Six months after Pine Plains adopted local oversight rules for Flock Safety cameras and related surveillance technology, Milan has followed suit, barring town officials from using the systems until policies governing them are in place.
The Milan Town Board voted unanimously Sept. 21 to prohibit town departments and officials from purchasing, managing, installing, or operating automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, until the board adopts policies governing their use. Any agreement involving the technology must also be reviewed and approved by the Town Board.
The measure is an oversight resolution, not a ban on Flock Safety cameras. It leaves open the possibility that Milan could use ALPR technology after establishing rules for how it would be deployed and how the resulting data would be handled.
“It’s not a ban,” Town Board member Kevin Pike, who drafted the resolution, told the Herald.
Pike has, however, separately drafted a proposed local law that would go much further, fully banning ALPRs and related networked surveillance technology on municipal and private property within Milan’s jurisdiction. That proposal has been circulated to board members but has not been discussed by the board, formally introduced, or scheduled for a vote.
The developments come as two county-operated Flock cameras near Route 199 and Tribune Lane — whose placement Milan officials have questioned for months — are slated for removal after state transportation officials determined they were installed on state-controlled land without permits.
At a county forum Wednesday, Sept. 23, District Attorney Anthony Parisi continued to describe the cameras as being on private property but said they would be removed at the request of Mirror Lake Retreat, who signed a contract with the county for the cameras to be installed.
Parisi did not immediately respond Thursday to questions from the Herald about the state’s determination.
From Pine Plains to Milan
Milan’s resolution states that “no Town Department or Official shall purchase, manage, install or operate” an ALPR or other networked public-safety camera system, “including but not limited to Flock Safety Cameras,” until the Town Board adopts policies governing its use.
It also requires board review and approval before the town enters into an agreement involving the purchase, management, installation, or operation of such technology.
The resolution acknowledges potential law-enforcement uses for ALPRs, including locating missing people and assisting criminal investigations, while citing questions involving privacy, data collection, governance, records retention, cybersecurity, and public transparency.
“This resolution effectively prohibits the Town Board from taking any action without there being thoughtful guidelines,” Supervisor Bill Jeffway said. “The main point is to be as transparent and educational as possible.”
The framework closely resembles one adopted March 19 in neighboring Pine Plains. That resolution prevents any town-controlled ALPR or networked public-safety camera from being activated or operated until the Town Board adopts a policy governing its use, and requires board authorization before the supervisor enters into related contracts.
Pine Plains adopted the measure unanimously after weeks of scrutiny over a proposed Flock installation that had moved forward through coordination with the town supervisor and town police without approval from the Town Board.
Milan’s resolution is somewhat broader in the actions it expressly restricts before policies are in place, barring town officials from purchasing and installing the technology as well as managing or operating it. Pike said the Pine Plains controversy directly influenced his drafting.
“I was definitely influenced by Pine Plains,” Pike said. “There’s no doubt about that.”
A Separate Proposal Would Ban the Technology
Pike’s draft local law would take a substantially different approach from the resolution Milan has already enacted.
The proposal would prohibit covered ALPR and related surveillance technology on town and private property within Milan’s jurisdiction. Pike emphasized that it remains preliminary: The full Town Board has not discussed it, its language could change, and he does not know whether it will ultimately come to a vote.
Milan’s town attorney has seen the draft but has not revised it, Pike said. According to Pike, the attorney advised that the town could regulate the technology on municipal and private property under its home-rule authority and that an outright prohibition could be simpler to administer than a permitting system.
“I have a preference for a ban because it’s clearer,” Pike said. “Permitting is a more difficult thing.”
The draft would exempt ordinary residential security technology, including doorbell cameras, dashcams, and home-security cameras, as well as conventional fixed security cameras at businesses, provided they were not connected to ALPR networks or using automated license plate recognition, vehicle fingerprinting, or device-tracking functions.
The proposal would not apply to state- or county-controlled rights of way, which are outside Milan’s jurisdiction, Pike said. If formally introduced, it would proceed as a local law and require a public hearing before adoption.
A Camera Placement Dispute Comes to a Head
Milan’s scrutiny of ALPR technology has unfolded alongside a separate dispute over two Flock cameras installed in June 2025 near Route 199 and Tribune Lane, close to the Taconic State Parkway.
The cameras face east and west along Route 199 and are leased and operated by the Dutchess County Sheriff’s Office. Milan officials have said the Town Board was neither informed of nor asked to approve their installation.
County officials maintained that the cameras were on private property. But former Supervisor Al LoBrutto and residents questioned that account, and a Herald review of county parcel records found that the grassy strip where the cameras stood did not appear to fall within a mapped private parcel.
In May, the Herald reviewed a November 2023 agreement showing that Mirror Lake Retreat had authorized law enforcement to install cameras on camp property. Camp director Ron Pankey acknowledged signing it but said he was surprised by where the cameras were ultimately placed.
“We signed for those to go on our property,” Pankey said at the time. “But when they came out, they were on a spot that we did not believe was our property.”
The Sheriff’s Office said county tax maps were not definitive property boundaries and that it relied on Flock site assessments rather than property surveys when determining placement.
Emails from state Department of Transportation officials reviewed by the Herald, however, indicate that the agency believes the cameras were placed on state property and are among an estimated 500 unpermitted Flock Safety cameras installed on state land across New York.
That determination conflicts with the account Parisi gave Wednesday at a public forum in Pleasant Valley, where the district attorney again described the cameras as being on Mirror Lake’s private property.
Parisi had taken the same position months earlier, telling the Herald that an installation within a state or county right of way would require “specific permitting and authorization from the appropriate governmental entity.”
At Wednesday’s forum, however, Parisi said the Milan cameras would be removed because Mirror Lake had asked that they be taken down.
Pike welcomed the removal.
“The town did not have prior knowledge of their placement and was not informed by the county that cameras had been installed,” he said in a written statement to the Herald. “Since February, the town has engaged with the county and the DA’s office to learn more about how the cameras were installed.”
“I am very pleased to learn that the cameras will be removed,” Pike said.
Pine Plains Considers Its Next Step
As Milan considers whether to go beyond its new oversight resolution, Pine Plains officials are also discussing whether their March action should be expanded.
Town board member Jeanine Sisco said Thursday that she would like the town to consider a permitting process for certain surveillance equipment installed on private or commercial property.
“What I would like to pursue is possibly an ordinance or something in place where a private property or a business property owner would, if they want to install some kind of surveillance technology, that they would have to come before the planning board, and it would have to meet certain guidelines,” Sisco said.
She compared the idea to Pine Plains’ existing permitting process for signs. Her concern, she said, is not ordinary home-security cameras but privately installed surveillance equipment that captures activity beyond the property itself, including traffic on public roads.
“You can have security cameras or whatever you want on your property, I feel,” Sisco said. “That’s everybody’s own business, and their right to do what they want on their property, but I think that it should only capture what is occurring on the property.”
Unlike Pike, Sisco said she would prefer regulation to an outright prohibition.
“I would be in support of a permitting process through the planning board because I don’t think that instituting a ban is really, I think that’s infringing on some property owner’s rights,” she said.
“I personally would not put forth the idea of having a ban,” Sisco added.
The debate may also be spreading beyond the two neighboring towns. Sisco said officials elsewhere have asked her for copies of Pine Plains’ March resolution since she discussed it at Wednesday’s forum.
“Maybe we can’t affect what the county is doing, what the state is doing, what the country is doing,” Sisco said. “But we can affect what’s going on in our town. In our little corner of the world.”
Shuchi Shah contributed reporting to this article.
Leave a comment