POCATELLO, Idaho, Aug. 16 (Our Idaho Times) — The Pocatello City Council is taking another look at the city’s automated license plate reader program after residents and council members raised concerns about privacy, data sharing and whether the cameras are producing enough public-safety benefits.
At an Aug. 13 work session, Pocatello police officials and a representative of Flock Safety answered questions about how the cameras work, who can access the information and how long data is kept. The council did not take formal action but agreed that the program, its policies or its contract needed more discussion.
The session did not include public comment.
What are Flock cameras?
Flock cameras are automated license plate readers, commonly called ALPRs. They capture images of vehicles and license plates, along with information such as the time and location of a vehicle’s passage. Police can search the records when investigating a crime.
Pocatello police Capt. Zac Bartschi said the system is meant to provide investigative leads and help establish probable cause. He said it does not replace an officer’s investigation or judgment.
“We do not do facial recognition. We do not identify the driver with these cameras. We do not track cell phones. We do not issue speeding tickets or red light ticket citations. We do not record conversations,” Bartschi said.
Police officials said the cameras have been used in investigations involving stolen vehicles, hit-and-run crashes and other cases. The department did not present a complete list of cases, charging records or independently verified data showing how many crimes were solved or prevented.
Council President Corey Mangum said the council needed more specific results to judge the program.
“We should be able to get some kind of number to say this is how many predators we’ve stopped, this is how many drug dealers we’ve stopped,” Mangum said.
How did Pocatello get the system?
Pocatello police evaluated several ALPR vendors in 2024, including Neuology, Motorola, Rekor and Flock Safety, according to information presented by the department. The city later approved a Flock contract, with Councilman Hayden Paulsen reported as the only opposing vote.
The available accounts differ on when the approval occurred. Some identify May 2025, while another describes Paulsen as opposing the contract when it first came before the council in 2024.
Police materials also describe a purchase of $102,000 for 34 readers in December 2024, while other accounts refer to 36 cameras in Pocatello. The council discussion did not resolve the differences in the reported dates or camera totals.
Who can access the information?
Police Chief Roger Schei said Pocatello recently disabled nationwide search access to its camera network. Regional law-enforcement partners may use the system under department rules, while broader requests require a reason and a case number, police officials said.
Schei said national access is limited to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the FBI. He also said Pocatello does not share camera data for immigration-enforcement purposes and has conducted no searches solely for that purpose. Those statements were not accompanied by access logs or an independent audit during the work session.
Flock public affairs manager Sheerica Ware said the city owns its Pocatello data. She said Flock uses anonymized, aggregated metadata to improve its system and limits access to trained personnel who meet Criminal Justice Information Services standards.
Schei also said police do not sell information collected by the system.
“We just want to emphasize that no law enforcement, we never sell anything,” Schei said.
How long is data kept?
Police officials told the council that camera reads 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 department’s presentation.
Flock announced Aug. 13 that it would shorten its standard retention period to seven days. It was not clear during the council session when that change would take effect or whether it had already been applied to Pocatello’s system.
The city did not provide the contract, amendments, retention settings or access logs during the session. Those records could help clarify the program’s terms and how the system is being used.
Why is the program controversial?
Supporters say ALPRs can help police identify vehicles connected to crimes, especially in a city near state borders and regional travel routes. Police described Pocatello as the “Gate City” and said coordination with nearby agencies can help investigators follow vehicles across jurisdictions.
Opponents argue that collecting location information on vehicles can amount to mass surveillance, even when drivers are not suspected of a crime. Paulsen has called the system an invasion of privacy and said reported abuses elsewhere justified reviewing or ending Pocatello’s contract.
The available records do not establish whether a court has ruled that Pocatello’s program violates Idaho law. They also do not establish the total contract term, renewal provisions, cancellation terms or any financial penalty for ending the agreement.
The council expects to hold another work session later in August, although a specific date had not been set. It was not clear whether that meeting would include public comment.
