“Watched or Protected?” – Flock Cameras Spark Public Backlash in Palmyra
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By Ella Aguilar
Palmyra, MO – What began as a routine Thursday night City Council meeting quickly evolved into a heated public forum on surveillance, civil liberties, and the limits of safety technology in small-town America.
At the center of the controversy: Flock Safety cameras, a system of license plate readers enhanced by artificial intelligence, recently installed but not yet activated in Palmyra. As residents filled the City Hall Chamber Quarters on June 19th, questions and criticisms flew faster than answers could be offered.
The City of Palmyra, home to just over 3,600 people, plans to install six Flock Safety cameras. As of June 19, four had been installed, with three currently operational. The goal, according to the Palmyra Police Department, is simple: track vehicles involved in crimes and assist with investigations.
But for many residents, the implications are anything but simple.
Kyle Martin, one of the evening’s first speakers, laid out his opposition with clarity and conviction. “These cameras don’t just capture plates. They log where you go: to church, work, school, the grocery store,” he told the council. “That’s not crime prevention. That’s mass surveillance.”
Martin’s voice, calm but urgent, echoed a concern shared by many in the audience: that a tool marketed for public safety could quietly become a mechanism for government overreach.
“We are risking the erosion of public trust and the gradual dismantling of our Fourth Amendment rights,” Martin said, referencing the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.
He also criticized city communication surrounding the project. “Telling residents to only discuss the cameras with the police chief and not other officers shuts down transparency. That’s not how democracy works.”
Palmyra Mayor Rusty Adrain, defending the city’s decision, pushed back on privacy concerns. “The cameras help us find vehicles that shouldn’t be here,” he said. “Besides, you all carry iPhones, Androids, flat-screen TVs – they’re already watching your location.”
One attendee later posted anonymously on Facebook: “Saying we’re already tracked isn’t a defense – it’s an admission that privacy is disappearing.”
Flock Safety, based in Atlanta, provides cities and police departments across the U.S. with automated license plate readers (ALPRs) that log vehicle data including license plates, vehicle make and model, color, bumper stickers, roof racks, and even damage or after-market modifications. The system uses AI to allow for searchable alerts and pattern tracking.
While proponents argue that this technology is invaluable in stolen vehicle recovery or Amber Alerts, opponents warn that even small towns risk sliding into surveillance culture.
“This isn’t just about criminals,” Martin emphasized. “It’s about normal people living their lives under constant watch, with no clear oversight.”
City Attorney James Lemon attempted to allay fears by noting that any search within the Flock system requires an incident number. “You can’t just go into the system and pull up random cars or names,” he said. “There are checks in place.”
But Martin challenged this assurance. “Those cracks are internal,” he countered. “We’re asking for external accountability – an open-access log of searches and data retrieval.”
He proposed several measures to protect residents’ rights:
1. Activate the Flock Safety Transparency Portal, complete with its public search audit feature and a full list of all agencies with whom our data is shared, and confirm that we are only retaining the data for 15 days per Police Department Policy.
2. Direct the Police Department to develop policies that specifically address the unique risks presented by participation in a nation wide system and develop a detailed accountability program that facilitates transparency.
3. Publicly announce the delay of the activation of these cameras and cover them until a legal review can take place evaluating the risks of bulk data collection under Open Record Laws.
4. Pass legislation regulating the use of ALPR technology in Palmyra.
None of these proposals were immediately adopted.
Second Ward Councilman Steve Bland offered a more measured response. “There is always a risk of misuse – everywhere,” he said. “If it happens in this town, then the leadership responsible will be changed.”
Still, no commitment was made to introduce Martin’s proposed safeguards. Bland later clarified that while he supported modern policing tools, he also believed “clear policies and oversight are necessary.”
Another resident, Kelton Wilt, echoed Martin’s concerns and questioned the proportionality of the surveillance plan.
“Why does a town of 3,600 people with a relatively low crime rate need (six) AI-equipped cameras?” Wilt asked. “It’s not just about reading plates. These systems can capture bumper stickers, non-factory tires – basically profiling your vehicle’s identity.”
Wilt also voiced frustration with the lack of public forums on the topic. “The chief isn’t willing to have a community discussion about this,” he said. “That alone should be a red flag.”
As of the June 19th meeting, four of the six cameras had already been installed around Palmyra but are not yet operational. City officials confirmed that the system would remain offline until the remaining units are set up.
When asked whether community input would influence final deployment, no clear answer was given.
Perhaps the most controversial moment came when Mayor Adrain, responding to privacy concerns, said, “I’m not a criminal, so I don’t worry about the Flock camera.”
To some in the room, the statement reinforced the very problem critics were describing.
One resident later commented, “That’s the kind of thinking that lets surveillance creep in through the back door. You don’t defend rights only for people you agree with.”
While the meeting included discussions on other topics – like stormwater drainage, city ordinances, and park maintenance – it was clear the Flock debate had take center stage.
No such technology has been confirmed as part of the Flock system in Palmyra, but as more AI-assisted systems enter public life, the boundaries between security and surveillance continue to blur.
For now, the city has not altered its plan. The cameras will go live once installation is complete, though no official timeline was provided. Whether that changes will likely depend on community pressure in the coming weeks.
City officials did not confirm whether an additional public hearings would be held on the matter, though multiple council members indicated a willingness to revisit the issue.
If nothing else, the message from residents is clear: safety does not come at the cost of privacy, and the people of Palmyra expect a voice in that balance.
What else happened at this meeting?
– A resident continued bringing awareness to his flooding concerns on his private property. The city council is evaluating drainage solutions.
– The second reading of Bill 1655, amending public works delinquency rules, passed unanimously.
– Discussion on the Charter Pole Attachment agreement was postponed pending receipt of original documentation
– Palmyra’s mutual aid agreement with Monroe City remains suspended until paperwork is finalized.
– The City Park pool is operational after repairs, but a deteriorating floor and the renovation of the baby pool pose future budget concerns.
The Palmyra City Council will meet again on Thursday, July 3rd.
