Monett uses 4 cameras; Seligman cancels contract due to ‘overwhelming opposition’

By Sheila Harris [email protected]

Kyle Kuhn, of Cassville, a military veteran and a past employee of local law enforcement agencies, is not bashful about vocalizing his distrust of the interconnected Flock digital camera systems being used by law enforcement agencies across the nation.

Flock is a brand name for a linked, digital camera system known generically as “Automated License Plate Readers,” or ALPRs.

“People are going about their own business, and are generally unaware that their individual rights are slowly being stripped away,” Kuhn said.

Flock appears to have a large share of the ALPR market. According to its website, the company offers “a complete solution with one accountable partner” – itself. The system, states Flock, is capable of integrating ALPR, video, audio and drone technology, with every component designed, installed and supported by Flock.

Flock ALPR cameras can be accessed by local law enforcement subscribers across the nation.

A recent investigative report states that high-tech Flock systems currently pool data collected from over 120,000 cameras in 6,000 law enforcement agencies across 49 states (https://tinyurl.com/bde6xtx4).

“American citizens don’t want to be watched all the time, especially not by a private company gathering data,” Kuhn said.

Richard Asbill, Cassville city administrator, said the Cassville Police Department does not contract with Flock, nor does it use ALPR cameras.

Asbill believes that ALPRs are an effective tool for public safety when used appropriately. With a background in public school administration, Asbill said most people would agree with using whatever technology is available to keep children safe.

However, Asbill is also a strong proponent of privacy.

“Most people have expectations of privacy when they’re [in their own cars], driving down the road,” he said. “While the use of ALPR technology is an important tool in tracking a stolen vehicle, or tracking a stolen child with an Amber Alert, unfortunately, that technology has been misused. It’s created public mistrust, and rightfully so.”

In recent headlining news stories, personnel with access to Flock systems have used the cameras to unlawfully track or stalk wives, ex-wives, romantic interests and citizens who voiced criticism about government policies.

In northern Barry County, the Monett Police Department (MPD) uses four fixed Flock cameras in strategic, high-traffic-flow locations.

While the Flock website indicates that mobile and portable Flock applications are also available from the company, the MPD does not use them.

Dennis Camp, Monett interim chief of police, said Monett’s cameras are in fixed locations and record only still images of vehicles and their license plates.

“The cameras cannot record video, nor is there a feature that can be ‘turned on’ to allow for video,” Camp said. “The cameras are motion-activated by cars only — not people or bikes — and they do not take images at regular intervals [aside from motion activation by autos].”

Det. Sgt. Scott Landreth, with the MPD’s investigative unit, calls the Flock system one of the most useful pieces of technology the department has.

“It’s an investigative tool, but only a tool,” Landreth said. “Flock can generate leads, but those leads must be verified by human law enforcement agents.”

Landreth cited the case of a local vehicle break-in, where the perpetrator was tracked and arrested because of the vehicle he was driving, which had been rented in Florida.

“Local crimes used to be committed by local people,” Landreth said. “But now, we’re seeing more people from out of state. ALPRs just point us in the right direction.”

Camp said before an enforcement action can be taken, an officer must independently locate the vehicle, verify the plate through the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System (MULES), and consider the circumstances observed.

“A Flock alert by itself is not a substitute for an officer’s judgment or investigation,” Camp said.

The criteria for an ALPR search must include the vehicle’s license plate number and a reason for the search, Landreth said.

“If we don’t have a license plate number, we can’t do a search,” he said.

Landreth said the Flock cameras do not use facial recognition.

“Our Flock cameras cannot see inside vehicles, nor identify drivers,” Landreth said.

The cameras record an image of the exterior of the vehicle and limited details such as the license plate, vehicle characteristics, date, time and the camera’s location.

Camp said Monett has eight employees with access to the city’s four flock cameras.

“We conduct monthly audits on the system to ensure that employees are not abusing it,” he said.

Camp said suspicious activity that might indicate abuse could include multiple searches for the same license plate number within a relatively short time span.

“We’ve never found any abuses within our own system,” he said.

Camp said the Monett Police Department has used the Flock ALPR system since 2024.

“We keep search images for 30 days, unless they’re involved with an active investigation,” Landreth said.

Due to concerns from the public, Flock announced on Aug. 13 that it will now recommend that law enforcement records be retained for only seven days, although the retained plate information of current customers could be kept for the previously agreed upon term.

Landreth would like residents to know that the MPD is on their side.

“We’re not blanketing the city with surveillance cameras that we sit here and watch, because there’s nothing to see,” he said. “We just have individual, still images, retained for a specified time.”

While many residents might be comfortable with local police departments using ALPR systems, they often have second thoughts when local access by law enforcement agencies across the nation enters the equation.

Christie Hebert, an attorney with the Institute for Justice who spoke to KCUR news in Kansas City, doesn’t believe there are enough guardrails for ALPR systems, and that individual police officers have too much leeway to query a vast and growing database of vehicle information (https://tinyurl.com/3pewk69z).

To complicate matters, the use of ALPR cameras is not limited to law enforcement. Flock cameras can also be purchased independently and used by private businesses, residential subdivisions, shopping centers, schools and many other entities.

An ALPR FAQ handout from the MPD indicates that courts have generally recognized that there is a reduced expectation of privacy [when] license plates [are] displayed in public.

“Like any investigative technology, however, ALPR systems must still be used in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution, applicable court decisions, and federal, state and local laws,” the handout states.

Some say that ALPRs have the potential for causing violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

There are no federal laws governing ALPR use, however, according to KCUR’s report, federal law enforcement would like in on ALPR capabilities.

The FBI wants to buy access to ALPRs, “Which would likely allow the agency to track the movements of vehicles — and by extension people — across the country without a warrant,” according to 404 Media, as quoted by KCUR (https://tinyurl.com/y9p5v4uw).

In Monett, Camp said Flock cameras are not — and cannot be — used for immigration enforcement.

However, according to KCUR, the city of Dayton, Ohio, discontinued the use of Flock’s data “after it found more than 7,000 searches relating to immigration enforcement made by outside entities.”

In Missouri, House Bill 3192 was introduced by Representative LaKeySha Bosley, D-St. Louis, in February 2026. 

The bill detailed what purposes ALPRs could be used for, including criminal investigations when there’s reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, as well as for investigations involving missing or endangered persons. The proposed bill stated that the cameras could not be used for general surveillance, immigration enforcement or to monitor people who [weren’t] breaking the law.

The bill gained headway, but was referred to the “Emerging Issues” committee in May, to await further action.

Asbill believes safeguards for ALPR use are important.

“We can’t benefit from Flock if we don’t maintain the trust of the public,” he said.

Kuhn said he’s not trying to be a stick in the mud by speaking out against Flock cameras.

“Today, it’s hard to know what’s real and what’s not when you’re online,” he said.  “Using AI technology, [any of us] could be made to appear as though we had committed a crime that we didn’t commit, so why hand someone the added ability to follow us around if they don’t like what we say?”

However, in spite of ALPRs’ current uses and its potential for abuse, Kuhn, Asbill and the MPD all agree that Flock technology, in its current state, is far less invasive than a Smart phone and its apps: a device that most people carry around.

According to the MPD, a smart phone knows who you communicate with and the internet searches you conduct, and often knows where you are, knows where you shop and sells or shares information for advertising purposes.

An ALPR camera, on the other hand, only collects license plate information to be retained for 30 days, unless it’s retained as criminal evidence, the MPD said.

An ALPR’s primary purpose, according to a printed FAQ handout from the MPD, is for public safety and criminal investigations.

“The goal should never be choosing between liberty and public safety,” the MPD handout states. “Communities should expect both.”

Paris Lewbel, Flock spokesperson, told KCUR news that last year, “The company supported more than 1 million criminal investigations and incidents, assisted an estimated 20% of solved cases in jurisdictions where its technology is deployed, and helped locate more than 10,000 missing persons.”

In spite of ways that ALPRs are used to benefit communities, members of some of those same communities are weighing the cameras’ benefits against the risks to their personal privacy.

In southern Barry County, the Seligman Police Department recently cancelled its contract with Flock after a public poll was conducted to gather community feedback.

A cancellation letter addressed to Flock was included in minutes from Seligman’s Aug. 10 Board of Alderman meeting. The city’s Flock contract, which included three fixed cameras, was cancelled, in part, because of “overwhelming opposition to continuing the use of [the system],” the minutes state.

The cities of Purdy, Wheaton and Washburn do not use ALPR cameras.

Danny Boyd, Barry County sheriff, said the Sheriff’s Office does use the Flock system. Boyd was unavailable for further comment before press time.