As many of you know, I serve as a County Commissioner in Michigan. Our county is pretty unique, we are the only one of Michigan's 83 counties without a county administrator. We voted over 70% for Trump. We are rural, and rated as economically disadvantaged (read poor). Our residents are conservative but not what you would call "Hard Right".

With all the talk regarding license plate cameras, call them Flock, Axion or something unprintable our largest city (7,600 population) had a discussion about not allowing them to be installed. I see the things as a giant step towards the "surveillance state" and something no freedom loving person could support.

That said, I'm looking for information on municipalities that have banned their deployment so that I can craft a county policy prohibiting county resources from researching, applying for grant funding, installing or using these abominations. As our sheriff is an elected official, the commission cannot ban him from looking into them (not that I have any evidence he is) but we are both the policy body as well as the makers and keepers of the county budget. to that, we can say that no county resources can be used to purchase them and that no grant money would be accepted for them as well. Further, we can't control what cities or townships in our county do within their municipality.

Any information for this is appreciated.

There are virtually no Flock Safety cameras in New Hampshire. NH State law (RSA 261:75-b) tightly regulates Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), mandating data destruction within 3 minutes unless a vehicle is on a "hot list" and explicitly prohibits taking photos of vehicle occupants. Because Flock's cloud-based systems typically retain and share data across broader networks, these statutory restrictions make it extremely difficult for police departments, private businesses, or HOAs to use the Flock Safety anywhere in the state.

Here are some specifics re: NH (RSA 261:75-b) which actively curbs mass surveillance in NH:

Mandated Data Destruction - 3-Minute Purge Requirement: If a Flock camera scans a license plate and the number does not immediately match a law enforcement "hot list" (such as a stolen vehicle or a missing person), the data must be deleted within 3 minutes.

No Occupant Photos: By law, the cameras are strictly barred from being capable of photographing the driver or any passengers inside the vehicle.

State Registration & Audits: Any law enforcement agency operating an ALPR must register the devices with the Department of Safety, submit to strict audit protocols, and deliver annual usage reports.

General Highway Ban: Under NH RSA 236:130, automated surveillance, red-light cameras, and speed cameras are explicitly banned on public highways.

Im recently retired and worked with a department that used a type of license plate readers. They were of great value for crime fighting in our area.
The system was highly regulated requiring a report number to be submitted upon logging into the system that kept track of who was logged in and for what reason the police report gave detailed information on why the system was being used.
The department was also an premier accredited police department that would be checked on everything the officers did including the use of the system.
Many crimes were solved using the system and a lot faster. Which the public is demanding so much now days.
I see the concerns many are asking about but I believe that a well regulated program is very important.

Safford AZ put them in without telling the public, it's creating quite a stir, I suspect they will be removed.

List of AZ towns that banned them:

https://www.google.com/search?...ck&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

The grant money is to have them installed, I believe the County pays for upkeep and monitoring and maintaining them afterwards.

CT Towns Cancel Flock Safety Contracts Over Privacy Concerns
Several Connecticut municipalities have recently ended or paused contracts with Flock Safety, the Atlanta-based provider of automated license plate readers (ALPRs), citing privacy, data sharing, and civil liberties concerns.

Windsor, CT
Windsor’s Town Council voted 8–1 in February 2026 to temporarily pause its 16 Flock cameras after residents raised alarms about data sharing with agencies outside the state

. The town later permanently ended the contract in July 2026, with all cameras turned off and scheduled removal by fall

. Mayor Nuchette Black-Burke said the decision was driven by the lack of guarantees that Flock would not share local data, and by revelations that Windsor’s data had been searched thousands of times by out-of-state agencies, including for immigration enforcement

. The town’s new policy limits ALPR use and aims to protect residents’ privacy
.

Killingworth, CT
Killingworth also decided not to renew its contract for four Flock cameras on Route 81, citing security and privacy concerns

. The town is investigating vandalism of some cameras and is exploring alternatives.

Middletown, CT
Middletown rejected a proposed Flock contract after a public hearing in which 20–30 residents spoke about risks to privacy and public trust

. Mayor Eugene Nocera said the city will explore other technologies for public safety without compromising residents’ civil liberties.

State Context
No state oversight: Connecticut has no regulation on ALPR rollout, unlike automated speed cameras
.

Data sharing: Flock’s system allows nationwide sharing unless local agencies disable it; in Windsor, that setting was later turned off

.

Legislative action: In spring 2026, Connecticut passed rules limiting ALPR data sharing to Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, with agreements not to use it for immigration, reproductive care, or gender-affirming health care investigations

.

Public debate: Residents and groups like the ACLU of Connecticut have called for a statewide moratorium, citing risks to immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and others

.

Broader Impact
These cancellations mark the first in Connecticut to end Flock contracts, setting a precedent for other towns. Supporters argue ALPRs help solve crimes and find missing persons, while opponents warn of mass surveillance, data misuse, and erosion of trust
.

If you’re in Connecticut, these moves may influence other municipalities’ decisions on ALPRs and surveillance technology.

A) Disclaimer: I have a friend with a monitoring/security company, which mostly does .mil and large industrial facilities. - I think he’s good people, etc.

His company is jurisdictioned in Switzerland, specifically for privacy concerns. They have a U.S. branch, so they can probably bid on any contracts you have, if you’d like me to have them reach out.

B) If they really want to frighten people/do something actually useful, use cell phone tracking.

Something which can flag license plates/say deletes all data within 30 days, may be useful.

(Unless flagged, that seems like a long enough time for 99% of any crimes to be discovered.).

If you want to record public areas…. I guess. If you have known problem areas. Same issue. Delete every 30 days.

Do whatever you can to make it impossible to install them.

It’s the right thing to do. America was never founded to be a surveillance state.

The City of Westland just canceled their contract with Flock. I've heard Livonia, Garden City, and others cities in SE Mich are having discussions about this topic due to accessibility being far broader than what was promised.

A year or so ago a Dearborn resident traveled to a massage establishment in Garden City, when they refused to provide the 'services' he demanded he assaulted them, locked them in a room, then set fire to the building. The two employees were rescued by a PD unit who drove by and saw the fire. It was broadcast that Flock Cameras were used to track the suspects movements and track him home leading to an arrest before FD cleared the scene.

Double edged sword, may were glad he was caught, but that was the first 90% of the people knew that those even existed in this area. Many were upset at how this appeared so fast without anyone knowing it was there.

Once Flock has that data, nobody really knows for certain how it is used or by whom. That should frighten us.
Dealing with LE on a daily basis, Flock has become by default, a member in the "Good Ole Boys Club" and despite any potential wrongdoing, they won't be held accountable. Due to the LE relationship.
By Federal Law, BATFE is forbidden from creating and using a searchable database acquired from 4473 documents from FFL Dealers that close up shop and turn over the 4473 papers to the BATFE.
We know how that turned out.
Saved Electronic Plate Reader data will never be deleted, they will compress the file size due to storage space concerns, and just like the BATFE 4473 searchable database, the camera data will outlive all of us.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
B) If they really want to frighten people/do something actually useful, use cell phone tracking.

Apparently flock is working on incorporating that technology into the camera systems. As I understand it, they pick up the bluetooth or wifi signal on the phones as you drive by.

quote:

Double edged sword, may were glad he was caught, but that was the first 90% of the people knew that those even existed in this area. Many were upset at how this appeared so fast without anyone knowing it was there.

Good point. Everybody wants the bad guy's data captured so he can be caught, but not theirs.

there are municipalities looking at, as well as many that have banned or removed or not renewed.

As to the Sherriff he's elected, so get the movement started in the county to push back against FLOCK, a local organization of volunteers getting petitions or getting people involved so he knows come election time, FLOCK will cost him his job.

There is a web page https://deflock.org/ that tracks every camera as reported by individuals.

They may be of help in directing you to the correct people for copies of their written NoFLocking laws.

quote:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Ben Franklin, January 1775

Given how 3 members of the BOC have tried to pull some shenanigans in the last few months I can foresee this issue coming up. Thanks for taking this on!

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
The City of Westland just canceled their contract with Flock. I've heard Livonia, Garden City, and others cities in SE Mich are having discussions about this topic due to accessibility being far broader than what was promised.


Double edged sword, may were glad he was caught, but that was the first 90% of the people knew that those even existed in this area. Many were upset at how this appeared so fast without anyone knowing it was there.

Two recent episodes here in S/E Michigan, one a fatal hit and run committed by an prominentMacomb County attorney last weekend Flock led to his apprehension and a missing person of a couple of days from Standish found driving near Fowlerville (between Lansing and Detroit) due to a medical issue.

I too have privacy concerns but in these two cases, one averted a tragedy and one depending on the outcome of his trial cannont make the family whole or bring her back will bring punishment to someone who should have known better and tried to get away with a crime.