Law and political leaders weigh in on Flock cameras
BY DANIEL SCHMIDT
THE LAFAYETTE SUN
CHAMBERS COUNTY — In recent weeks and months, the debate over the use of Flock Security cameras and other automatic license plate readers has exploded online and in person.
Proponents and critics alike have pointed to both successes and misuse.
Supporters point to its demonstrated crime-solving benefits and say the public has nothing to fear if they aren’t committing crimes.
Detractors say the cameras are another mass surveillance tool ripe for abuse by authorities.
That debate has made its way to Chambers County, which features 10 Flock cameras within or at the edge of its borders. Eight of those cameras are in or near Lanett and Valley alone.
Chambers County Sheriff Jeff Nelson said automatic license plate readers have become one of his office’s most valuable investigative tools, even as he acknowledged the technology has turned into a lightning rod for privacy concerns.
The county operates two kinds of cameras, he said: stationary Flock cameras posted at fixed locations and automatic tag readers mounted on patrol cars.
Chambers County has four of the fixed cameras, all purchased under the previous administration, and Jeff Nelson said he has not bought any during his time as sheriff.
Two of the county’s cameras sit along an industrial drive, where local manufacturers pay the annual subscription and use the footage to monitor traffic in and out of the plants, Jeff Nelson said.
He pointed to a case in which a man was cutting catalytic converters off vehicles at an industrial facility, and another when a camera posted on a county road helped solve a pair of burglaries and track down a man wanted on an outstanding warrant.
The patrol-car readers are used mainly to flag stolen vehicles and expired tags, but Jeff Nelson said he warns his deputies against leaning on them too heavily.
Officers still must read the tag with their own eyes, run it and confirm a violation before making a stop, he added.
The office has a written policy governing the cameras similar to Lee County’s, and an administrator audits their use monthly, he said.
According to Jeff Nelson, a deputy repeatedly checking the same tag would be the kind of red flag that would prompt an internal review.
Still, Jeff Nelson said he believes the technology needs tighter regulation and stiffer consequences for misuse.
He compared it to the state’s criminal justice information system, where an officer who runs a search with ill intent faces prison time and up to a $25,000 fine.
No comparable penalty exists for abusing the cameras, he said, and an officer caught misusing them typically faces nothing worse than losing the job.
“These guys wind up getting a job somewhere else and doing it [there],” Jeff Nelson said. “We need some kind of punitive measures set up so that an officer found misusing these cameras faces more repercussions than just termination.”
Jeff Nelson, who spent time on a DEA task force earlier in his career, said the cameras have long been used to track drug couriers as they cross state lines. More recently, he credited them with helping his department make arrests in two murder cases.
In one, a suspect wanted in a Tennessee killing was captured after a Flock alert. Deputies spotted him at a local gas station, gave chase and arrested him with the murder weapon in his vehicle, Jeff Nelson said.
In another, a man accused of killing a woman was apprehended in Chambers County after a camera flagged his vehicle entering Alabama on the interstate, also with the weapon recovered.
The cameras have also aided in Silver Alerts — including a driver with Alzheimer’s who had left home in another state — and Amber Alerts, which Jeff Nelson called their most important use.
“If it’s used appropriately, it’s an outstanding tool,” Jeff Nelson said.
Jeff Nelson acknowledged that Flock cameras are currently one of the most sensitive subjects in law enforcement and said while he believes some of the criticism is “getting blown out of proportion,” he understands why the potential for abuse worries the public.
He noted officers can already track people through their cell phones when they have a legitimate purpose and the proper affidavits.
Jeff Nelson said his office fields weekly requests from agencies across the country seeking access to its cameras.
“There’s no reason why [someone in] Minnesota would want to run a tag in Chambers County unless it’s something serious,” he said. “I wish there was a way you could see who’s looking at stuff using your cameras, [or] if another agency logs into your camera and pulls something off it. There may be through Flock itself, but I’m not aware of it. I’m not up to par on the Flock cameras, because like I said, I didn’t purchase the ones we have in Chambers County.”
Jeff Nelson also said he had been told the State Bureau of Investigation was assigning agents to handle Flock camera misuse, though he had not seen a formal policy or been contacted about it.
Lanett Police Chief Denise McCain said her department has also taken steps to combat potential misuse.
McCain said only four supervisors — one per each of the department’s four shifts — and two investigators have access to the cameras and no other officer can log into the system.
She also said the department performs a monthly audit to determine who used the database and how they used it, and that she is meeting with Flock in the coming days to get phone alerts whenever someone logs into the system.
McCain added she has not yet had any issues with her officers misusing the system.
According to McCain, officers who have access to the database must have an active case and a solid description of a suspicious vehicle before they can use the technology.
She said the cameras have helped the department recover numerous stolen vehicles.
The company’s response
Flock CEO Garrett Langley has called officer misuse “completely unacceptable” while also defending the underlying technology, arguing guardrails can address surveillance concerns.
Under mounting pressure, the company has rolled out an audit tool that flags unusual searches, made multi-factor authentication mandatory, cut its recommended default data retention from 30 days to seven and given local jurisdictions the ability to block outside agencies from running certain searches.
However, critics remain unconvinced that a system built for mass surveillance can be reformed into something that safeguards privacy while continuing to collect an estimated 20 billion images per month across the U.S.
Some critics have also argued the readers amount to warrantless surveillance that the Fourth Amendment was intended to prevent, and private citizens have begun protesting, filing records requests and physically cutting cameras down in some places.
State lawmakers in certain states are now weighing bills to restrict how the data is stored and shared.
Statehouse action on the horizon
As public outcry grows over the presence and use of Flock cameras, the Alabama state legislature is now weighing introducing legislation in the 2027 session aimed at banning Flock cameras along state highways.
The telegraphed move comes after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) several weeks ago unilaterally banned Flock cameras along Florida state highways, and several counties across the Sunshine State introduced ordinances addressing the same issue.
In Alabama, the Walker County Board of County Commissioners voted to remove Flock cameras from the roads it has jurisdiction over.
District 38 State Rep. Kristin Nelson (R-Lanett) said she would be open to supporting legislation that creates criminal penalties for law enforcement officers who abuse their access to such technology.
“I support our law enforcement officers and the tools they need to protect our communities. At the same time, public safety and personal privacy must go hand in hand,” Kristin Nelson said. “Alabama already has standards governing data access and misuse through the Criminal Justice Information System. I believe those standards should be enforced, and I am willing to support legislation, if needed, to strengthen penalties for anyone who abuses this technology. We can support law enforcement while ensuring accountability and protecting the rights of our citizens.”
