To the editor:

This letter responds to the recent commentary by Chief Sidney Wordell, Executive Director of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association, regarding the proposed installation of automated license-plate readers (ALPRs), including those manufactured by Flock Safety (ALPR/Flock), in Bristol.

While Chief Wordell states that ALPR/Flock systems support public safety, his letter omits important facts residents deserve to consider before such technology is installed.

First, although readers are told ALPR/Flock systems are not used for “surveillance,” these systems record every vehicle that passes—not just suspects—creating a searchable database of lawful movement. That is surveillance by definition, regardless of intent.

Second, claims of strong safeguards rely on internal police policies rather than law. Rhode Island has no statute governing ALPR/Flock data retention, sharing, cybersecurity standards, or secondary use. Policies and leadership can change, and data sharing can expand—especially when ALPR/Flock platforms are designed for inter-agency access. Large, centralized law-enforcement databases of ALPR/Flock vehicle-location data are documented targets for hacking despite vendor assurances. In addition, a court decision in Washington state has ruled that Flock ALPR data are public records, subject to disclosure under public-records laws.

Other municipalities have already chosen to pause or reverse course after approving ALPR/Flock systems. Most notably, Portsmouth rescinded its approval for Flock cameras following public concern, joining communities in Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts that have paused or ended similar programs pending review.

Chief Wordell also states that ALPR/Flock cameras have operated “without a single incident of misuse, false arrest, or public complaint.” National reporting and court records show ALPR errors, misuse, and wrongful stops have occurred elsewhere in the country, underscoring that these risks are inherent to mass data-collection systems and not eliminated by policy alone.

Third, the letter cites anecdotal success stories but offers no peer-reviewed evidence that ALPR/Flock systems are effective or necessary in small, low-crime communities like Bristol. Federal analyses cited by the U.S. Department of Justice indicate that license-plate reader systems offer limited benefit in small or lightly traveled communities and may pull attention away from routine, relationship-based policing.
Bristol residents trust Chief Lynch and our local police officers. Our concerns are not anti-police. They focus on the ALPR/Flock system itself, which introduces risks related to data sharing, cybersecurity, legal disclosure, and human error—risks no individual department, however professional, can fully control.

Public safety and public trust go together. Until there is transparent review, clear legal safeguards, and meaningful public input, pausing deployment of ALPR/Flock technology is prudent governance.

Suzanne Cohn
Bristol