Lafayette City Council voted 5-1 on Oct. 6 to approve a 2027 budget that would eliminate funding for the city’s Flock license plate cameras.
The vote followed public comment from more than a dozen residents and an ongoing resident campaign urging councilors to end the city’s contract with Flock, a company that runs a network of automatic license plate readers. Flock has faced mounting criticism and contract cancellations in cities across the country over privacy concerns, including concerns about federal immigration officials’ access to data collected by its cameras. The budget still needs to be finalized with a second appropriations vote on Oct. 20.
Flock cameras capture multiple images of a car each time one passes, recording license plates and other identifying information. A recent investigation found that Flock software also “explicitly detects people,” and that police use the database to search for images of people, despite the company’s repeated claims to the contrary. Flock data is stored in a database that other police departments can access, allowing officers to search records without first obtaining a warrant.
The Lafayette Police Department operates 30 Flock cameras around the city, roughly the same number as the City of Boulder, with images stored for up to 30 days.
Councilors removed the annual $77,500 contract fee from the city’s 2027 budget. They will decide later this month whether to terminate the contract before the end of 2026. The city could also consider switching to another automatic license plate reader (ALPR) company, like Axon.
Several residents urged council to reject ALPR technology altogether, regardless of the vendor. The ACLU has urged Boulder to exercise caution and establish guardrails as it considers swapping Flock for Axon or another vendor, which it argued can still contribute to surveillance networks that threaten civil liberties.
In online comments the next day, Councilor Kyle Beaulieu called for the city to reject other ALPR providers as well.
Some councilors acknowledged that Lafayette police like the cameras and have used them to solve missing persons cases and property crimes, but still voted to stop funding the contract.
“After I spent meetings with the police department, I believe there were improvements that could be made to make it even safer — I don’t think anybody wants to do that,” Councilor Annmarie Jensen said. “People just want to make Flock go away. We are a representative democracy, and I am going to represent that point of view.”
Councilor Adam Gianola cited a recent federal court ruling in Oklahoma, in which a judge ruled that a deputy sheriff violated a woman’s Fourth Amendment rights by searching Flock’s database for her car’s movements without a warrant.
“Boy, are we facing a time when warrantless searching is occurring from these cameras,” he said. “I don’t think it’s the spirit of Lafayette to have these cameras in our community.”
He also advocated for a registration system for privately owned Flock cameras in Lafayette.
Councilor David Fridland closed his comments by quoting journalist Hunter S. Thompson:
“‘How much do you value your freedom? Would you trade your freedom for some illusion of security? Freedom is something that dies unless it’s used,’” Fridland said. “So I want to say thank you all for using your freedom to bring this up.”
Councilor Crystal Gallegos was the sole no vote on the budget, citing her trust in the police department and unanswered questions about how losing the cameras could affect efforts to locate abducted children.
“I want to know why this technology is needed before I make the decision,” she said. “If Flock is removed from this community and an abducted child is traveling through Lafayette, does that mean we no longer have access to license plates without physically having that manpower on the streets?”
Responses to Flock have varied across Boulder County.
Last year, Longmont’s city council voted to stop sharing its Flock data, and this spring signed a new contract with Axon. Louisville deactivated its Flock cameras last August. Lyons has a contract. Neither Boulder County nor Nederland has a Flock account.
In May, Boulder Police Chief Steve Redfearn was sued over the department’s use of the AI-powered cameras. The plaintiffs alleged that the cameras amount to “mass, suspicionless, warrantless surveillance.” Boulder has had a contract for Flock cameras since 2021.
Amid growing criticism, the City of Boulder opened a bidding process in April, allowing companies to compete for its license plate reader contract. This month, the city paused that process to allow more time for “engagement and policy conversation,” which is expected to continue into spring 2027.
So far, Boulder’s city council has declined to take up the issue.
In responses to a BRL questionnaire, most 2026 council candidates favored ending Boulder’s use of automated license plate readers like Flock, citing privacy, data-sharing and surveillance concerns. Others, mostly incumbents, called for a more cautious approach to changing contracts, while two advocated for keeping the cameras.
Correction, October 14, 2026 10:16 am: A previous version of this story stated Louisville still had a Flock contract. The city council decided to deactivate its Flock cameras Aug. 12 2025.
What a relief, those cameras can’t be gone too soon.
There is nothing nothing nothing in the world that can convince me that Flock cameras or anything similar to that are acceptable in our communities.
It’s a good thing to finally have this issue of warrantless mass surveillance in front of City Councils for discussion and final decision on implementation.
Compared to how the cameras first arrived in Lafayette, with little notice and approval as one part of a consent agenda item, this shows how democracy should work with elected representatives setting policy instead of the police department under the cover of relative silence.
Citizens had their right to privacy stolen by the creep of the surveillance state but hopefully will have them restored when all of the Flock cameras are gone.
Police have not made a case sufficient to justify ALPRs. The comments in support of ALPRs are always something vague about stopping crime. There is a never a clear number that represents cases where an ALPR actually solved a crime. Or how serious a crime. Or whether the crime would have been solved anyway. Police and other ALPR supporters should be required to make their case using cold hard facts, not fear.