Town declines to renew surveillance contract that began in 2024; decision comes as communities across the Hudson Valley reconsider technology that tracks passing vehicles.
By Myrek Zastavnyi
WARWICK, N.Y. — The Town of Warwick has decided not to renew its agreement with Flock Safety, ending its participation in a controversial automated license plate reader program as concerns about privacy, surveillance and access to vehicle-tracking information continue to grow across the Hudson Valley.
The town’s most recent contract expired in August, according to a report by Mid-Hudson News. Town Supervisor Jesse Dwyer said the decision followed an open process and reflected what officials considered the community’s best interests.
The technology was intended to assist police investigations by identifying vehicles associated with crimes, stolen automobiles and other law enforcement alerts.
Now, with the contract expired, Warwick is joining a growing list of municipalities reconsidering whether those benefits justify the privacy questions surrounding automated vehicle surveillance.
Dwyer: No Violations of Town Policy
In announcing the decision, Dwyer emphasized that the town’s withdrawal should not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing by the Warwick Police Department.
“At no time did the Town of Warwick violate its policies governing the use of this technology,” Dwyer said in the statement reported by Mid-Hudson News.
He maintained that the town followed policies intended to protect residents’ privacy, retained ownership and control of its information, and automatically deleted collected data after 30 days.
According to Dwyer, the information was not made available to outside entities, and there were no breaches of the town’s internal policies. Dwyer’s statement that Warwick maintained control of its information and experienced no policy violations is an important part of the public record.
Those assurances are significant, particularly given the controversy surrounding the sharing of license plate information elsewhere in the country.
What Were the Cameras Actually Recording?
Flock Safety’s automated license plate readers, commonly called ALPRs or LPRs, photograph passing vehicles and use software to identify license plate numbers and associated vehicle characteristics.
Unlike ordinary traffic cameras, the systems are designed to create searchable records of vehicles observed at particular locations and times.
Police departments can use those records to help identify stolen vehicles, investigate crimes or locate vehicles associated with missing-person cases.
But the technology also captures information about vehicles whose owners are not suspected of wrongdoing.
That distinction lies at the center of the national debate.
A single camera records a vehicle passing one location. Multiple cameras, combined with searchable historical records, can potentially reveal patterns of movement.
Privacy advocates argue that this creates risks extending beyond conventional policing, particularly when information is retained for extended periods or made accessible to other agencies.
Flock and law enforcement supporters counter that automated readers provide valuable investigative leads and can be operated under strict access, retention and auditing policies.
The central question is whether the safeguards are sufficiently strong, transparent and enforceable.
Warwick Is Not Alone
The controversy has spread rapidly across the Hudson Valley.
In September, Dutchess County officials announced plans to discontinue their use of 65 Flock cameras following substantial public opposition. District Attorney Anthony Parisi and Sheriff Kirk Imperati withdrew their support for the system after residents raised concerns at a public forum.
The cameras were deactivated September 25, with removal planned afterward.
In the City of Newburgh, lawmakers also voted to discontinue Flock technology and terminate the contract at the earliest legally permissible opportunity.
Newburgh’s situation illustrates another concern: cost.
During a June council discussion, Newburgh Police Chief Anthony Geraci outlined the potential financial consequences of early termination, including approximately $414,000 in city funds associated with the existing contract.
Warwick’s reported August expiration appears to have provided a simpler route: declining to renew rather than terminating an agreement early.
The backlash extends beyond New York. Communities in Connecticut, Texas and other states have recently moved to deactivate or reconsider their Flock systems.
Reuters reported October 9 that the company was planning significant layoffs amid growing scrutiny of the surveillance technology. Flock nevertheless remains a major provider of license plate readers to law enforcement agencies nationwide.
What Happens to Warwick’s Cameras Now?
The town’s decision resolves one immediate issue: Warwick will not continue its expired Flock contract.
Supervisor Jesse Dwyer’s assurance that Warwick maintained control of its information, protected residents’ privacy and experienced no violations of its established policies is an important part of the public record. Equally significant is the administration’s willingness to reassess the program and determine that renewing the contract was no longer in the community’s best interests.
The decision reflects a practical approach to local government: Technology should serve the community, not become a permanent fixture simply because the town once invested in it. By allowing the agreement to expire rather than becoming entangled in a potentially costly early termination, the Dwyer administration appears to have taken a measured and fiscally responsible course.
The cameras may have been installed to watch the roads. In the end, Warwick’s leadership showed that keeping an eye on the technology itself — and knowing when to turn it off — is just as important.
For residents, however, the most useful next step would be a final accounting of the program’s cost, effectiveness and closure.
Warwick’s experience also raises a broader question for municipalities considering similar technology: Should communities evaluate the privacy implications before installing a network of vehicle-tracking cameras, rather than waiting until a contract comes up for renewal?
For now, Warwick has made its decision.
The cameras may have been installed to watch the roads. In the end, it was the public’s scrutiny of the cameras themselves that became part of the story.
