Privacy concerns dominated discussion of the city’s Flock Safety automatic license plate reader system during the Crossville City Council work session on Oct. 6, 2026, as a resident urged cancellation of the contract and police officials defended the technology as an effective crime-fighting tool with strict safeguards.

During public comment, Alan Sizemore challenged the planned presentation, referencing a leaked Flock guide advising departments on messaging to city councils. He detailed the city’s February 2023 contract, which states Flock does not own agency data but grants the company a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free license to use and disclose the data (including footage) to law enforcement, as well as rights to collect, anonymize, and use it for machine-learning training and other Flock offerings during and after the contract term.

Sizemore cited examples from other cities: In Sheboygan, Wisconsin, a Flock representative allegedly tried to sell multi-year data to another municipal department despite contract limits, prompting the city to vote to terminate the agreement. In Boston, data sharing remained active despite settings and statements indicating it was disabled. He argued these incidents, combined with Crossville’s contract language, show Flock has “no business being in Crossville” and called on the council to pass a resolution canceling the contract, removing the cameras, banning all ALPRs, and requiring a public referendum before any future system could return. He suggested redirecting the funds to the water system instead.

Police Chief Jesse Brooks and Detective Tyrel Lorenz then delivered a presentation on the system. Brooks explained it was adopted around 2020–2021 amid severe staffing shortages from COVID absences and recruiting difficulties following national “defund the police” debates. After researching other departments, the city partnered with Flock and obtained council approval. The department currently operates seven cameras (down from an original 10 due to construction and damage).

Williams described the technology as capturing only static photos of vehicles and license plates on public roadways, along with date, time, and location. It does not use facial recognition, view inside vehicles, or identify individuals. Cameras check plates against the National Crime Information Center for stolen vehicles or wanted persons and support “hot lists” for active investigations. Alerts notify officers, who must independently verify information through dispatch and develop probable cause before any stop; Flock hits are treated solely as investigative leads.

Data retention was recently reduced to seven days—well below Tennessee’s 90-day standard—with older data purging. Access is limited, supervisors conduct monthly audits (and have reviewed historical data), and Flock itself flags potential discrepancies. Officers must document a legitimate reason and case number for any query. Officials emphasized compliance with state law and court rulings that have generally upheld ALPRs as constitutional, while noting that individualized, prolonged tracking would require warrants, similar to cell-phone location data.

They shared recent local successes, including a rapid arrest after a hospital break-in and assistance with out-of-area cases involving serious crimes. Brooks said the system helps close the gap between investigation and luck, particularly in cases such as missing persons.

Council members and members of the public raised questions about past audit completeness, data sharing with other agencies, potential officer abuse (citing firings elsewhere), and whether Flock could sell or misuse data for commercial purposes such as insurance. Police responded that shared data remains subject to local policies, the contract assigns ownership to the police department, and features such as traffic-pattern analysis are disabled. The department said it would treat any abuse with criminal charges and decertification.

City staff noted the current contract expires in February 2027 and that invoices would not be paid beyond that point without a decision. Council agreed to place the matter on the next regular meeting agenda for further discussion and possible action, which could include non-renewal, deferral to the incoming council, or other options. Several members indicated they wanted more time to review the full contract and related case law before deciding.