Lexington residents challenge Flock automated license plate readers at city council meeting

At a Lexington City Council meeting, community members and organized groups spoke during open comment to protest the city's use of Flock Safety automated license plate readers. Speakers called for the city to cancel the contract governing those cameras.

• Noah Cornett, representing the Bluegrass Democratic Socialists of America, presented a "demand letter" asking Lexington to terminate its contract with Flock. Cornett argued there is no supporting data for the cameras' effectiveness and framed ALPRs as incompatible with a right to privacy.

• Luke Allen urged the council to act and pointed to other jurisdictions that have taken similar steps.

• Council Member Emma Curtis said she personally does not support Flock but does not believe Lexington police have used the system maliciously. She warned that the cameras have "far greater potential for collective harm than collective good."

• Clay Davis of the coalition We See You Watching Lexington recounted misuse of Flock in Kentucky, citing a case where an officer tracked his girlfriend thousands of times.

Supporters of the system also spoke. Lisa Guess said the cameras have helped solve violent crimes. Billy Mallory said violence has decreased in the east end since Flock was installed.

According to the city, Lexington owned 125 automated license plate readers as of December 2025. The city's contract with Flock requires 30 days' notice to cancel the agreement. No further council discussion on ending the Flock contract was scheduled at the time of the report.

Opponents focused on privacy and accountability. Their core assertions were:

• ALPRs collect continuous location data that can reveal individuals' movements over time.
• There is limited publicly presented evidence in this meeting that the cameras reduce crime overall.
• Documented instances of misuse — including an officer who allegedly tracked a private individual repeatedly — demonstrate risk without guaranteed safeguards.

Supporters emphasized crime-solving utility. Their claims centered on:

• Flock camera data contributing to solving violent crimes in Lexington.
• Observed reductions in violence in at least one neighborhood since the system's deployment.

Council Member Emma Curtis stated opposition to the technology in principle but said she has not seen evidence of malicious use by local police. The meeting did not produce a council vote or a scheduled agenda item to reconsider the contract.

• Whether any council members request a formal agenda item to review or cancel the Flock contract.

• Local reporting or public records about specific misuse incidents and internal discipline or policy changes.

Decisions about ALPR systems combine technical, legal, and community considerations: how data are collected and retained, who can access it, documented effects on public safety, and the potential for misuse. Residents at the meeting framed those considerations as reasons for the council to reconsider the city's contract with Flock.