Henry Harrington

By now, many people have probably heard about Flock cameras. They have received considerable attention in the news and in communities across Minnesota. For those who are not familiar with them, here is the basic idea.

Flock Safety operates automated license plate reader cameras, commonly called ALPRs. These cameras are generally positioned along roadways and automatically capture information about passing vehicles.

Unlike a traditional traffic camera that someone might associate with speeding or running a red light, Flock cameras are designed primarily to identify and record vehicles. The system can capture information such as a vehicle's license plate, make and model, color, and other identifying characteristics, along with the time and location where the vehicle was observed.

Law enforcement agencies can search this collected information when investigating crimes or attempting to locate a particular vehicle. For example, if police are looking for a vehicle associated with a stolen car or another crime, the system may help determine whether and where that vehicle passed one of the cameras.

In simple terms, Flock creates a searchable record of vehicles observed by its camera network. That basic capability is what makes the technology useful to law enforcement — and it is also what has made Flock the subject of so much public discussion.

I support law enforcement and the men and women whose job it is to protect our communities. Giving law enforcement the tools necessary to investigate crimes and apprehend dangerous criminals is an important function of government.

But supporting law enforcement does not mean supporting every technology, every policy, or every expansion of government power. There is a point where a law enforcement tool becomes government surveillance, and I believe Flock crosses that line.

Everyone Is Recorded

Flock cameras do not activate only when a suspected criminal drives past them. They photograph and record information about vehicles traveling on public roads, including vehicles belonging to ordinary people who are not suspected of committing any crime.

The result is a searchable database containing information about where vehicles were observed and when they were there. A single camera may seem insignificant, but as more cameras are connected across communities, the system becomes capable of documenting the movements of enormous numbers of innocent people.

Flock maintains that its system is not mass surveillance and that searches must be conducted for legitimate public-safety purposes. The company also maintains audit logs of searches and limits how long data is ordinarily retained.

I disagree with the company's characterization. When government creates a system that routinely records the vehicles of people who are not suspected of crimes and makes those observations searchable, I believe that is mass government surveillance regardless of what terminology is used to describe it.

Technology Makes Mistakes

The consequences of an incorrect alert are not theoretical. There have already been documented cases around the country in which innocent motorists were detained after automated license plate reader information contributed to police identifying the wrong vehicle.

In our own back yard Plymouth, Minnesota, in 2026, an automotive journalist driving a loaned Range Rover was tracked and eventually surrounded by multiple police vehicles because the system was searching for a plate associated with a stolen vehicle. The problem involved incomplete plate information entered into a national database and the failure to verify the complete plate before officers acted. The driver was innocent.

In Sherwood, Arkansas, in 2026, a Flock camera misread an innocent couple's license plate and associated their vehicle with a stolen vehicle. Police detained the couple at gunpoint while their six-week-old baby remained in the back of their vehicle. Officers released them after determining that the alert was wrong.

These cases demonstrate an important point: even when technology works as designed, incorrect information, an inaccurate plate read, or human error can have very real consequences for an innocent person.

Public Safety and Liberty Are Not Opposites

We should not have to choose between supporting law enforcement and protecting our privacy. Police successfully investigated crimes long before networks of automated cameras began recording vehicles as they traveled through our communities.

New technology should not automatically be accepted simply because it may make an investigation easier. Government power should always have limits, particularly when technology makes it possible to collect and search information about thousands of people who have done nothing wrong.

I support law enforcement. I do not support mass government surveillance. I oppose Flock, and I will do what I can as a County Commissioner to prevent this kind of surveillance from becoming a normal part of our everyday lives.

I support the Anoka County Sheriff's Office and the important work our deputies perform every day. Supporting law enforcement, however, does not mean giving any elected official or government department unlimited authority or freedom from oversight.

County Commissioners have a responsibility to oversee how taxpayer money is spent, particularly when a purchase involves controversial technology that can affect the privacy and constitutional rights of the people we represent.

The Flock Contract Should Have Received Public Scrutiny

Anoka County requires County Board approval for contract agreements exceeding $175,000.

Sheriff Brad Wise initially discussed a larger, two-year Flock proposal costing approximately $245,000. That proposal would have required a vote by the County Board.

Instead, the Sheriff's Office ultimately entered into a one-year Flock agreement costing just under the $175,000 threshold, allowing the agreement to move forward without a vote of the County Board.

I strongly disagree with that decision.

The purpose of an approval threshold is to provide oversight of significant government expenditures. When a controversial purchase is structured just below that threshold, taxpayers are deprived of the public discussion and accountability that should accompany a decision of this magnitude.

Oversight Is Not Anti-Law Enforcement

There will undoubtedly be times when I agree with the Sheriff and times when I disagree with him. That is how independent elected offices are supposed to work.

I do not want the County Board and Sheriff's Office to be adversaries. Commissioners should work cooperatively with the Sheriff to provide deputies with the resources they legitimately need to protect the public.

But cooperation cannot mean carte blanche approval of every purchase, program, or expansion of government authority. No elected official, including the Sheriff or a County Commissioner, should be above meaningful oversight.

Major Surveillance Purchases Deserve a Vote

I believe the County should review its purchasing policies to prevent major surveillance programs from being implemented without meaningful public and County Board review simply because the contract falls just below a general purchasing threshold.

Technology capable of collecting information about the movements of thousands of innocent residents should receive greater scrutiny, not less. Decisions involving surveillance technology should be discussed openly, with the costs, capabilities, safeguards, and implications available for the public to examine before the County commits taxpayer money.

I support law enforcement. I also support accountability, constitutional rights, and the responsibility of elected officials to question government overreach. Those positions are not in conflict.

My position is straightforward: I oppose Flock and mass government surveillance.

I support law enforcement. I want our deputies to have the equipment, training, staffing, and resources they legitimately need to protect themselves and the public. But supporting law enforcement does not require us to surrender our privacy or give government unlimited authority to monitor people who have done nothing wrong.

I also strongly disagree with the way the current Flock contract was handled. A major and controversial surveillance program should not be able to avoid a public County Board vote simply because its contract is kept just below the amount requiring Board approval.

As Your Commissioner

I will work to strengthen County oversight of surveillance technology and other major purchases. I will support policies requiring meaningful public review before technology capable of monitoring large numbers of residents can be purchased or expanded.

I will also support reviewing the County's purchasing thresholds and approval procedures so that significant or controversial programs cannot bypass appropriate County Board scrutiny simply because a contract falls just below a dollar threshold.

If the Sheriff's Office needs equipment to protect deputies, respond to emergencies, investigate crimes, or apprehend dangerous criminals, I will listen and work with the Sheriff to provide the resources necessary to do that job effectively.

But when government wants the ability to routinely collect information about where ordinary people are traveling, the answer should not automatically be yes simply because the technology might be useful. Convenience for government is not more important than the rights of the people government exists to serve.

Law enforcement and the County Board should be partners in protecting Anoka County. That partnership must include accountability, transparency, respect for constitutional rights, and a willingness to say no when government power goes too far.

I will support our law enforcement officers. I will support the tools they genuinely need to keep our communities safe. But I will not give any government agency carte blanche to disregard our rights as Americans, and I will do everything within my authority as a County Commissioner to oppose mass government surveillance in Anoka County.