POCATELLO, Idaho, Aug. 16 (Our Idaho Times) — The Pocatello City Council is considering whether its automated license plate reader program provides enough public-safety value to justify concerns about privacy and data sharing.
At an Aug. 13 work session, Pocatello police officials and a Flock Safety representative answered council members’ questions about the cameras, which scan vehicle license plates and related vehicle details. The council agreed that the program needed more discussion, including a review of its policies and contract. A follow-up work session was expected later in August, but no specific date had been set.
The session did not include formal public comment.
What are Flock cameras?
Automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, are cameras that capture images of vehicles and license plates. Police can search the records for investigative leads, such as a vehicle connected to a reported theft or hit-and-run.
Pocatello police Capt. Zac Bartschi said the system does not use facial recognition, identify drivers, track cellphones, issue speeding or red-light citations, or record conversations.
“This does not replace officer investigation or discretion,” Bartschi said, according to his presentation. He described the cameras as a tool for developing leads and probable cause, rather than as a replacement for police work.
Police officials said the department evaluated several vendors in 2024, including Neuology, Motorola, Rekor and Flock Safety, before selecting Flock. The city approved a Flock contract, but the supplied accounts differ on whether the approval occurred in 2024 or May 2025. Councilman Hayden Paulsen was reported as the only council member to oppose the contract.
The cost and number of cameras also require clarification. The Idaho State Journal reported that the department spent $102,000 in December 2024 to buy 34 readers and put them into use in early 2025. Other accounts describe 36 cameras in Pocatello. The city’s contract and related records were not available in the supplied material to resolve the difference.
What do police say the cameras have accomplished?
Police officials cited stolen-vehicle, hit-and-run and other investigative successes involving the cameras. Council President Corey Mangum asked for more specific information about those results, including numbers that could show how many cases the system helped solve.
The supplied records do not include a complete list of cases, case numbers, charging documents, arrest records or court outcomes. They also do not establish whether the cameras have reduced crime or how often they have led directly to arrests or prosecutions.
That leaves a central question for the council: how should the city measure the program’s value? Possible measures could include the number of searches, investigative leads, recovered vehicles and cases in which camera information was used. The council’s next discussion is expected to address the program and its policies, although officials have not announced the full agenda.
How long is the data kept?
Police officials told the council that camera records are automatically deleted after 30 days unless they are connected to evidence or an official case report. Records tied to a case may be kept indefinitely, according to the police presentation.
The Idaho State Journal also reported that Flock announced Aug. 13 that it would shorten its standard retention period to seven days. The available information does not establish when that change took effect or whether it applies to Pocatello’s system.
Those details matter because the length of time data remains available affects how far back investigators can search and how long records of people’s movements may exist. The supplied material does not include Pocatello’s current retention settings or an audit of deleted and retained records.
Who can access the records?
Police Chief Roger Schei said Pocatello recently disabled nationwide search access, a change he said occurred about two months before the work session.
Under the procedures described to the council, regional law-enforcement partners may access the system under department rules. National access is limited to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the FBI, officials said. Other agencies must request access, explain the reason and provide a case number.
Schei also said Pocatello does not share camera data for immigration-enforcement purposes and has conducted no searches solely for immigration purposes. He said requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement generally involve a criminal matter. Those statements were not accompanied by access logs or other records in the supplied material.
Flock representative Sheerica Ware said the city owns its Pocatello data. She said Flock uses anonymized, aggregated metadata to improve its system and that access is limited to trained personnel who meet Criminal Justice Information Services standards.
Schei said the police department does not sell its information.
Why are residents and council members concerned?
Opponents have raised concerns about privacy, the possibility of broad data sharing and whether the technology amounts to mass surveillance. Brian McKellar, an organizer with Deflock Idaho, alleged that the cameras violate Idaho law and constitute mass surveillance. The supplied material does not include a court ruling, legal complaint or official legal opinion resolving those claims.
Paulsen has also criticized the program. Before the work session, he said reports of misuse of Flock systems in other parts of the country had led him to view the technology as an invasion of privacy and to seek an examination of the contract.
Supporters, including police officials, say the cameras are particularly useful in Pocatello because the city is near state borders and serves as a regional transportation point. They say limited access rules and automatic deletion are intended to reduce unnecessary retention and sharing.
The competing views reflect two different standards for judging the program. Police focus on whether the cameras help identify vehicles connected to crimes. Critics focus on whether the system collects and shares too much information about people who are not suspected of wrongdoing.
What happens next?
The council has not voted to end the program. Members agreed to continue examining its policies, contract and results. The available records do not show the contract’s full term, renewal provisions, termination costs or whether the city can cancel without a penalty.
Before making a decision, council members may need clearer information about the number of cameras, the current retention period, who has searched the system, how often outside agencies have received access and what investigative outcomes resulted.
For now, the work session left the program in place while the council considers whether its safeguards and documented benefits are sufficient for Pocatello.
