Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Surveillance Tech topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Police and vendor brief council on license‑plate readers, citing cases and safeguards

Georgetown City Council · July 28, 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

Georgetown Police and vendor Flock presented an overview of the city's license‑plate‑reader program (6 city cameras, county sharing), described uses (alerts and retroactive searches), retention practices (30‑day default; Kentucky law KRS 189.632 allows up to 90 days), cybersecurity audits, sharing options and several local case studies where LPR data assisted investigations.

Police and their vendor Flock gave an extended briefing on automated license plate readers (LPRs). Carrie McCormack of Flock described the technology as a tool to identify vehicles tied to crimes or missing persons and said the company works with law enforcement to provide precision and efficiency. She explained the two primary functions — proactive alerts and retroactive searches — and stressed that "there's no facial recognition or any personally identifiable private information captured by the cameras," adding the system captures a photo of a vehicle and associated metadata.

Police detailed local case studies where LPR data supported investigations, including locating stolen vehicles, linking suspects to crimes, and finding missing persons. The department reported it currently operates six LPR cameras with county sharing and pays roughly $3,000 per camera per year for a managed service that includes maintenance and connectivity. Council members asked about retention windows, sharing with private cameras and federal access; Flock staff noted a company default retention of 30 days (local setting) and that the new Kentucky statute KRS 189.632 sets a 90‑day maximum, with agencies retaining control over sharing relationships. Flock described auditing tools and proactive audit assistance designed to flag unusual search behavior and said misuse has been rare and typically identified through audit trails and agency discipline.