Sherburne County, Minnesota, halted its automated license plate reader program and canceled its Flock Safety contract amid rising public backlash over surveillance, joining a national wave of resistance as communities push back against automated law enforcement tracking and privacy risks.
The pushback against automated police surveillance is moving from online forums to public streets. In Minnesota and across the United States, residents and local authorities are confronting the rapid expansion of automated license plate reader technology, sparking debates over privacy, operational accuracy, and civil liberties.
Sherburne County Pulls the Plug on Flock Contracts
In Minnesota, the Sherburne County Sheriff’s Office officially ended its automated license plate reader program and cut ties with Flock Safety, the Atlanta-based company that manufactures the devices. Department leadership pointed to escalating public backlash and upcoming costs following an initial trial grant period. Commander Ben Zawacki confirmed that officials disabled camera search capabilities, cut power to the units, and began physical removal.
“While we believe license plate readers can be a useful tool for public safety, there has been a growing backlash against how some agencies have used the data collected by the cameras. We put a high value on our relationship with the people in the communities we serve. We don’t want to erode the trust that we have with them.”
Commander Ben Zawacki, Sherburne County Sheriff’s Office, via Thenerdstash
The decision mirrors similar actions in other Minnesota municipalities, including Duluth, where officials also terminated Flock contracts in the face of intense public opposition and reports of vandalism.
The Scale of Automated Tracking and National Backlash
The friction in Minnesota reflects a broader national conflict. Industry data shows that more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide use Flock technology, while advocacy groups tracking the sector estimate there are over 130,000 AI-powered automated license plate readers deployed on public streets. These devices capture billions of plate numbers, vehicle makes, models, colors, and modifications every month.
That data collection enables law enforcement agencies to reconstruct historical travel patterns. Critics argue that constant tracking creates severe privacy risks.
“They monitor, quite simply, when we go to and from work, where we go to the doctor, where we drop our kid off at daycare. What we’ve enabled in practical reality is law enforcement to go back and look at where any of us was at any given point in time.”
Clare Garvie, deputy director of technology law and policy at New York University’s Policing Project, via NPR
Proponents of the technology maintain that automated readers help locate missing people and stolen vehicles. Jeff Potts, executive director of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, acknowledged that while the systems can be helpful tools, the rapid expansion combined with cloud centralization and artificial intelligence has heightened anxieties over abuse and overreach.
Errors, Misuse, and Fourth Amendment Concerns
Privacy advocates point to documented instances of misuse, including officers accessing data for immigration enforcement without local government consent or using systems to stalk ex-partners. Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst with the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at the ACLU, warned that the data aggregation methods sweep up enormous volumes of innocent citizens.
“The potential for police fishing expeditions is unlimited. What a lot of these AI, big data techniques do is they try to boil the ocean, to reduce huge amounts of data down to various people who they think could be involved. The problem with that, of course, is it sweeps up potentially enormous numbers of innocent people.”
Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst with the ACLU, via NPR
Operational errors compound these concerns. A 2024 police department analysis in California revealed that license plate readers misread characters in 71% of the alerts transmitted to officers. Residents frequently highlight cases where misread plates lead to high-risk traffic stops involving innocent families before manual verification takes place.
Direct Action and Corporate Response
Discontent has moved beyond council chambers into direct physical resistance. In Crystal, Minn., residents like Brady O’Rourke use roof rakes bearing bright yellow signs to physically block roadside cameras from scanning passing traffic. Similar protests and instances of vandalism have cropped up across dozens of states.
Facing intense pressure during its annual conference, Flock Safety announced adjustments to its platform designed to curb misuse, such as reducing recommended data retention windows and cutting off system access for officers suspected of violating protocols. Garrett Langley, CEO of Flock, emphasized the company’s operational transparency.
“We are so transparent about the business. We don’t own this data. We don’t sell this data. Cities have control over how long it’s stored. And who it’s shared with.”
Garrett Langley, CEO of Flock, via NPR
As communities weigh automated policing efficiency against public trust, the future of street-level automated surveillance remains a flashpoint for local government oversight nationwide.
