren Adams told the council the system has been a force multiplier for investigations, describing several cases where license-plate reader results contributed to arrests or solved burglaries and hit-and-run cases. Chief Adams emphasized operational checks: the department requires a case or CAD number before querying the system and maintains audit logs. He said access to statewide and nationwide queries was disabled in the city’s implementation and that data retention for the city is set at 30 days.

A Flock Safety representative, Max, the company’s director of public trust and technology, explained how the technology processes images on a CJIS-compliant AWS cloud, runs optical-character-recognition to extract a plate, and cross-references stolen-vehicle and wanted-vehicle lists. “That data is owned entirely by the end user, in this case, the city,” Max said, noting that Flock will not share data on the city’s behalf without authorization.

The public comment period produced dozens of speakers with sharply divided views. Several residents said the cameras threaten liberty and urged more local oversight and stronger contractual safeguards (citizen review of audit logs, more frequent penetration testing, explicit restrictions around sharing and future capability changes). One commenter warned of “mission creep” and urged the council to require justifications for each existing camera and any future additions. Other residents and business owners defended the system, citing solved crimes and faster investigations and saying the technology had proven useful for recovering stolen property and identifying suspects.

Council members and staff discussed contract terms, cybersecurity testing, and who at the city and vendor can access data. City staff said state law separates private-entity ALPR data from public-law-enforcement data, and that private customers’ data are bifurcated unless both sides opt to share. Several council members said the item deserved additional time and participation by an absent colleague. The motion to table the renewal carried on a voice vote; the council instructed staff to place the item on the agenda in two weeks for further consideration.

The tabling preserves the council’s current contract term while giving more time for technical follow-up, legal review and additional public input.