The Town Council on Tuesday night voted 8-1 to shut off the cameras and attempt to negotiate a new deal with Flock Safety, the Atlanta-based company that owns and operates the town’s automatic license-plate reader system and others placed in more than 50 communities across Connecticut.
“I think we see the public is skeptical about this company, and there needs to be a different approach taken,” council member Anthony King said. “I think we have no choice but to shut them off.”
A Flock spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday on the vote to turn off the cameras in Windsor.
The company has contracted with more than two dozen communities across the state, ultimately creating a database for police departments and other agencies across the country. Agencies have the ability to opt out of the national network. Several departments in Connecticut have credited the network with helping to solve crimes and assist in cases in which people went missing.
Council members, however, said opposition over the company, a host of privacy and data-retention concerns, and the fact that out-of-state law enforcement agencies could have accessed the town’s data spurred community opposition and led to the decision to pull the plug on the cameras leased from Flock.
“Based on what we are facing and hearing from our constituents, it’s a problem of principles,” Mayor Nuchette Black-Burke said.
The decision follows an investigative report by CT Insider earlier this month that found out-of-state authorities had searched data collected by Connecticut police departments’ license plate cameras thousands of times in an effort to enforce federal immigration laws.
In many cases, out-of-state police departments and agencies labeled their searches “ICE” or “ICE-assist,” raising questions about whether federal authorities were working with those departments. Concerns from public officials followed, including over compliance with Connecticut law meant to restrict local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. U.S. policy on immigration has become increasingly controversial, and ICE is facing mounting criticism over its enforcement tactics and use of surveillance tools.
State lawmakers are considering legislation that could limit local law enforcement’s use of plate-reader cameras.
Windsor's contract with Flock was $40,000 according to town officials and includes 16 cameras around town. The contract is up for renewal in May.
Council member William Pelkey voted against turning off the cameras but said he understood his colleagues’ concerns.
“I understand about government tracking us,” Pelkey said. “This is just a small drop in the bucket. As soon as you drive across the border, you are going to run into the same things.”
Pelkey said he would have preferred to wait until closer to the May renewal date and then negotiate with Flock.
“If they don’t match what our community wants, then fine. I don’t want to turn it off and have something happen to someone,” he said.
A summary of comments prepared by town officials after several public forums included concerns over real-time tracking by the cameras, the security of data collected, retention of that data and sharing the information with out-of-state agencies. The summary noted the public wanted clear oversight mechanisms in place to prevent misuse of the data, including civilian management, control over who can access the data, audits and public reporting.
In December, the Town Council adopted an automatic license-plate reader policy intended to provide “guiding principles for the lawful, ethical and transparent use of this technology.”
'Best way to move forward'
Council member Ojala Naeem said she heard from residents opposed to the automatic cameras and noted the system does not meet the town’s adopted policy of controlling use of the data.
“There are solutions for our police department we can look at, but given the wide range of contradictions, I believe this is the best way to move forward,” Naeem said of shutting off the cameras. “My motion is to turn them off, and we have until May to decide if the contract would be canceled.”
Council member Ronald Eleveld said the public clearly does not want the cameras pointed at their vehicles.
“The reality of life today is this stupid device knows more about me,” Eleveld said, holding up his smartphone. “That’s the reality. We don’t want government tracking us. But I’ve heard very loudly from the community that they really want these things off.”
Asked about the impact on the police department, Police Chief Donald Melanson said officers would prefer to keep the investigative tool.
“They would be disheartened if this tool was removed, even temporarily,” Melanson said. “They would look at this as they are not trustworthy and something that inhibits them from doing their job … that we don’t have this tool available to follow that lead.”
In material distributed to council members, police pointed out the cameras have helped identify vehicles involved in shootings, evading accidents and participating in street takeovers, and led to the arrest of an assault suspect.
Deputy Mayor Darleen Klase said she understood the police department’s concern.
“I’m going to be honest; I’m going to vote to turn the cameras off,” Klase said. “I value our police officers and I trust them, but I don’t trust Flock as a company. So, for me, today, that’s where my vote is. It may change if it’s a different company or the data is owned by a government agency. It’s the types of people having access to that data.”
© 2026 Journal Inquirer, Manchester, Conn. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
