A Statement from Public Safety Director Regarding ALPR Program

Published on August 19, 2026

On July 27, 2026, Public Safety Deputy Director Patrick Faber presented a full briefing on Fridley's Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) program to the City Council and Fridley residents while I was out of the office. I have reviewed that presentation, the public comment from that evening and the questions residents submitted. This statement is my follow-up to that briefing, and it reflects where the program stands today, what the City has done and what we are doing moving forward.

What happened

Fridley's ALPR cameras are part of a shared network that allows law enforcement agencies to search camera data across jurisdictions. Network access is what makes the technology effective. Approximately 75% of arrests and criminal activity in Fridley involve people who do not live here, and solving those cases often depends on data from neighboring agencies and vice versa. When Fridley joined the Flock Safety network, we extended access in good faith, trusting other agencies would use Fridley’s data consistent with the same standards and obligations that govern our own use. Unfortunately, other agencies accessed Fridley’s network for immigration-related searches, which does not align with the specific mission, policies and practices of the Fridley Public Safety Department.

When I addressed the City Council on February 9, 2026, the City was unaware that out-of-state law enforcement agencies had accessed the City’s data for immigration purposes. However, we began taking proactive steps to prevent searches related to immigration in response to community concerns about how the technology was being used. While responding to data requests several months later, we learned that immigration-related searches had already taken place prior to the search access being restricted. My statement did not reflect that out-of-state agencies had accessed the network for immigration-related searches because we did not know they had occurred.

What we did

We took the following steps to restrict access to the City’s ALPR data:

On January 27, 2026, the City disabled immigration-related searches of Fridley's data, as soon as the feature became available to prevent those types of searches.

On February 3, 2026, the City restricted data sharing to Minnesota law enforcement agencies only, ending out-of-state access entirely.

On July 20, 2026, the City disabled network access for any agency with a 287(g) agreement.

What we have learned

ALPR is an evolving technology. Our understanding of its full scope, including how data flows through shared networks and how other agencies may use that access, has deepened through experience. We have learned from this, and we have responded. The program is more secure, more tightly governed and more consistent with Fridley's values and policies than it was a year ago. We will continue to evaluate the program as the technology and the legal landscape around it evolve, and we will adapt accordingly.

How we manage our system

The City’s use of ALPR technology is governed by state law, the ALPR vendor’s user agreement and departmental policy. The full policy, “Fridley Police General Order 429: Automated License Plate Reader,” can be found on the City’s website. Personnel who violate the policy may be subject to discipline, criminal charges and civil liability.

The City is required by state law to conduct an audit of its ALPR program every two years. In addition, the City has implemented further internal controls beyond what is required by state law. All personnel with access to ALPR technology receive training on how to use the system and what the consequences are for using the system in a manner that is inconsistent with policy or the law. All data queries by City personnel are logged and are assigned a unique query ID number. The log documents the name of the officer who conducted the search, the networks that were accessed, the date and time of the search, the time frame that was searched and the vehicle that was searched. In addition to documenting the search criteria, officers must also enter a case number and reason for the query. The queries by Fridley officers are regularly audited by system administrators to ensure that queries are being conducted in accordance with relevant laws and policies.

On June 26, 2026, the City implemented “Audit Assistance” within the ALPR platform to flag queries of the same vehicle that are conducted more than 30 days apart. This feature could potentially identify misuse by an employee. Two searches by City personnel have been flagged in 2026. The flagged incidents were reviewed internally and were found to be authorized uses of the technology, such as searching for a vehicle that was stolen in April and was still missing in June. There has been no documented misuse of any ALPR system by a City employee since Fridley’s introduction to ALPR technology approximately 17 years ago.

On the program

We have thoroughly reviewed the feedback from residents who want the City to end its contract with Flock Safety. After careful and serious consideration of the technology’s benefits and the community’s concerns, the City has decided to continue the program with additional restrictions in place. The ALPR technology has been instrumental in solving violent crimes, locating missing children and recovering stolen vehicles across our City. We believe the right response is to strengthen controls and adapt, not walk away from a tool that continues to serve this community.

Public questions and City responses

The following questions were raised by residents at the July 27 City Council meeting. They have been carefully reviewed by staff and the City Council. This document responds to the direct questions that were asked. I am not in a position to respond to personal narratives, experiences or characterizations made during public comment, but those comments were heard and are part of the public record of that meeting.

Questions and Responses

Concern: The Flock camera near Friendly Chevrolet is directed at her manufactured home community and is causing ongoing fear among residents.

Natividad Seefeld

The camera near Friendly Chevrolet is privately-owned and operated by Friendly Chevrolet. The business participated in a grant assistance program to pay for the system in an effort to protect their inventory of new and used vehicles. While the City has received data from Friendly Chevrolet’s system to assist in criminal investigations, the camera is not part of the City's ALPR program and is not under the City's authority or control. Private businesses and property owners who operate Flock cameras own their data and manage their networks independently of the City. The City does not have the legal authority to require a private business to remove or disable its own security equipment. We understand that distinction does not make the camera feel less present or less concerning to nearby residents. We encourage Ms. Seefeld and her neighbors to contact Friendly Chevrolet directly to express their concerns about how that camera is positioned and used, and if assistance identifying the right contact would be helpful, please reach out to the City and we will do what we can to help.

Request: A formal apology and an investigation into whether immigration searches led to enforcement actions in Fridley.

Aaron Klemz

Mr. Klemz is correct that the February 9 communication could have been more complete, but staff were only able to share the information that they had at that time. The City was not aware that immigration-related queries had taken place in the days, weeks and months before staff proactively limited the types of queries that were allowed. Some agencies were able to query data belonging to Fridley and thousands of other agencies for purposes that do not align with the mission, purpose and policies identified by Fridley Public Safety.

Regarding the request for an investigation into whether immigration searches led to enforcement actions in Fridley: the City does not have jurisdiction to investigate what other agencies did with the data they accessed through the shared network, or whether any searches were connected to specific enforcement actions. The City is not aware of any enforcement actions that were taken as a result of Fridley’s data being queried. Additionally, there have not been any requests from external law enforcement agencies for additional information related to any of the immigration-related queries that were conducted. The City can confirm that since January 27 there is no record of any immigration-related search of Fridley's data, and since February 3 there is no record of any out-of-state agency accessing the City's network.

Questions: Does Flock, as a vendor, have access to City data? Does the system capture more than license plate images? What other surveillance tools does the City use?

Amy Paddock

Flock Safety stores ALPR data on its platform. The data is encrypted and firewalled. The City owns its data and Flock's contract governs how the data may be used. Fridley's ALPR cameras capture still images of the passing vehicles, including the license plate, the vehicle and the surrounding area. Minnesota law limits data collection to license plate numbers, date, time and location data, and pictures of license plates, vehicles and areas surrounding the vehicles. The system does not use facial recognition and does not capture driver or occupant identity.

The City utilizes multiple mobile camera trailers that can provide live video to a command post or the Police Division. These trailers are highly visible and provide a deterrent effect, situational awareness, infrastructure protection and documentation of crimes. The data collected by the camera trailers is not part of the Flock network. It is maintained by the Police Division and is only shared with partner law enforcement agencies for active criminal investigations and with prior approval. You may see them at busy parks, at civic construction projects or at large community events like ‘49er Days. The City also relies on partnerships with many businesses and residences that have private security cameras, but that data does not belong to the City and is only provided voluntarily by the resident or business to assist with investigations.

Many crimes are captured on audio or video, and we appreciate the partnerships that we have with people in our community who are willing to provide evidence during an investigation. When applicable, search warrants can be obtained to gain access to evidentiary data, but most people willingly provide the data to law enforcement to help solve crimes in their neighborhood or at their business.

Questions: What preventive controls exist to stop internal officer misuse? How is the access documentation process structured?

Julie Houle

The City is required by state law to conduct an audit of its ALPR program every two years. In addition, the City has implemented further internal controls beyond what is required by state law. All personnel with access to ALPR technology receive training on how to use the system and what the consequences are for using the system in a manner that is inconsistent with policy or the law. All data queries by City personnel are logged and are assigned a unique query ID number. The log documents the name of the officer who conducted the query, the networks that were queried, the date and time of the query, the time frame that was queried and the vehicle that was queried. In addition to documenting the search criteria, officers must also enter a case number and reason for the query. The queries are regularly audited by system administrators to ensure that queries are being conducted in accordance with relevant laws and policies.

Questions: What was the factual basis for the 390,000 December searches? Why was that information not shared publicly?

Alice Francis

The approximately 390,000 searches that reached Fridley's network in December 2025 reflect how the Flock shared network operates. When an agency queries the Flock system, a single search typically sweeps hundreds or thousands of networks simultaneously. A search reaching Fridley's network is rarely a search of Fridley data alone. Most of those searches were related to criminal investigations. However, some were labeled as immigration-related, which is inconsistent with Fridley's mission and policies. Director George's February 9 statement focused on what the City does and does not do with its own data and access. At that time, it was not known that some agencies in Minnesota and throughout the country had conducted searches related to immigration enforcement across networks that included Fridley’s data. The statement did not address what other agencies may have done through the shared network because the City had not been made aware of any enforcement action taken as a result of immigration-related queries of the City’s data. To this date, the City is still not aware of any immigration enforcement action that has been taken as a result of queries of our data.

Questions: Does staff follow up on every search, or does the City take partner agencies at their word? How are data audits actually performed?

Michael Yaez

Due to the volume of searches, it is not possible to follow up on every search that is conducted within the search network. All users of the Flock system are required to adhere to Flock’s policies, their own agency’s policies, FBI/CJIS rules and all relevant federal, state and local laws. Recent events have highlighted the wide variety of specific areas of focus that some state, county and local law enforcement agencies have throughout the country. While the use of ALPR technology for immigration-related enforcement may be within the scope of other law enforcement agencies, it does not align with the priorities and policies of the Fridley Public Safety Department or the community we serve. Prior to realizing that Fridley’s data was being queried for immigration enforcement purposes, the City had already taken proactive steps to restrict access to the data.

As required by law, an audit of the City’s ALPR program is conducted every two years. The biennial audit is conducted by a contracted external vendor that also conducts biennial audits of the City’s body-worn camera program. In addition to the state-mandated audits of the City’s ALPR program, the City conducts additional training and internal audits on an ongoing basis. The City’s internal controls are more stringent than what is required by state law, and the City has opted to restrict many search parameters that are allowed by state law. Personnel who have an identified need for access to the ALPR system receive training on how the system may be utilized, and their access level is consistent with their role within the organization. All activity within the ALPR platform is cataloged and associated with individual users, so each member of the organization is personally accountable for their ALPR activity. All personnel are required to adhere to relevant laws and policies governing ALPR, and misuse may result in discipline, civil sanctions and/or criminal charges. Throughout the City’s use of ALPR technology dating back approximately 17 years, there have been no documented instances of misuse by City personnel.

Question: What is the financial risk of the contract and when does it renew?

Emily Villanueva

The City is aware that the Flock contract is approaching a renewal decision point in 2027. A pilot program that includes ALPR and Drone Assisted First Responder is currently in the early phases of implementation throughout Anoka County. Decisions related to the City’s future relationship with Flock Safety are heavily dependent upon the overall success of the County’s pilot program. Should the County’s decision have a budget impact on the City, the City Council will deliberate on those decisions when more information becomes available. That deliberation will be transparent and will take place in a public forum. The City takes its financial obligations to residents seriously and will weigh all relevant factors, including contract terms, program value and community input, before any renewal decision is made.

Question: What do the Flock contract terms actually say about unilateral modification rights and data control?

Roger Kudicki

The City will review its contract terms in response to concerns raised at the July 27 meeting, including this one. Once that review is complete, the City will be in a better position to speak specifically to what protections are in place and where gaps may exist. That information will be shared with the City Council as part of its deliberation on the program going forward.

Learn more about the program

A webpage is available to provide information about how these tools work, the legal requirements that govern their use and resources for residents who want to learn more or share feedback.

View the ALPR information page