by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Nov 21, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Don’t you want to live in a crime-free utopia? Wouldn’t allowing the government to track our every move, solve all our problems? Local authorities seem to think so, and they have the perfect tool to usher in mass surveillance in your city: Flock cameras. Flock Safety is one of the main manufacturers of Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) that have been quietly taking over cities and have already infiltrated nearly every state. These cameras monitor cars and even pedestrians constantly, logging minute details about every vehicle that passes, storing the data in Flock’s database, and feeding it into an AI platform with the capability of stitching together elaborate travel patterns. No court-issued warrant is required – not even public consent – creating massive privacy concerns for residents who often don’t know they are being watched until these cameras have saturated their community.
According to Flock’s own website, they cover 49 states, over 5,000 communities, partner with more than 4,800 law enforcement agencies, and read upwards of 20 billion license plates per month. Though law enforcement agencies are one of the primary users of these devices stated to reduce crime, cities, businesses, and even HOAs are also deploying them in residential areas.
You might think, “We don’t have these in our town.” But sometimes these cameras show up without public approval…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
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 Matthew Holloway | Sep 13, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
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 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 about reasonable 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.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
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 Matthew Holloway | Jul 30, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
During its July 24th Contingency Open Meeting, the Arizona Corporation Commission (AZCC) unanimously assigned the construction cost of a massive 1.5-million-gallon subterranean water tank to the Sedona customers of Arizona Water Company. The decision follows a nearly four-decade efffort to find a location for the water tank that was agreeable with the City of Sedona and local residents.
According to the AZCC, the “extra costs incurred” by the water tank, concealed with a fake home, will fall “solely on the Sedona customers of Arizona Water Company.” However, Pinetop Lakes, Munds Park, and Payson will also see a significant rate increase.
According to a press release from the AZCC, for Sedona residents, the estimated rate increase is 45%, which would bring the average residential bill to approximately $60 per month. Meanwhile, other Northern Group customers will see an increase of roughly 34%, with a billing estimate of $52 per month.
Prior to the meeting, the notion of assigning the costs to the ratepayers outside of Sedona was opposed by Republican Arizona Rep. David Marshall (R-LD7), who publicly condemned it in a press release. Marshall cited the “City’s requirement that Arizona Water Company bury a new water storage tank underground and disguise it with a fake home built on top—an aesthetic demand that made the project one of the most expensive the utility has ever undertaken.”
Rep. Marshall stated, “Arizona Water Company’s northern Arizona ratepayers—including the good people of Pinetop-Lakeside, Heber-Overgaard, Rimrock, Munds Park, and the Village of Oak Creek—did not ask for these costly design features. Quite frankly, it’s absurd to ask them to fork over millions to subsidize the excessive, big-government design mandates of a city nearly 200 miles away. This is a matter of fairness and affordability. Sedona chose to inflate the cost of this project for its own benefit. The rest of northern Arizona shouldn’t be stuck footing the bill for Sedona’s multi-million-dollar expectations.”
According to the AZCC release, an amendment to the decision by Commissioner Rachel Walden resulted in the “non-operational aesthetic expenses” being shifted to Sedona Residents. “My job is to ensure expenses are just, reasonable, and prudent,” Walden said. “That is why I offered my amendment to ensure that non-operational aesthetic expenses will not be paid for by those who do not benefit from them. I thank my fellow Commissioners for fully supporting my amendment.”
The Corporation Commission said in a statement, “The Commission deemed a new tank was prudent and appropriate; however, it was adamant that the extra costs from the aesthetic requirements were not to be assigned to the other 15,000 customers who do not reside in Sedona. The City and residents expressed disapproval for construction of an above ground water tank, which is the conventional design. The Sedona Project is one of only three water tanks that have been undergrounded in the state, by Commission regulated companies.“
The construction tab for the East Sedona Water Storage Tank and Booster Project came to approximately $20 million, as reported by the Arizona Daily Independent. The Arizona Water Company explained that to obtain approval for a conditional use permit (CUP) by the Sedona Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, it was required to comply with requirements to bury the storage tank and “camouflage” the tank by building a structure on top of the tank that resembles a home for aesthetic purposes, so that it will blend in with the neighborhood and scenery.
“Hopefully this is a strong signal to all water companies, local governments, and residents moving forward that if you require special conditions or place limitations on infrastructure based upon aesthetic preferences, you may be responsible for those extra costs,” said Chair Thompson. “I’m sympathetic to the majority of the Sedona customers who will be solely responsible for these added costs, but it is not an equitable requirement for the 15,000 customers in other communities to be responsible for millions in extra costs because a vocal minority didn’t like the way a water tank looked.”
“After a robust discussion today, the Commission reached a Decision in Arizona Water Co.’s Northern Group’s rate case that strikes a fine balance between ratepayer protections and company viability,” Commissioner René Lopez said. “Thursday’s Decision also signals to ratepayers and local governments that, even in a consolidated group, the Commission will equitably allocate costs to certain customer groups when extraordinary expenses are incurred at their request or for their exclusive benefit. Nevertheless, the compromises and decisions made ensures ratepayers continue to have access to reliable and safe drinking water in some of Arizona’s most beautiful terrains.”
“The final determination of rates for Arizona Water came after a very thoughtful discussion at the Commission about the additional requirements by the City of Sedona for the undergrounding of the water tank and the appropriateness of the financial burden on other ratepayers within their northern division,” stated Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson, who voted in support of the amended case. “I am appreciative of my fellow Commissioners’ support for my amendment that requires the company to present possible improvements to their customer assistance programs within their next rate case.”
“I’m pleased the Commission directed Arizona Water to engage in discussions with the City of Sedona about funds to help cover the incremental costs to bury the East Sedona Storage Tank,” Vice Chair Nick Myers added. “Because the City required and is directly benefitting from undergrounding the tank, it’s only fair that they contribute financially to cover the City-imposed aesthetic costs. Otherwise, the entire incremental cost of burying the tank will be borne by Arizona Water’s Sedona System customers.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
