By Jonathan Eberle |

The Sedona City Council recently voted to indefinitely shut down the city’s automated license plate reader (ALPR) program after weeks of debate over privacy, surveillance, and public safety.

At a recent special session, council members Melissa Dunn, Kathy Kinsella, Brian Fultz, Pete Furman, and Derek J. Pfaff directed city staff and police to deactivate the 11 Flock Safety cameras already installed, with one additional device awaiting installation. Mayor Scott Jablow opposed the move, while Vice Mayor Holli Ploog was absent. Roughly 50 residents attended the meeting, at times voicing strong objections to the technology.

The decision halts Sedona’s partnership with Flock Group, Inc., which had equipped the city with ALPRs to scan and log vehicle license plates as part of law enforcement investigations. Until the shutdown, only Sedona Police Department Patrol Cmdr. Chris Dowell had access to the system.

Supporters of the technology argue that ALPRs provide a valuable investigative tool, helping law enforcement identify stolen vehicles, track suspects, and improve public safety. Dowell emphasized that the cameras were not designed for broad surveillance.

“ALPR is not a mass surveillance tool; it is a focused, objective investigative asset governed by strict data retention policies and transparency protocols,” Dowell said. He noted that data collected in Sedona was stored for 30 days and that “hot list” entries—license plates flagged for criminal investigation—required supervisory approval.

But critics say the cameras still sweep up information on every passing car, raising concerns that the technology could erode civil liberties. Flock representatives acknowledged that the system can capture more than just plates—such as bumper stickers or other vehicle features—details that, while seemingly minor, could reveal political beliefs or personal affiliations.

Groups like Privacy International define “mass surveillance” as any system that collects and stores data on individuals without suspicion of wrongdoing. Civil liberties advocates warn that such technology risks normalizing constant monitoring.

The debate in Sedona echoes national concerns. In Arkansas, one homeowner recently protested a Flock camera he said photographed his property and family members, sparking a legal debate over Fourth Amendment protections. Similarly, in Scarsdale, N.Y., local officials terminated their Flock contract after residents objected to what they described as an invasive surveillance system.

Following the decision, Sedona city staff were instructed to compile a timeline of how the program was approved, establish a citizen work group, and return with recommendations for a possible pilot program that balances safety with privacy protections.

For now, the cameras will remain in place but powered off, as the community considers whether their benefits outweigh the costs to civil liberties.

Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.