Dutchess County officials said Wednesday they would reconsider the county’s use of Flock Safety license plate readers (LPRs), including whether to remove the cameras altogether, after nearly 100 residents packed a public forum to raise concerns about privacy, data security, government surveillance, and oversight.
The Sept. 23 forum at Pleasant Valley Town Hall brought together Dutchess County District Attorney Anthony Parisi, Sheriff Kirk Imperati, and county Legislator Eric Alexander, chair of the legislature’s Public Safety Committee. County officials had billed the gathering as a “community review.”
For much of the meeting, a line of about 30 residents from Pleasant Valley, Stanford, Milan, Hyde Park, Beacon, Poughkeepsie, and other communities formed behind the microphone. Every speaker either opposed the technology outright or called for stronger safeguards, greater disclosure, and more oversight of how the system is used.
By the end of the forum, Parisi and Imperati said that the county could ultimately decide that the cameras were not worth the civil liberties concerns raised by residents.
“We are going to take the information, the questions, the concerns that you’ve presented here tonight and we are going to truly evaluate it and weight whether the value of using LPRs in Dutchess County is worth the cost to civil liberties,” Parisi said.
“If we can do things better, we’ll do things better,” Imperati said. “If we need to get rid of it, we will get rid of it.”
An informational pamphlet distributed at the meeting states that Dutchess County currently has 63 Flock Safety license plate readers. Just below that figure, however, the same pamphlet states that there are 64 such cameras. As of Thursday evening, the county’s online transparency portal lists 65 license plate readers and 437 other cameras.
Flock’s license plate readers photograph passing vehicles, recording license plates and other characteristics, including make, model, color, and other distinguishing features. Law enforcement agencies can search the resulting database during investigations, including for vehicles that match a description even when a license plate number is unknown.
The cameras are part of a broader county law enforcement operation that includes the Analysis and Real Time Crime Intelligence Center, known as ARTCIC.
Parisi and Imperati defended the cameras as useful investigative tools, but repeatedly emphasized that they wanted the program to reflect concerns raised by the public.
Imperati cited an incident in which authorities received a report about a mother who might harm herself and her 1-year-old child. The woman’s vehicle had been recorded by a camera seven minutes before the call came in, Imperati said, allowing law enforcement to locate her in a parking lot and send deputies, a sergeant, and a behavioral health specialist.
The sheriff also said Flock cameras have aided investigations into burglaries, hit-and-runs, and an arson.
Residents, however, repeatedly questioned whether those benefits justified collecting information about the movements of motorists who are not suspected of committing crimes.
Jim Griffin of Stanford said officials were understating the capabilities of the technology by describing the cameras simply as license plate readers.
“We need to stop calling these LPRs,” Griffin said. “They do so much more than just read license plates.”
Griffin, who said he has worked in technology for 30 years, said the cameras can distinguish vehicles using characteristics other than their license plates and warned about the potential expansion of surveillance technology over time.
“I spent two months in China in 2022 covering the Olympics, and it was the most insane police state I’ve ever been in,” Griffin said. “Here we are. We have this technology here in this country now, and you brought it to us. I didn’t think I’d have to worry about this in Dutchess County.”
Other residents focused on who can access the information collected by Flock, how searches are audited, whether outside agencies can search Dutchess County data, and what would prevent future officials or individual law enforcement officers from misusing the system.
Julia Wardell of Pleasant Valley said she attended an earlier presentation on the cameras but remained concerned about “a lack of transparency, oversight, and regulations on how this data is to be collected, used, and stored.”
“You say you have checks and balances in place, and that this is something our county implemented from the beginning, and that’s great,” Wardell said. “But you’re asking me to trust that.”
Patrick Ladd, a Wappinger resident who said he has worked in technology and security for decades, pressed county officials about the audits performed on searches, how many people have access to the system, and what training those users receive.
“Without proper audit, you have no idea what your officers are up to,” Ladd said.
Ladd said he had reviewed audits of the county’s Flock searches and questioned some entries categorized as “other” and others identified as related to traffic infractions, despite county officials saying the system is not used for routine traffic enforcement.
He also questioned whether the portal provides a complete picture of searches conducted by outside agencies that have access to Dutchess County data.
Parisi said the county maintains both a Flock transparency portal and a separate website for its real-time crime initiative. After another speaker said the portal did not clearly identify all agencies with which Dutchess County shares information, Parisi said officials would make sure that information was available.
“We don’t have an issue with you knowing everything that we know,” Parisi said.
Transparency has been a central part of the county’s public defense of the program.
At Wednesday’s forum, some residents said they had learned about the cameras only after they had already been installed.
Records obtained by the Herald through a Freedom of Information Law request show that Dutchess County’s relationship with Flock Safety dates back several years and includes separate agreements with the Sheriff’s Office and District Attorney’s Office.
The Sheriff’s Office’s original agreement, covering eight Falcon cameras, five Falcon Flex cameras, and livestream integration services at a cost of up to $64,650, listed an effective date of Oct. 1, 2022. But county and Flock representatives did not sign the contract until June 6, 2023. A later amendment clarified “for the avoidance of any doubt” that the agreement took effect June 6, 2023, the date the Flock hardware was installed. The contract was subsequently extended through June 5, 2026, for up to $36,250.
The District Attorney’s Office entered into a separate agreement effective March 29, 2024, providing access to Flock’s operating system and 21 Falcon license plate readers at a cost of up to $63,000. That agreement was later extended through Aug. 28, 2026.
Melissa Schlobohm of Milan said two cameras near her home and workplace left her unsure for months about who had installed them, who controlled them, and what they were recording. One of the cameras, she said, appeared to be pointed toward her residence.
“I feel less safe with those cameras pointed at me,” Schlobohm said.
Parisi said cameras on property he asserted belongs to the Mirror Lake Association would be removed after the property owner asked that they be taken down.
The discussion comes as individual Dutchess County towns begin adopting their own restrictions on surveillance technology.
Jeanine Sisco, a Pine Plains Town Board member, told attendees that her town acted after officials learned earlier this year that Flock cameras had been proposed without authorization from the Town Board.
“We did start at a grassroots sort of place in Pine Plains, because we had the unfortunate experience of having someone in our administration authorizing Flock installation in our town,” Sisco said. “I’m proud to say that the town council members rallied and made sure that it wasn’t going to happen.”
The Pine Plains Town Board adopted a resolution in March requiring proposed surveillance technology to be regulated, come before the Town Board publicly, and receive approval by the Town Board before it could be deployed on town-controlled property.
“We will not have any sort of technology, Axon, Flock, you name it, in our town unless it is brought before the town council in a public forum, and voted on by the town council,” Sisco said.
She pointed to Pine Plains as evidence that municipalities can impose their own controls even as the county considers what to do with its broader program.
“Please understand that your town can make these decisions based on what your constituents want,” Sisco said.
Sisco said she is also interested in examining whether Pine Plains could regulate privately installed surveillance cameras that capture areas beyond private property, potentially by requiring some form of local review of where cameras are installed, which direction they face, and what information they collect.
Milan passed a similar resolution this week.
Other residents at the forum raised concerns about whether Flock information could ultimately reach federal immigration authorities, whether vehicle-identification errors could lead to wrongful police stops, and whether the company’s cybersecurity protections were sufficient.
County officials said their policies prohibit using the system for facial recognition and civil immigration enforcement.
Imperati also said the Sheriff’s Office does not currently have agreements with school districts to use Flock cameras at schools and said, if such an arrangement were pursued, cameras would be limited to building exteriors.
Parisi sought to assure residents that officials had previously rejected other surveillance technology on civil-liberties grounds. He described a proposal involving commercially available cellphone advertising data that could have allowed investigators to determine which devices had been in a particular area, and potentially where those devices returned each night.
“We made a determination that we weren’t gonna purchase that technology,” Parisi said. “That was a violation of your civil liberties.”
But speakers repeatedly argued that their concern was not limited to the intentions of the current district attorney or sheriff. Policies, they said, could be weakened by future administrations, circumvented by individual users, or overtaken by improvements in the technology itself.
Parisi said those concerns would be considered as officials determine the future of the county program.
“ We are elected by the people. And we want to represent what the people of Dutchess County want,” Parisi said. “And that’s why we’re here to listen to you, and understand what you want, and what you don’t want.”
Alexander said the Legislature will have an opportunity to decide the program’s future as lawmakers consider the county’s 2027 budget later this year.
“There will be no rubber stamping,” Alexander said. “It’ll be a thoughtful discussion, and there’ll be a vote among the Legislature, and we can say no.”
Alexander said Wednesday’s forum would not be the end of the public discussion and encouraged residents to attend upcoming Legislature and committee meetings.
“This is a beginning,” Alexander said.
Leave a comment