Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident warns council that Flock license-plate cameras can misidentify plates, cites arrests and settlements elsewhere

Live Oak City Council · July 15, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Resident Allison Snyder told the council Flock license-plate cameras have produced errors that she said led to wrongful arrests and a costly settlement in other jurisdictions; she urged the council to consider the risks and offered to provide documentation.

At the July 14 Live Oak City Council meeting, resident Allison Snyder raised concerns about license-plate surveillance cameras operated with Flock technology, telling council members she has documentation of frequent misidentification and the potential for wrongful arrest.

Snyder said multiple vehicles in different locations were incorrectly matched to her car’s license plate in Flock surveillance results. She described other jurisdictions where she said misidentifications led to arrests and a large settlement — citing one case she said resulted in a $1.5 million settlement and another in Daytona Beach where a driver spent 13 days in jail before being cleared. Snyder said those incidents demonstrate the risk that faulty plate reads and overreliance on automated matches can cause significant harm.

Snyder also said she previously raised these concerns at a prior meeting, and that a Captain Rountree had defended Flock at that time, describing it as a "force multiplier." Snyder told the council she considers the system an "incompetence multiplier" and urged officials to review the evidence and the system’s use locally. She offered to provide the council with her documentation and to discuss the matter further after the meeting.

No council or staff response resolving the concerns was recorded during the public-comment period. The statements were presented as a resident’s report and request for review rather than a formal complaint adjudicated at the meeting.