Flock Statements at Prescott, AZ Hearing | January 27, 2026

Our Take

Credit to Jen's Two Cents for pulling the clip that matters most: a Flock Safety employee standing in front of a city council, selling the product he's paid to sell. When Trevor Chandler tells Prescott that ALPRs "doubled case clearance rates" or that MADD is on board, remember that's marketing copy from the vendor itself, not an independent study, not a third-party audit, and not anything the council can actually verify from the dais. That distinction gets lost fast in a study session when the only expert in the room works for the company asking for the contract.

The "accountability" pitch deserves the same skepticism. Auditable logs and traceable searches sound reassuring until you ask who writes the audit rules, who reviews the flags, and who gets to see the results when an officer runs a plate for personal reasons or shares data with an agency three states away. A system that can quietly flag "suspicious" searches in real time is also a system built to generate enormous amounts of location data on ordinary people who've never been suspected of anything. Self-policing by the surveillance vendor isn't oversight, it's a liability shield.

Prescott residents deserve a real debate about whether this technology belongs in their city at all, not a sales presentation dressed up as a briefing. If you want to see whether Flock cameras are already watching your own streets, check our camera map, and if your city council is about to have its own "study session," our take-action page has the tools to show up prepared instead of outgunned.