Main Facts
An extensive audit of the Prescott Police Department’s automated license plate reader (ALPR) network has revealed a stark deficit in oversight, transparency, and administrative accountability. Between January 1 and June 30, the agency’s network—supplied by the private surveillance contractor Flock Safety—was queried 3,830,002 times. According to internal network audit logs obtained by Larson Newspapers through a public records request, nearly half of those searches were executed without an associated police case number. Because the public-facing logs redact the department’s internal search case numbers as asterisks, the true volume of undocumented searches is likely much higher.
Flock Safety’s automated systems are designed to photograph every passing vehicle, capturing license plate numbers alongside distinct vehicle features such as color, make, model, and physical damage. This mass of data is then pooled into a searchable database accessible to law enforcement. However, the audit logs expose a system operating with minimal friction or administrative justification.
Out of more than 3.8 million queries run against Prescott’s network, 1,000,738 searches completely lacked a typed, written explanation, even though only 32 searches left the dropdown category field blank. Furthermore, the audit highlights a highly interconnected interstate surveillance apparatus. Out-of-state law enforcement agencies conducted 35.9% of all searches on Prescott’s network, with the top ten out-of-state searchers alone accounting for 1,376,301 queries.
The findings mirror broader statewide concerns regarding surveillance technology. The lack of documentation, combined with high-profile incidents of officer misconduct involving Flock systems, has triggered a sudden wave of contract cancellations across Arizona, with major municipalities choosing to dismantle their ALPR networks entirely.
Chronology of Events
The unfolding controversy surrounding Arizona’s ALPR networks has developed rapidly over the summer, driven by public records investigations, media reporting, and sudden policy shifts within local governments.
- July 17: Larson Newspapers submits a comprehensive public records request to the Cottonwood Police Department, seeking its Flock Safety ALPR network audit logs.
- August 7: Amid growing scrutiny over surveillance system audits, the city of Chandler terminates its contract with Flock Safety and deactivates its ALPR network.
- August 13:
- A Chandler police officer resigns following an internal investigation. The city reveals that its routine audit process had identified an "anomaly" in the use of the Flock system that could not be justified by standard police action; the officer had used the database to track a family member.
- Facing national and statewide allegations of system misuse, Flock Safety publicly announces major policy and software changes. These updates include reducing default data retention periods from 30 days to seven days, implementing new data-sharing filters, and introducing an "Evidence Mode" for cold cases.
- August 19: Larson Newspapers receives the unredacted internal search logs and network audit data from the Prescott Police Department following a public records request.
- August 20:
- Arizona’s Family Investigates reports that a former Apache Junction police officer resigned after admitting to misusing Flock cameras to track his wife. Two telecommunications officers who assisted him in navigating the system receive disciplinary action.
- The Arizona Daily Sun publishes an editorial criticizing the lack of oversight in the Coconino County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) Flock network, pointing out that officers frequently used administrative evasions like "Other Investigation" or "Other Other" to bypass search justification requirements.
- August 26: The city of Tempe officially cancels its contract with Flock Safety and shuts down its camera network. While Tempe officials state they found no active misuse within their own department, they cite "recent misuse… in Arizona and nationwide" as the driving factor behind the decision.
- August 28: The Cottonwood Police Department misses the legal and administrative deadline to produce its requested Flock network audit logs, more than five weeks after the initial July 17 request.
Supporting Data and Agency Breakdowns
The audit logs paint a detailed picture of how local, county, and national law enforcement agencies interact with Prescott’s local surveillance infrastructure.
Prescott PD Flock Network Queries (Jan 1 – June 30)
├── Total Queries: 3,830,002
├── Out-of-State Queries (Top 10 Agencies): 1,376,301 (35.9%)
│ ├── Dallas Police Department: 306,876
│ ├── California Highway Patrol: 265,802
│ └── Riverside County Sheriff's Office: 212,490
└── Queries Lacking Written Explanations: 1,000,738Out-of-State and National Queries
While the Prescott Police Department maintains the physical cameras, its data is heavily queried by external agencies. A total of 594 distinct law enforcement agencies searched Prescott’s network during the six-month window.
The top three out-of-state searchers were:
- Dallas Police Department (Texas): 306,876 searches
- California Highway Patrol: 265,802 searches
- Riverside County Sheriff’s Office (California): 212,490 searches
By comparison, the Coconino County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) network was queried by a much larger pool of 3,815 agencies nationwide during a similar timeframe, yet Prescott’s network experienced a higher overall volume of searches.
Prescott Police Department Internal Searches
An analysis of Prescott PD’s unredacted internal log reveals 8,778 searches. Of these, 101 searches listed no valid case number, utilizing placeholder terms such as "investigation," "training," "test," "demo," "UNK" (unknown), or referencing outside agencies like the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office (YCSO).
The specific law enforcement categories cited in Prescott PD’s internal searches include:
- Narcotics: 1,853 searches
- Larceny: 687 searches
- Welfare Checks: 661 searches
- Hit-and-Run: 588 searches
- Warrants: 525 searches
- Vehicle Theft: 407 searches
- Domestic Assault: 365 searches
- Financial Crimes: 351 searches
- Traffic Infractions: 298 searches
- Threats: 266 searches
- Assault: 251 searches
- Missing Persons: 243 searches
- Reckless Driving: 238 searches
- DUI: 217 searches
- Burglary: 213 searches
- Homicide: 199 searches
- Disorderly Conduct: 197 searches
- Stolen Property: 154 searches
- Child Abuse: 117 searches
- Sex Offenses: 111 searches
- Vandalism: 100 searches
- Robbery: 77 searches
- Trespass: 65 searches
- Weapons Offenses: 37 searches
- Kidnapping: 34 searches
- Terroristic Threats: 19 searches
- Arson: 14 searches
- Stalking: 12 searches
- Prostitution: 6 searches
- Human Trafficking: 5 searches (all linked to a single case number in January)
Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office (YCSO)
YCSO conducted 271 searches of the Prescott PD network, a significant increase compared to the 106 searches it ran on the CCSO network over a longer period.
Of YCSO’s 271 searches, 182 included a case number, 89 did not, and 92 lacked any written explanation. One search listed its justification simply as "Investigation." No YCSO search cited human trafficking.
The breakdown of YCSO searches includes:
- Burglary: 81 searches
- Missing Persons: 28 searches
- Stolen Property / Financial Crime: 19 searches each
- Narcotics / Sex Offenses: 18 searches each
- Homicide: 15 searches
- Arson: 13 searches
- Threats / Weapons Offenses: 10 searches each
- Stalking: 8 searches
- Larceny: 7 searches
- Warrants / Reckless Driving: 6 searches each
- Vandalism: 4 searches
- Pornography/Obscene Material / Vehicle Theft: 3 searches each
- Hit-and-Run: 2 searches
Cottonwood Police Department
The Cottonwood Police Department—which operates 11 ALPRs of its own—ran 624 searches on the Prescott PD network. Cottonwood PD failed to provide case numbers for 352 of these queries (56.4%), and 345 searches (55.3%) lacked any written explanation. No Cottonwood searches cited human trafficking.
Cottonwood PD Search Documentation Gaps
├── Total Searches on Prescott PD: 624
├── Missing Case Numbers: 352 (56.4%)
└── Missing Written Explanations: 345 (55.3%)The breakdown of Cottonwood PD searches includes:
- Domestic Assault: 116 searches
- Traffic Infractions: 78 searches
- Narcotics: 61 searches
- Vehicle Theft: 46 searches
- Missing Persons: 42 searches
- Welfare Checks: 38 searches
- Warrants / Sex Offenses: 34 searches each
- Hit-and-Run: 28 searches
- Assault / Larceny: 21 searches each
- Stolen Property: 18 searches
- Weapons Offenses / Disorderly Conduct: 12 searches each
- Burglary: 11 searches
- Trespass: 10 searches
- Protective Order Violations: 9 searches
- Threats / DUI: 7 searches each
- Kidnapping: 4 searches
- Fleeing: 3 searches
- Homicide: 2 searches
Camp Verde Marshal’s Office (CVMO) and PANT
The Camp Verde Marshal’s Office was cited in 26 searches of the Prescott network. These queries were executed on CVMO’s behalf by the Cottonwood PD (20 searches) and the Prescott PD (6 searches). Of these, 14 included case numbers, while 12 did not.
In contrast, the Partners Against Narcotics Trafficking (PANT) task force exhibited strict adherence to documentation protocols. Prescott PD executed all 287 searches on behalf of PANT, which is comprised of officers from various Yavapai County agencies. Every single search run for the task force included both a valid case number and a written explanation.
PANT’s searches were heavily concentrated in January (159 searches), tapering off in subsequent months (20 in February, 22 in March, 20 in April, 41 in May, and 25 in June). The primary search justifications were Narcotics (243 searches), Homicide or Death Investigations (22 searches), and queries logged under the specific free-text entry "PANT drug suspect" (22 searches).
Official Responses and Policy Shifts
The revelation of systemic documentation gaps and high-profile incidents of officer misconduct has forced both municipalities and Flock Safety to adjust their operations.
Municipal Cancellations
The rapid departure of Arizona cities from the Flock Safety network highlights growing political and administrative discomfort with unmonitored surveillance. Tempe, Chandler, Goodyear, Surprise, Cave Creek, and the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office have all recently terminated their ALPR contracts.
In its official cancellation announcement, the City of Tempe acknowledged the technology’s investigative utility but emphasized the unacceptable risks of data mismanagement:
"While the cameras have helped Tempe Police solve crimes, recent misuse of automated license plate reader systems in Arizona and nationwide has raised concerns about the risks that come with the technology."
Flock Safety’s Technical Overhaul
In response to mounting criticism regarding data privacy and system security, Flock Safety announced several systemic modifications on August 13. The company’s policy shift focuses on narrowing the window of data exposure and adding administrative hurdles to out-of-state sharing.
- Data Retention Cut: The default retention setting for captured license plate data has been slashed from 30 days to seven days.
- Selective Sharing Filters: A new filtering mechanism allows local agencies to restrict data sharing with outside departments, limiting external searches to specific criminal categories.
- Evidence Mode: To address long-term investigations, Flock is rolling out a system that allows detectives to move specific, relevant ALPR data into "cold storage" as preserved evidence, preventing it from being purged under the new seven-day limit.
Flock Safety has declined to comment on the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office’s usage patterns, and the Cottonwood Police Department has remained silent, missing public records deadlines to release its own logs.
Implications for Privacy and Public Oversight
The findings from the Prescott PD audit highlight a growing tension between law enforcement’s desire for friction-free surveillance and the public’s right to privacy and due process.
The Illusion of Administrative Hurdles
The audit reveals that the procedural guardrails designed to prevent the abuse of ALPR technology are easily bypassed. While Flock Safety’s software requires users to enter a search reason, the system accepts vague, boilerplate entries. This allows officers to conduct searches without establishing a clear connection to an active criminal case.
The Arizona Daily Sun noted this vulnerability, highlighting how easily officers can circumvent transparency requirements:
"While law enforcement officers conducting searches of Flock records are ostensibly required to document the reasons for their searches, that documentation can be functionally meaningless. In multiple instances, officers… described their reason simply as ‘Other Investigation,’ or even just ‘Other Other,’ without listing an associated case number. It is impossible to know what the reasons for those searches were, or on whose behalf they may have been conducted."
Mass Surveillance Without Borders
The high volume of out-of-state queries on Prescott’s network challenges the idea that ALPR systems are purely local policing tools. With over 1.3 million searches originating from agencies like the California Highway Patrol and the Dallas Police Department, local municipal cameras are effectively operating as nodes in a decentralized national surveillance grid.
This interstate data sharing occurs largely outside the view of local city councils and county supervisors. Consequently, residents of small Arizona communities are having their daily movements tracked, logged, and analyzed by out-of-state agencies without explicit local authorization or clear legal frameworks.
The Future of ALPR in Arizona
The sudden wave of contract cancellations across Arizona suggests that the political cost of maintaining these systems may be starting to outweigh their investigative benefits. As more police departments face scrutiny over unauthorized searches, the debate is moving from whether the technology is effective to whether it can be safely managed.
With agencies like the Cottonwood Police Department failing to meet public records deadlines, the demand for independent, third-party audits of surveillance databases is likely to grow. Until local law enforcement can guarantee that every query is tied to a verified, active case number, the future of mass surveillance networks like Flock Safety in Arizona remains deeply uncertain.
