Residents press council for review of Flock license‑plate system; city says access has been restricted after audit

At the start of the open forum and again during the public comment portion, residents urged the City Council to scrutinize the city’s contract with Flock, the provider of automatic license‑plate readers (ALPRs).

Chris Holbrook, a Woodbury resident, asked the council to hold a public hearing and vote on the Flock contract, citing recent reporting and research that, he said, documented multiple incidents of unauthorized lookups by outside agencies and poor controls in some jurisdictions. Holbrook cited national examples and recent local media and academic reporting implying access and privacy risks, and he urged the city to increase transparency and public oversight of who may access ALPR data.

A city public safety official responded that the department has seen reductions in stolen vehicles and vehicle‑related damage since deploying the technology and that the city conducted an internal audit using the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension/Minnesota Security Consortium. The official said that audit and the city’s records‑retention and access controls produced no identified issues. Nonetheless, staff described operational changes made out of an abundance of caution: the city restricted automatic access previously shared inside a roughly 100‑mile radius and now requires outside agencies to make formal requests including a case number and justification; a Woodbury supervisor must review and approve each request and staff maintain an audit trail of data sharing.

Staff also said they contacted agencies with 287(g) immigration‑enforcement agreements to confirm whether Woodbury data had been used for immigration enforcement and reported that no Woodbury ALPR data had been provided to outside agencies for immigration enforcement in the instances they reviewed. City staff said they would continue to refine transparency information on the city’s portal and invited residents to request further clarification.

Holbrook and other residents urged a public hearing because of concerns about constitutional privacy protections and the potential chilling effect on protests and other civic activity. City staff acknowledged the concerns and said they had limited outside access and strengthened review and auditing processes in response to recent reporting elsewhere.

Council did not take a separate formal vote on the Flock contract at this meeting; staff said the matter could be added to a future agenda if the council requests further review or a hearing.