What began in August as a temporary pause on Sedona’s automated license plate reader (ALPR) program has now become a full termination. At its September 9 regular meeting, the Sedona City Council voted unanimously to sever its contract with Flock Safety and remove all ALPR cameras from city limits. The vote came under agenda item AB 3261, which had originally been slated for discussion of a possible citizen working group to review policies surrounding the technology. Instead, council members chose to end the program outright, citing concerns over transparency, trust, and civil liberties.
The decision builds on the council’s August 24 action, when members voted 5–1 to deactivate 11 cameras already installed and block the installation of a twelfth. At that time, the program was effectively frozen while staff compiled a timeline of its approval and explored potential safeguards through a future citizen advisory group.
By early September, however, new information came to light about Flock’s federal partnerships. The company acknowledged limited pilot programs with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations, contradicting earlier statements to city officials that no data-sharing was occurring. That disclosure, coupled with weeks of strong public opposition, prompted the council to move from pause to permanent shutdown.
Council members expressed frustration that the technology had been introduced without a broader policy conversation about its implications. “This began as a handful of people who viewed these license plate readers as a modern policing tool,” one member said. “But what was missed was the question of whether we should be collecting and storing data on innocent people.”
While several members noted that ALPRs have proven useful in other communities, the combination of mistrust in the vendor and unease about federal access to local data swayed the body toward termination. “The only way to ensure data is not shared or abused is to not have it,” another council member remarked.
The unanimous vote represents a shift from the August meeting, when Mayor Scott Jablow supported continuing the program and Vice Mayor Holli Ploog was absent. This time, all members aligned in favor of ending the city’s relationship with Flock and removing the cameras.
The debate has mirrored national disputes over surveillance technology. As reported in the August 24 article, communities from Arkansas to New York have raised similar objections, with residents warning of potential erosion of civil liberties. In Sedona, residents filled inboxes with emails and spoke at public forums, urging leaders to prioritize privacy over surveillance.
The council’s decision closes the door—at least for now—on the use of ALPRs in Sedona. Members left open the possibility that the issue could be revisited in future years if public attitudes or technology practices change but stressed that significant shifts would be necessary before reconsideration.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona’s top Republican lawmakers are asking the Trump administration to reimburse the state for more than $700 million spent on border security initiatives over the past several years.
Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro sent a letter this week to U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, requesting repayment under the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill, which provides $10 billion for states to recover border-related expenses incurred during the Biden administration.
According to the letter, Arizona appropriated $599 million in 2021 and 2022 through the Border Security Fund, in addition to $145 million over five years for law enforcement and other enforcement efforts tied to the southern border. The funds were used to support sheriffs, the Department of Public Safety, and construction tied to border barriers.
“For four years, the Biden Administration failed to defend our border, leaving Arizona to shoulder the burden,” Petersen said in a statement. He argued that the investments made by the Legislature were necessary to protect residents and that taxpayers deserve reimbursement.
Earlier this year, Petersen joined a group of attorneys general on a border tour reviewing state and federal enforcement operations. He praised former President Donald Trump’s policies, calling them effective in reducing illegal crossings without additional legislation.
Montenegro also underscored the legislature’s commitment to border security, contrasting it with the approach taken by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. He pointed to the voter-approved Secure the Border Act as evidence of public support for stricter enforcement.
“Arizona voters made their voices clear when they overwhelmingly passed the Secure the Border Act that Democrats tried to block,” Montenegro said. “Thanks to President Trump and his administration, Washington is finally treating border security as a priority again, and Arizona taxpayers deserve to be reimbursed.”
If the state receives federal funds, legislative leaders said the money will be directed into Arizona’s General Fund and overseen by the legislature to ensure proper use.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, announced this week it has asked the City of Sedona to “review and revise” the Sedona Police Department’s warning shot policy. The group says the policy could have officers committing felonies.
The organization requested the review and revision of the SPD policy, according to a letter released by Judicial Watch Southwest Projects Coordinator Mark Spencer, a 25-year veteran, former Phoenix police officer, and former President of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association.
In the letter, Spencer cited potential conflicts with A.R.S. §13-3107, known as Shannon’s Law, as well as standards set by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST).
Judicial Watch Requests Review of Sedona Police Department's Warning Shot Policy SEDONA, Ariz. — Judicial Watch Inc. has requested the City of Sedona to review and revise the Sedona Police Department's (SPD) warning shot policy, citing potential conflicts with Arizona state law… pic.twitter.com/WNmuJDgiMl
Judicial Watch reported in its statement that the organization’s intervention began with a public records request (PRR) to Sedona City Manager Annette Spickard regarding the SPD’s warning shot policy on July 28th. But according to the group, the request for records was not fully complied with:
“Judicial Watch sought various SPD documents, including training records, policy manuals, and communications related to the use of warning shots. However, many of the requested documents were not provided or available.
The responsive documents included 26 emails, which revealed a timeline of events and issues related to the warning shot policy. Notably, on April 18, 2023, an email indicated that a revised policy manual for SPD was under consideration, which included and allowed warning shots. Subsequent emails showed ongoing evaluations and suggestions for policy revisions, with some recommendations to exclude warning shots.”
According to Shannon’s Law, “A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.”
Judicial Watch cautioned that the use of a warning shot under current SPD policy could constitute a criminally negligent discharge under Shannon’s Law, making the officer following the policy guilty of a class 6 felony.
In the text of the letter, Spencer noted that among the 26 responsive emails received by Judicial Watch, “An email indicated that a revised policy manual for SPD was under consideration. “Warning shots” were acknowledged, included, and allowed in the policy. Within this email, it was also stated, “Officers are taught during their academy training aboutreasonable force, deadly force, warning shots (emphasis added), when and how to use non-deadly weapons, and when and how to use deadly force and firearms.”
Conversely, in a later email from Sedona’s outside legal counsel, Eric Edwards, policy revisions were submitted for the SPD officer’s manual addressing the use of “Warning Shots.” Edwards reiterated in the formal police policy that “Officers are taught during their academy training about… Warning Shots.” He then makes the following change in policy by suggesting, “Officers will not…Generally, fire warning shots.”
Spencer concluded, “Judicial Watch expressed concerns that the current policy may conflict with A.R.S. §13-3107, also known as Shannon’s Law, which could classify the use of warning shots as a class 6 felony. Additionally, they questioned the accuracy and consistency of the policy with AZPOST (State law enforcement certification agency) and other law enforcement standards. Judicial Watch has requested the City Council and City Manager to consider revising the SPD policy to eliminate the use of warning shots. They have indicated their intention to make a formal complaint to the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) and the Arizona Attorney General’s office if the policy is not revised.”
As of this report, the City of Sedona has made no official statement regarding the Judicial Watch request.
The Governor’s Office has opened the application process to fill an upcoming vacancy on the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, inviting eligible residents with an interest in wildlife and conservation to apply.
The five-member commission is responsible for setting policy, rules, and regulations governing the state’s wildlife management, fisheries, and related outdoor recreation activities, including watercraft and off-highway vehicle operations. In addition to establishing regulations, commissioners provide guidance to the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
By law, the commission is structured to reflect both geographical and political diversity. The vacancy must be filled by a resident from one of the following counties: Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Mohave, Pima, Pinal, Yuma, or Yavapai. Applicants are required to state their political party affiliation and must not have switched party registration within the last two years.
Completed applications must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday, September 30. Interested candidates can apply through the state’s Boards and Commissions website and are asked to provide their residential address, party affiliation, resume, and any additional supporting materials or letters of recommendation.
The Game and Fish Appointment Recommendation Commission will review submissions in October and conduct in-person interviews before forwarding recommendations to the Governor’s Office.
For questions about the review process, applicants may contact Madeline Gaffney with the Arizona Game and Fish Department at mgaffney@azgfd.gov. Additional inquiries can be directed to the Governor’s Office of Executive Appointments at bc@az.gov.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk is not only the loss of a cultural leader, but also a chilling reminder of what happens when we confuse speech with violence. Kirk was a tireless champion of free expression, and his death underscores the urgent need to examine how the suppression of dialogue can set the stage for real violence.
In his own words, Kirk once warned: “When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts… when you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group. What we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option.” His words now read as both a prophecy and a plea for the culture of dialogue we so desperately need.
Suppressing Speech Is Not The Answer
Psychology teaches us that suppressing thoughts doesn’t eliminate them — it simply pushes them underground. Clinicians see this dynamic in individuals who repress emotions until they reemerge as passive aggression or even have destructive outbursts. The same pattern plays out in society: When people are told their perspectives are unspeakable, frustration grows, mistrust deepens, and the risk of acting out increases. Ironically, attempts to enforce “safe spaces” by silencing dissent often make communities more volatile. True safety comes from open dialogue, where conflict can be addressed directly rather than festering in silence.
The Danger Of “Social Justice Warrior” Rhetoric
When individuals adopt the mindset of “social justice warriors,” the very word “war” can take on a literal dimension. Combined with rhetoric that labels opponents as “Nazis,” “fascists,” or even as “threats to existence” for questioning prevailing ideologies, we create a psychological framework where violence feels like moral self-defense. Social psychologists call this groupthink — a process in which consensus becomes so rigid that dissenters can be irrationally cast as evil. Ingredients of groupthink include a belief in the moral superiority of the group, direct pressure on dissenters, strong outgroup stereotypes, and collective rationalization — all of which were present here. In such an atmosphere, attacking a speaker can feel like a righteous duty. Tragically, Kirk’s willingness to question aspects of trans ideology and other sacred cows of certain political groups placed him squarely in the crosshairs of this warped moral reasoning.
Words Are Not Violence
Words can sting, but they are not the same as physical harm. Equating speech with violence not only inflates anxiety but also undermines resilience. It conditions people to believe that discomfort is intolerable and that retaliation — even violent retaliation—is justified. By contrast, protecting free speech fosters self-efficacy — the belief in one’s ability to navigate challenges constructively. It strengthens authentic connection, reduces the loneliness that comes from self-censorship, and creates opportunities for genuine problem-solving.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination must be seen for what it is: a catastrophic failure to uphold the principle that dialogue is the antidote to violence, not its cause. As Kirk himself urged, the future of our culture depends on whether we can “have reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option.”
To honor his legacy, we must recommit to that vision — resisting the falsehood that words are violence — and embracing the truth that dialogue, even when difficult, is the path to peace. This is the very theme I explore in my book Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly, which offers psychological tools for protecting free speech and building the resilience that open dialogue requires. The book includes examples such as Andy Ngo and Riley Gaines, who have suffered violence for their speech — and tragically, Charlie Kirk is now added to that list in the worst possible way. I urge you to channel your grief into action — do not be silenced but use your voice and stand together. It’s exactly what Charlie would have wanted.
Dr. Chloe Carmichael is contributor to the Daily Caller News Foundation, a clinical psychologist, USA Today bestselling author of “Nervous Energy,” and a visiting fellow at Independent Women. Her upcoming book “Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly” (Skyhorse, Nov. 2025) explores the mental health benefits of open dialogue and the costs of self-censorship.
