Leon County Commission removes license‑plate reader funding after months of public concern

The Leon County Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to remove funding tied to automated license‑plate reader (ALPR) cameras from a regional grant package on Thursday after hours of public comment and a lengthy board debate.

The action followed more than two hours of public testimony in which residents, technologists and neighborhood representatives urged the board to halt the county’s use of Flock and similar surveillance systems. Speakers cited privacy risks, evidence of misuse elsewhere, data‑sharing practices and published security vulnerabilities. “Libraries are common gathering spaces for children and families to grow and learn,” said Susan Gill, a Leon County resident and volunteer with Moms Demand Action. “Guns have absolutely no business being there,” she added in the portion of her remarks that addressed library policy; other speakers shifted to surveillance concerns for item 4.

Technical witnesses and security researchers told the board that some deployed ALPR systems had insecure interfaces and hard‑coded credentials that could allow attackers to access live camera feeds or stored data. “These are security vulnerabilities that are unacceptable in any public‑safety infrastructure,” said Evan Dunlap, who referenced CVE reports and independent research showing weaknesses in camera firmware and default credentials.

Sheriff’s office staff told the board that roughly $440,000 in the grant package had been identified for surrounding counties (Wakulla, Jefferson, Liberty and Taylor) and not as direct, operational funding for Leon County’s own use under that grant; the sheriff’s representative confirmed the funds would be passed through to those counties if left in place. Commissioners said the clarification did not remove the need for public scrutiny.

Commissioner Maddox offered a motion to remove the LPR‑related funds from the package (holding other grant items intact) and to return the matter for additional public discussion and a staff analysis. The motion passed on a voice vote with no recorded opposition. Chair and other members said they expect a focused workshop in September to examine legal authority, data‑ownership options, retention limits and oversight mechanisms before any county program expands.

The board’s action does not immediately remove cameras already deployed within the county by private vendors or under separate city contracts; commissioners and residents noted that municipal contracts and existing deployments will require separate review and, in some cases, different legal options.

The board’s vote followed repeated calls from residents for data ownership, transparent retention and sharing policies, and stronger contractual safeguards if the county partners with private vendors. Commissioners said they heard the public’s concerns and would bring back a thorough staff report and public workshop in September.

What happens next: staff will coordinate with the sheriff’s office to determine whether funds for surrounding counties must be reallocated by the regional fiscal agent and will prepare a September agenda item and technical briefing on LPR use, security risks and possible policy guardrails.