Blindfold by Ordinance: Providence Council Moves to Ban Flock—and Bar Cops From Using Anyone Else’s Plate Data

What happened

Providence’s City Council is advancing an ordinance to prohibit automated license-plate readers (ALPRs) and similar technology citywide—not merely to let a vendor contract lapse. According to the Providence Journal (Oct. 14), sponsors include Councilors Miguel Sanchez and Sue Anderbois and outgoing Council President Rachel Miller. The draft, as described in Journal and WPRI coverage, would immediately deactivate and discontinue LPR agreements, return the equipment, and bar the city from receiving LPR data from other states, municipalities, or agencies.

WPRI / Target 12 reported that Thursday’s council agenda presented an amendment citing constituent concerns about misuse elsewhere—including alleged Immigration and Customs Enforcement use of Flock data, stalking by authorized users, and misidentification. Police Col. Oscar Perez told Target 12 the move surprised him and that he would have welcomed operational input before language affecting investigations was drafted. The department oversees 60 city Flock cameras; Rhode Island State Police oversee six more, per police.

Mayor Brett Smiley defended the cameras as a proven public-safety tool and urged guardrails over elimination. Democratic mayoral nominee David Morales’s campaign manager said Morales intends to cancel Flock once in office and “fully support[s]” the council ordinance. Republican mayoral nominee David Talan called the cameras valuable if data-sharing can be locked down.

Update (Oct 16)

The council did not vote on the ban Thursday night. According to WPRI, “Councilors did not vote on the proposal, but did discuss it at length Thursday night. It was referred to committee.” WPRI again gives the city’s Flock contract expiration as May 16, 2027.

Councilor Sue AnderBois, a sponsor, told the council: “Flock and other license plate reader technologies are not keeping us safer. Data from Providence’s Flock cameras has been accessed millions of times — including by many organizations that do not have the required formal sharing agreements with the Providence Police Department.” She added: “This type of surveillance data is being weaponized across the country, and constant monitoring is an invasion of our civil liberties.”

In a statement to WPRI, Flock Safety said it hopes “city leaders recognize the impact this technology has already had on public safety,” adding: “Most notably, Flock technology played a critical role in helping law enforcement identify and locate the suspect responsible for the deadly Brown University shooting.”

Update (Oct 19, 2026)

The state pause continues, and the new rules are voluntary. The 60-day review ended Monday. That afternoon (released 4:07 p.m.), the McKee administration published a statewide model policy and a template data-sharing memorandum of understanding (MOU) for local police departments that choose to use automated license plate readers. The release says “the State will maintain its pause on new ALPR installations so legislation can be drafted that will codify statewide safeguards governing the technology.” The policy is not required. The administration “is urging municipalities that currently use ALPR technology to adopt the model policy and use the MOU template.”

Who wrote it. According to the release, State Police drafted the policy “in consultation with the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association, the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns, and the Rhode Island Police Accreditation Commission.” State Police’s own review memo lists the working group as the Department of Public Safety, the Police Chiefs Association, the League of Cities and Towns and the Providence Police Department. Neither document lists the ACLU of Rhode Island or the other groups that signed its Oct. 9 letter: the Alliance to Mobilize Our Resistance, the Office of the Public Defender and Planned Parenthood of Southern New England. That letter warned: “With less than two weeks left of this study period, we are concerned that there does not appear to have been any attempt to seek out any meaningful incorporation of public input in the process.”

What the model policy says.

• Authorized uses: criminal investigations of alleged violations of state or federal law “where there is reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed”; active investigations of missing or endangered persons or human trafficking; and alerts for warrants, stolen vehicles and stolen plates.
• Prohibited uses: traffic violations, fines and civil infractions; immigration enforcement, including sharing with ICE for civil immigration purposes; enforcing an abortion ban or restricting reproductive rights; investigating a crime “not recognized under Rhode Island law”; harassment; and use based on protected characteristics or to infringe First Amendment rights.
• Retention: “Unless preserved as part of an investigation, ALPR data shall purge no later than 30 days after the data was captured.”
• Sharing: only with other law enforcement under a signed MOU and a written request. Nothing goes to non-law-enforcement third parties.
• Transparency: each department posts a public portal listing hot-list sources, data retention, number of cameras, organizations with access, total plate reads and number of searches.
• Audits and sanctions: a quarterly internal audit of at least ten randomly sampled searches. Violators “may be subject to criminal prosecution, civil liability, and/or administrative sanctions,” and intentional violations “may warrant discipline up to termination.”

What officials said. Gov. Dan McKee: “We’re now taking the next step by extending that pause while we work to put stronger safeguards into state law that protect Rhode Islanders’ privacy while giving law enforcement the tools they need to keep our communities safe.” State Police Col. Darnell Weaver: “This model policy establishes clear, consistent standards for how this technology should be used, how information is accessed and shared, and how agencies are held accountable.” Providence Police Chief Col. Oscar Perez: “Public safety and individual privacy are not mutually exclusive.” Last Friday, McKee told WPRI the public will have “an opportunity to weigh in” when legislation is presented.