Flock cameras photograph and store license plate data that police can use to investigate criminal activity. They’ve become the center of growing debate across the Valley. Critics argue that the cameras violate privacy rights, and their efforts to remove them have paid off in several communities. In this two-part series, we examine the fight over the future of the cameras. WMRA’s Bridget Manley reports.
Anna Cubbage has lived in Bridgewater, off and on, for much of her life. Like many in town, she saw cameras by the side of the road but had no idea what they were until she read a now-viral story from the Virginia Center for Investigative Journalism at WHRO that highlighted how data from automatic license plate reader cameras – or ALPR cameras – in Bridgewater were being accessed by law enforcement agencies across the U.S.
ANNA CUBBAGE: I mean, I noticed them when they went up, but I just assumed that it was just another speed camera, essentially. When I saw the article, I was shocked.
Cubbage is part of a growing group of local activists called Deflock the Valley, and their efforts have achieved several wins in recent months. Last month, both the Harrisonburg City Council and the Elkton Town Council voted to end their contracts with Flock, joining Charlottesville and Staunton, which did so in late 2025. The group is now focusing their efforts on towns such as Bridgewater and Grottoes.
But even as many communities take their cameras down, other law enforcement agencies are putting theirs online. The Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office recently installed four Flock cameras, hoping they would supplement Harrisonburg’s camera coverage. They put them online at the beginning of August, just as Harrisonburg shut its cameras down.
Rockingham County Sheriff Bryan Hutcheson says the cameras are not part of a grand conspiracy but rather a tool to aid law enforcement and public safety. He said the cameras have helped solve several high-profile crimes in the Valley.
BRYAN HUTCHESON: We had an individual who abducted his ex-girlfriend, at knifepoint, in her car, and off they went. Once we got the information, well, I typed up the conventional-style press release. We are looking for this vehicle, this license plate, right now for an abduction, a violent, armed abduction of a pregnant female. Within less than ten minutes, I think it was like eight minutes, a Flock camera – someone had entered it – well, it hits.
But activists are questioning the lack of transparency about how the cameras ended up across the Valley, what information they collect, and who can access it.
According to documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests by Deflock the Valley, local law enforcement agencies worked directly with Flock to purchase and install the cameras, rather than city or town councils voting to install them. As a result, there was little to no public input or discussion before the cameras were installed.
ZACH CAUDLE: I call it, basically, the administrative backroom.
Zach Caudle is a member of Deflock the Valley. His efforts to obtain documents revealed the process by which Elkton law enforcement installed the cameras.
CAUDLE: It was done totally through the police department; they basically set up the entire contract with Flock, and discussed placement and installation, where they were going to be placed.
Many local agencies used the Help Eliminate Auto Theft (HEAT) grant to fund the initial purchase of the cameras. According to a Cardinal News investigation, those state grants are funded through assessments on motor vehicle insurers operating in Virginia, in other words, through car insurance premiums paid by Virginia drivers.
Harrisonburg, Bridgewater, and Elkton were among the surrounding jurisdictions that received HEAT grants for the initial camera purchases. But even after those grants are used up, there is still a cost to operating the cameras. According to Harrisonburg city spokesman Michael Parks, the most recent annual cost of the cameras was over $79,000.
Another point of contention for those who oppose the cameras is Flock’s new Condor camera, which is a live and recorded surveillance camera that provides “real-time situational awareness” and allows users to “look at recorded video to observe crime happening,” according to the Flock website.
Elkton had a Condor camera in operation, and Deflock obtained video footage showing the camera zooming in on vehicles at a gas station late at night.
CAUDLE: They were basically using it as a CCTV camera, to watch over the area. And you can see where one of the Elkton police officers actually zoomed in on three or four people at the gas station across the street from the 7-11 and just watching what they were doing in the parking lot, at like, 12:30 in the morning.
Each city and town in the Valley provides a “Flock transparency portal” that shows how many cameras they have, how many license plates’ images have been captured, and their success stories with the technology.
However, each of those transparency portals is operated by Flock, and readers are redirected to the Flock website to view the information. And according to emails obtained by WMRA through a FOIA request to the town of Bridgewater, Flock representatives told town officials they could “adjust or hide any specific sections within the portal.”
In part two of this series, we will look at what Virginia law allows ALPR cameras to do, how the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office plans to use them, and the broad political spectrum of those opposed to the cameras.
