by Jonathan Eberle | Sep 14, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
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.
by Jonathan Eberle | Aug 24, 2025 | News
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.
by Daniel Stefanski | Dec 3, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
The Arizona Legislature’s two Second Amendment hawks achieved a major victory for their constituents’ freedoms.
Earlier this month, the Sedona City Council announced plans to reconstruct a local ordinance that had caught the ire of two Republican state legislators this fall, Representatives Quang Nguyen and Selina Bliss. The news came after the lawmakers had taken their dispute to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office over the City of Sedona’s Ordinance 12.30.090, which prohibits individuals from carrying firearms on “any trail or open space area.”
Nguyen had previously written, “The City of Sedona has had ample time to address these concerns and has chosen not to act. We are left with no choice but to seek the Attorney General’s involvement to ensure the rule of law is followed.”
The letter to Mayes followed Representative Nguyen’s prior communication to Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow and city councilmembers over the ordinance. Nguyen had highlighted that the Ordinance’s prohibition “on carrying firearms is not consistent with Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3108,” thus making it “invalid and unenforceable because it exceeds what state law authorizes. He pointed out that “cities may…enact ordinances ‘[l]imiting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms in parks and preserves’ when certain statutory conditions are met.”
In a comment to another local publication, a City of Sedona spokeswoman said, “In the new ordinance, a person will be able to carry the firearm in the park but can’t discharge it unless in self-defense.” This ordinance is expected to be updated on December 10, at the next city council meeting.
Bliss responded to the announcement from the municipality, saying, “A message to cities and towns…don’t violate the rights of the people!”
Nguyen and Bliss, two seatmates in a Yavapai County legislative district, have quickly proven themselves to be some of the top Second Amendment advocates in the state. Over the past two years, both lawmakers have won the “Legislator of the Year” award from the Arizona Citizens Defense League for their protection of Second Amendment rights. They will look to continue their defense of Arizonans’ constitutional rights to keep and bear arms in the upcoming legislative session in yet another divided state government.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Nov 23, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Two Arizona Republican lawmakers are escalating their defense of the Second Amendment in a dispute of a local ordinance.
On Monday, State Representatives Quang Nguyen and Selina Bliss announced that they had sent a letter to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes over the City of Sedona’s Ordinance 12.30.090, which prohibits individuals from carrying firearms on “any trail or open space area.”
In a statement that accompanied the announcement, Nguyen said, “The City of Sedona has had ample time to address these concerns and has chosen not to act. We are left with no choice but to seek the Attorney General’s involvement to ensure the rule of law is followed.”
The letter to Mayes follows Representative Nguyen’s prior communication to Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow and city councilmembers over the ordinance. Nguyen had highlighted that the Ordinance’s prohibition “on carrying firearms is not consistent with Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3108,” thus making it “invalid and unenforceable because it exceeds what state law authorizes. He pointed out that “cities may…enact ordinances ‘[l]imiting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms in parks and preserves’ when certain statutory conditions are met.”
The northern Arizona lawmaker requested that the city leaders “conduct a legal analysis of the validity of Ordinance 12.30.090 and contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss your findings and any next steps you intend to take to ensure that Ordinance 12.30.090 complies with state law.”
In their most recent communication over the issue, Representatives Nguyen and Bliss told the state’s attorney general that Sedona “has not responded to our letter and, to our knowledge, has not taken any actions to remedy the Ordinance’s legal flaws.” The lack of response or corrective action led the legislators to request that Mayes “review the question identified above and issue a written report within 30 days as required by [state law].” They added that if the Arizona Attorney General’s Office were to find a violation of state law, there should be a pursuit of special action in the state’s Supreme Court to resolve this matter.
Nguyen and Bliss, two seatmates in a Yavapai County legislative district, have quickly proven themselves to be some of the top Second Amendment advocates in the state. Over the past two years, both lawmakers have won the “Legislator of the Year” award from the Arizona Citizens Defense League for their protection of Second Amendment rights. They will look to continue their defense of Arizonans’ constitutional rights to keep and bear arms in the upcoming legislative session in yet another divided state government.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Oct 22, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
A Republican state legislator is standing up for the Second Amendment in a municipal matter.
Last week, State Representative Quang Nguyen transmitted a letter to Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow. The letter, which was also sent to city councilmembers, addressed the validity of Ordinance 12.30.090, which states that “[i]t shall be unlawful to carry or discharge into any park, trail, or open space area firearms or projectile weapons… or other device capable of causing injury to persons or animals or damage or destruction to property.”
In a press release accompanying the announcement of his letter, Nguyen said, “I urge the City of Sedona to review Ordinance 12.30.090 to ensure it complies with Arizona law. It’s important that local ordinances do not infringe upon the constitutional rights of Arizonans or conflict with state statutes.”
In his letter, Representative Nguyen highlighted that the prohibition in Sedona’s Ordinance “on carrying firearms is not consistent with Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3108,” thus making it “invalid and unenforceable because it exceeds what state law authorizes. He pointed out that “cities may…enact ordinances ‘[l]imiting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms in parks and preserves’ when certain statutory conditions are met.”
The northern Arizona lawmaker requested that the city leaders “conduct a legal analysis of the validity of Ordinance 12.30.090 and contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss your findings and any next steps you intend to take to ensure that Ordinance 12.30.090 complies with state law.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Page 1 of 11
