Ferguson Township Supervisors Mull Options to Restrict Flock Cameras

Ferguson Township’s Board of Supervisors on Tuesday discussed ways to restrict or ban controversial automated license plate readers in the municipality, though feasible options remained uncertain.

The cameras — made most notably by Flock Safety but also other manufacturers like Motorola and Axon — capture images of passing vehicles and use AI assistance to log license plate numbers and vehicle characteristics that are then stored in a database for a set amount of time unless otherwise preserved. (Flock recently lowered its default retention time from 30 to seven days.)

They have come under intense scrutiny amid increased use by law enforcement, who say they are a useful and important crime-solving tool, and heightened privacy concerns.

Supervisor Trevor White, who requested the discussion, said he, like many others, believes the cameras violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable search and seizure and suggested an ordinance outright banning their use within the township.

While no Flock cameras have been installed in Ferguson Township, White said a key concern is that Penn State could expand its use of the cameras to its properties in the township, such as in the Science Park Road corridor where the university has multiple research facilities.

The university launched a “pilot program” in August 2025 installing two dozen Flock cameras around the core University Park campus.

“These Flock cameras have been placed in such a density that you cannot get onto campus without getting tagged by them,” White said. “You cannot opt out, and that is not something we want for people just passing through our municipality, or people that live in our municipality that have to commute to campus. You are getting put in a database. You do not have an option to opt out. It’s that simple. I think that we in Ferguson have a duty to ban these.”

Township Manager Warren Obenski, however, said that preliminary research indicates the township does not have the authority to enact an ordinance banning ALPRs on private property. He suggested that supervisors could prohibit the use of the cameras by the municipality itself, though White said that was less of a concern because the board has already made clear it would not approve them.

White’s second option was to file a lawsuit against any entity that installs ALPRs on property in the township for violating the Fourth Amendment rights of residents.

“I think these entities are violating our rights, and whoever deploys them is opening themselves up to liability,” White said. “If we have the ability to sue, and this private entity is violating our rights, can we not sue them?”

The question was unresolved on Tuesday night, and Whiite suggested a meeting with the township solicitor to discuss whether a lawsuit was possible or to hear arguments against it. He also acknowledged a lawsuit would be expensive and that some residents may not want the township to get involved in such a legal fight.

Supervisor Jeremie Thompson suggested a resolution that “captures the sentiment of our community and where the board stands” so that that the township could add its voice to potential legislation addressing ALPRs.

Lawmakers in the General Assembly from both major parties have introduced legislation to limit or ban ALPRs, according to Spotlight PA, while both Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and his Republican opponent in the Nov. 3 election, Stacy Garrity, have voiced opposition to the cameras.

Supervisor Matt Heller, meanwhile, noted that he has heard from constituents who have no problems with the cameras because they are not doing anything illegal.

Among the 10 speakers during public comment on Tuesday, sentiment was firmly against Flock cameras, urging the township to take some action.

Residents voiced worries about mass surveillance, pointed to instances where police have misused the cameras to track individuals for personal reasons and cited cases where they have misidentified suspects. One suggested local municipalities band together to prohibit Penn State from pointing any of the cameras off campus onto public roads.

Ray Bilger, a College Township resident and congressional candidate who worked in national intelligence for 35 years, said oversight of ALPRs is weak, whereas other surveillance methods have a “pretty involved” process that requires a warrant.

“We know that this system is lax already, the oversight system,” Bllger said. “A system like this requires very, very meticulous oversight… I do think ALPRs do have a very good use if used properly. However, these systems… are going to require that level of oversight. And that may very well require you to hire additional people, train them up, and this is going to have to be continual training, not just once.”

Resident Ben Lambert said taking action against Flock and similar cameras is about defining the community as one that doesn’t surveil neighbors with “artificial intelligence-driven cameras to attempt to solve problems that probably don’t exist, or they exist in a very low frequency.”

He added that the township has a choice to take control or let others make the rules.

“It’s just simply not going away, and non-action is simply not an option,” Lambert said.

Resident Sarah Henderson also urged the supervisors to “push as much as you can,” and said that even small initial steps, like prohibiting the township itself from contracting with ALPR manufacturers even if that was exceedingly unlikely to happen in the first place, will inspire faith in the community.

“I understand a township only has so much power, but I want to encourage and plead with all of you, who I think pretty much all feel the same way as everyone in this room, to whatever you can do, please do it,” Henderson said. “I know you might not be able to outright ban, but I feel like if the township can tell me how tall my grass can be, they can probably tell me I can’t have an AI-powered camera watching everybody.”

Supervisors ultimately voted to draft the resolution suggested by Thompson and to work with staff to come back at a future meeting with other possible options.