Sheriff Ross Teeple told the Pinal County Board of Supervisors Wednesday the department would not renew its contract with Flock when it expires in September, citing privacy concerns.

“We have a camera system that can do facial recognition technology, and can start building a data set on what our citizens are doing on a day to day basis, and that in my training and experience . . . is a huge Fourth Amendment violation,” Teeple said.

Flock license plate reader cameras are facing renewed scrutiny in recent weeks over reports that data collected by the systems has been shared with federal immigration authorities and been misused by some law enforcement agencies. The automatic license plate readers, or ALPRs, snap photos of license plates and record a car’s make, model, color, and distinguishing characteristics. Law enforcement agencies who have contracts with Flock can access troves of data to track vehicle movements across the country.

Pinal County joins several other Arizona jurisdictions that have cancelled contracts with Flock in the last year, including Flagstaff, Sedona, and South Tucson.

Teeple acknowledged the decision will only impact cameras in unincorporated Pinal County, and many cities within the county have their own contracts.

The Casa Grande Police Department uses 93 Flock cameras that detect license plates and vehicles only, according to data on Flock’s Transparency Portal.

Casa Grande Police Chief Mark McCrory said in a statement on the website the cameras strengthen public safety and provide “actionable intelligence.”

The city of Maricopa also has a Flock contract, and has increased the number of LPR cameras in the last year, InMaricopa reports.

Meanwhile, critics say Flock is one of many technology companies contracted by law enforcement to employ the same automatic license plate reader technology.

The grassroots group Deflock Tucson requested to meet with the Supervisors to discuss “the facts of this technology and alternate options for better policing,” the group wrote in a letter to the county board.

The growing unpopularity of police surveillance tech has been seen across the political spectrum. All members of the Pinal County Board of Supervisors are Republican, along with Teeple.

Supervisor Jeff Serdy said he was concerned about data security.

“And who monitors them? It’s not elected people. It’s not even sworn officers. It’s just people that get hired at these companies, they have access to all your data,” he said.

He also brought up instances where law enforcement officers have been caught using the cameras to track ex-partners. The Washington Post reports at least 50 officers have been charged or accused of misusing the Flock system for tracking individuals’ movements, sometimes hundreds of times.

“Hopefully none of our officers were,” Serdy said.

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union has launched a campaigning effort against the plate readers.

“It doesn't matter which company has its creepy cameras in your neighborhood; they all have the same problems: a lack of transparency, oversight, and regulation into how they collect, store, and use our data, and how to hold public and private actors accountable if they abuse it,” the website for the “Get the Flock Out” campaign reads.

Tucson social media feeds have been filled with tongue-in-cheek advisories, such as one joint post from DeFlock Tucson, urging followers to not destroy the cameras while posting all of the necessary equipment and their prices to do so.

“You should NOT buy a pellet gun and shoot out the lenses of flock surveillance cameras from 50 yards away,” the post reads.

Flock says its technology solves 700,000 crimes a year, and their technology does not use facial recognition. The company also says their data is deleted after 30 days unless otherwise needed by law enforcement.

Flock emphasizes its customers have local control over their data, and it does not directly collaborate with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. But jurisdictions that have contracts with federal immigration agencies are able to use their data.

“If a local agency chooses not to collaborate with any federal entity, including ICE, Flock has no ability to override that decision. Similarly, if a community chooses to work with a federal agency, Flock has no ability to change that decision,” their website reads.

Flock: No Right to Privacy for License Plates

Flock’s Director of Public Trust and Technology Max Weinstein wrote a letter to Teeple Thursday, calling his remarks to the Pinal board “misinformation.”

He disputed Teeple’s claim that LPRs present Fourth Amendment concerns and included several court cases that upheld, generally, license plates are in public view and law enforcement has the right to track the movements of a suspect in a crime.

“A fixed LPR camera, which captures an image of a vehicle in plain view at a specific moment, does not violate the 4th Amendment,” he wrote.

Weinstein also included a comment Teeple made in 2025 acknowledging license plate information is not constitutionally protected.

“The findings of the federal courts were in full agreement with the position you comprehensively outlined last year to In Maricopa that there is no expectation of privacy when it comes to a license plate,” it reads.

Weinstein then requested Teeple continue conversations with the company.

“Flock has been honored to help your deputies resolve Amber Alerts, Silver Alerts, crack smuggling rings, and help keep Pinal County safe. I hope we can work together to keep this lifesaving technology in Pinal County,” the letter reads.

Teeple reiterated privacy concerns in a statement to the Star Friday following the Flock letter.

“Automatic license plate readers help solve crimes, catch criminals and find missing people. Technology that is limited to reading license plates is a great tool. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, and I believe the latest cameras may be capable of violating citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights.

In order to put a GPS tracker on a vehicle, my deputies need a warrant. AI pattern recognition technology and facial recognition technology are pushing that boundary. Protecting public safety and defending constitutional rights are my most important jobs. We can use technology while still achieving those goals,” he said.

Flock denied using facial recognition software in any of their products, though recent reporting has documented other cameras sold by the company use AI to detect human movement.