Two Flock Safety cameras at the intersection of Route 199 and Tribune Lane in Milan have raised questions among town officials and residents about who authorized their installation and whether they are located on public or private land.
The cameras, which can store identifying data on passing vehicles and read license plates, are leased and operated by the Dutchess County Sheriff’s Office. They face east and west along Route 199, near entrances to the Taconic State Parkway.
The cameras were installed in June 2025, according to Dutchess County District Attorney Anthony Parisi. They stand across the street from 3 Tribune Lane, on a grassy area where the town road meets Route 199, on either side of a roadside sign for Mirror Lake Retreat, a nearby campground and RV resort.
County officials say the cameras are on private property. But Ron Pankey, the camp director at Mirror Lake, said the land is outside the camp’s parcel and that Mirror Lake has never entered into an agreement with Flock Safety or law enforcement. A Herald review of Dutchess County Parcel Access, the county’s online property-records database maintained by the Dutchess County Real Property Tax Service Agency, shows the strip does not appear to be part of any mapped private parcel.
“I believe they’re on state or county property,” Pankey said.
The parcel records do not resolve whether the strip is part of a state, county, or town right of way, or which public agency, if any, owns or controls it.
Milan’s former town supervisor, Al LoBrutto, who retired at the end of 2025, said the Town Board neither discussed nor authorized the installation of the cameras while he was in office.
“The problem is they’re not on Mirror Lake’s property, they’re on public property,” LoBrutto said.
Parisi disputed that account, saying that if a Flock camera is installed on a state or county right of way, it would have to go through “specific permitting and authorization from the appropriate governmental entity. No such installation would occur absent that process.”
Roughly two years ago, before the cameras were installed, Pankey said, “A state trooper came out and told us [Mirror Lake] that was what was going to take place.”
New York State Police Public Information Officer Krystal Paolicelli said her office can access the cameras, but was not involved in their installation and has no agreement with Flock Safety or Mirror Lake.
Parisi, however, said the cameras were placed on private land.
“These resources deployed in Milan are installed on private property,” Parisi wrote in an email to the Herald. “Private citizens and property owners may, in certain circumstances, choose to assist law enforcement in confidential ways.”
The county’s Analysis and Real Time Crime Intelligence Center, known as ARTCIC, maintains a transparency portal for Flock camera deployments in Dutchess County. According to the portal, there are currently 476 Flock Safety cameras across the county, including 64 license plate readers and 412 “other” cameras. The public-facing portal, however, lists locations for only 17 camera or license plate reader entries.
The portal says it discloses “law enforcement-owned and publicly deployed camera and License Plate Reader (LPR) locations” only “to the extent appropriate for public disclosure.” It also states that the portal “does not disclose cameras or LPR systems installed on private property,” saying the omission is intended “to ensure the privacy, safety, and protection of cooperating citizens and private entities,” “preserve the integrity of ongoing and future investigations,” and “prevent the potential targeting or circumvention of these systems.”
Stephen Reverri, chief deputy of the Dutchess County Sheriff’s Office, reiterated that position in a phone call.
“We don’t discuss any cameras that are on private property,” Reverri said.
The distinction matters because county officials say privately placed cameras are not disclosed publicly, while cameras installed on public land or in a public right of way may require approval from the government entity responsible for that land. The unresolved question of where the Milan cameras stand is therefore also a question of whether the public had any opportunity to know about or review their installation.
Milan Town Supervisor Bill Jeffway said he has been approached by numerous residents who believe the cameras are not on private property.
Parisi said the cameras “assist in identifying stolen vehicles, locating individuals involved in violent crime, and supporting law enforcement investigations.” He said they are part of a longstanding countywide project to monitor ingress and egress into Dutchess County.
“The objective is straightforward: prevent crime where possible, develop evidence efficiently, and assist in the apprehension of those who commit crimes in our communities,” Parisi said.
Flock Safety and law enforcement agencies have described automated license plate readers as tools for solving crimes, recovering stolen vehicles and identifying vehicles connected to criminal investigations. Civil liberties groups, however, have warned that the technology can also create privacy risks, particularly when large amounts of location data are retained, searched, accessed or shared improperly, or used without sufficient public oversight.
Flock Safety has installed cameras across towns in the Hudson Valley over the past year, though some municipalities, including Pine Plains, have ended their involvement with the company.
Flock Safety declined to answer questions about the cameras in Milan, referring the Herald to its customer.
“Thanks for reaching out. I must respectfully refer you to the customer,” the company said.
Milan business operator Ellen Rand, who owns two contiguous parcels on Tribune Lane directly opposite the cameras, where she runs Monumenta Art Conservation and Finishing LLC, said she was not contacted before the cameras were installed.
“They just appeared one day,” Rand said. “Flock Safety did not approach us.”
Supervisor Jeffway said the dispute points to a broader need for transparency around public safety tools.
“I think the best situation is always to be transparent, recognizing that we need to balance law enforcement with privacy rights,” he said.