POCATELLO, Idaho, Aug. 16 (Our Idaho Times) — The Pocatello City Council is taking a closer look at the city’s Flock license plate reader program after residents and council members raised concerns about privacy, data sharing and the value of the cameras.
At an Aug. 13 work session in Pocatello, police officials and a Flock Safety representative answered questions about the system. The council did not take final action, but members agreed the program needs more discussion, including a possible review of its policies or contract.
The work session did not include formal public comment.
What do the cameras do?
Automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, use cameras to capture images of vehicle license plates and other details, such as the vehicle’s make, model and color. Police can compare that information with records connected to investigations or alerts.
Pocatello police say the cameras are designed to create investigative leads. Capt. Zac Bartschi said they do 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 during the work session.
Police officials said the system can help investigators locate vehicles connected to reports of stolen cars, hit-and-run crashes and other cases. But officials did not present a complete list of cases, court records or independent data showing how often the cameras led to arrests, charges or convictions.
That gap became part of the council’s discussion. Council President Corey Mangum said members should receive measurable results, including information about the types of cases in which the system helped police.
How long is the information kept?
Police officials told the council that license plate reads are automatically deleted after 30 days unless they are connected to evidence or an official case report. Information tied to a case can be retained indefinitely under the department’s explanation.
Flock announced on Aug. 13 that it would shorten its standard retention period from 30 days to seven days. It was not clear from the presentation whether that change had taken effect in Pocatello or whether it applied to the city’s existing settings.
Retention matters because even when a camera does not identify a driver, a plate read can show where a vehicle was seen and when. The longer such records remain available, the longer they may be searched or used in investigations.
Who can search the data?
Police Chief Roger Schei said Pocatello recently disabled nationwide search access to its camera data. Regional law-enforcement partners may still have access under department rules, officials said.
National access is limited to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the FBI, according to Schei’s presentation. Other agencies must request access and provide a reason and case number, police said.
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 Immigration and Customs Enforcement generally involve a criminal matter.
Those statements describe the department’s policies and practices. The council was not provided with public access logs or audit records during the work session, so the supplied information does not independently show how often the system has been searched or by which agencies.
Flock public affairs manager Sheerica Ware said the city owns its Pocatello data. She said Flock uses anonymized, aggregated information to improve its system and limits access to trained personnel who meet Criminal Justice Information Services standards.
How did Pocatello get the cameras?
Pocatello police evaluated several vendors in 2024, including Neuology, Motorola, Rekor and Flock Safety, before selecting Flock, according to police information presented in connection with the council discussion.
The city began deploying the system in early 2025. Reports based on police and city materials have cited different totals for the number of readers in Pocatello, ranging from 34 purchased readers to 36 cameras in operation. The exact current total was not resolved at the work session.
Councilman Hayden Paulsen was the only reported council opponent when the contract was approved. Paulsen has called for the city to review or end the contract, saying he believes the technology threatens privacy and has been misused in other parts of the country.
The supplied information does not establish the contract’s full term, renewal provisions, recurring costs or whether the city could cancel it without a penalty.
Are the cameras worth the cost?
The answer depends on what standard the council uses.
Police officials point to investigations in which camera information helped generate leads. They say Pocatello’s position as the “Gate City,” near state borders and major travel routes, makes coordination with regional law enforcement useful.
Privacy critics question whether the benefits justify collecting location information about vehicles that are not suspected of wrongdoing. Brian McKellar, an organizer identified with Deflock Idaho, has characterized the technology as mass surveillance and alleged that it violates Idaho law. No court ruling, legal complaint or official legal opinion establishing those claims was supplied for the council discussion.
The council’s central unresolved question is not simply whether a camera can help solve a case. It is how often it helps, what safeguards control access, how long records remain available and whether the public can verify that the rules are being followed.
Pocatello officials plan to hold another work session on the program, its policies or the contract. The city had not specified the date or whether that meeting would include public comment.
Until the council receives more detailed results and access information, the public record supports two conclusions: police view the cameras as an investigative tool, while privacy concerns remain unresolved. The work session did not decide whether the program should continue.
