On Friday, Sept. 25, Dutchess County District Attorney Anthony Parisi and Sheriff Kirk Imperati agreed to phase out the use of the 65 Flock cameras owned and operated by the county. The cameras were turned off that same day and will be removed over the next 30 days. Cameras owned by municipalities, cities, towns or villages have not been affected by this decision. The reversal came after a public forum, hosted by Parisi, Imperati and Dutchess County Legislator for District 25 Eric Alexander on Sept. 23, allowed residents to express their concerns about the cameras.
Flock cameras are the nation’s largest brand of automated license plate readers (LPRs)—AI-powered cameras that record and collect data from passing cars—in the United States. According to a pamphlet handed out by town hall employees, the cameras located in Dutchess County record cars’ license plate numbers, colors, makes and models along with other identifying features like dents, stickers or markings. The pamphlet clarified that the LPRs did not have facial recognition capacities, nor did they collect data on the gender or race of any people within view of the cameras.
The cameras are owned by the Dutchess County Analysis and Real-Time Crime Intelligence Center (ARTCIC), a joint public safety camera initiative between the Dutchess County District Attorney and Sheriff’s Office, run by Imperati and Parisi. ARTCIC was first established in November 2024 after the Dutchess County Legislature unanimously voted to allocate $200,000 in initial funding for the project. This included purchasing radio communication equipment, computer hardware, cameras and annual Flock subscriptions. Additionally, Dutchess County received $1.2 million through a Department of Justice community-oriented policing services grant to cover additional costs.
“The ARTCIC will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement to facilitate a more data-driven approach to decision-making, improving response times and clearance rates,” Parisi argued when the project was first announced. The ARTCIC website features 16 success stories on how the Flock network has helped solve crimes. At the public forum, Imperati argued that since its installment, the Flock network has helped Dutchess County police decrease their response times.
Residents at the public forum made a resounding call for the removal of the cameras.
“These cameras could be used to arrest people for crimes they didn’t commit,” Hyde Park resident Charlie Latino argued at the public forum. A Poughkeepsie resident, Sandra Patterson-Thompson, also argued that the cameras are often inaccurate. Others at the forum pointed out that Flock cameras have been disproportionately placed in the North side of the City of Poughkeepsie.
Parisi and Imperati pulled out of the county’s Flock contract in response to residents’ opposition at the forum. Imperati told the Poughkeepsie Journal, “We asked for their views, and we have a responsibility to act on what we heard.”
The county cancelling its Flock contract will not reflect cameras owned by other jurisdictions, meaning LPRs might remain in the City of Poughkeepsie unless removed by Mayor Yvonne Flowers or the City of Poughkeepsie Common Council.
Neither Flowers nor Police Chief Richard T. Wilson responded to requests for comment on how Poughkeepsie will move forward with the City’s Flock cameras. However, Flowers has been adamant in her support for LPRs. In an interview with Mid Hudson News on Sept. 16, Flowers said, “I will have further conversations with Chief Wilson and the vendor to discuss the concerns that have recently been raised by members of the public.” She explained that the cameras had been beneficial, and that a replacement would be needed should the cameras be removed.
There are no public records that cite the location or number of Flock cameras owned by Poughkeepsie. It is unclear if Poughkeepsie has its own contract with Flock or if all the cameras installed in the area are owned by Dutchess County.
According to DeFlock, a national anti-Flock grassroots project that allows users to report camera locations on an interactive map, there are approximately 120 LPRs in Dutchess County, 34 of which are in Poughkeepsie. ARTCIC confirmed the installation of the county’s 65 cameras and released the location of 17. Of the confirmed LPR locations, 12 were in Poughkeepsie.
Miscellany reporters confirmed the placement of two ARTCIC cameras near Vassar College campus, one on the corner of Main Street and Raymond Avenue and another along Hooker Avenue and Grand Avenue. Both have been deactivated.
The informal installation of some LPRs has been controversial with Dutchess County residents. In some towns, residents had individual handshake agreements with the sheriff’s office to host a Flock camera on their property, allowing towns to experience surveillance without widespread approval. Earlier this year, former Pine Plains Police Sergeant Michael Beliveau signed a $80,000 contract with Flock without the Pine Plains Town Board’s approval. Some residents of the area discovered the cameras once they had already been placed. These informal agreements have allowed for at least one Flock camera to be placed in every county municipality.
The Pine Plains Town Hall addressed these concerns by canceling the sheriff’s agreement with Flock. This controversy caused many other municipalities in Dutchess County to question the presence of these cameras, calling for a public forum so residents could express these concerns. The Sept. 23 public forum had a turnout that surprised some regular attendees. “This is crazy. I go to town hall meetings all the time. I’ve never seen anything like this,” Aaron Baldwin, a resident of Beacon and election coordinator for Dutchess County, told the Miscellany.
Throughout the meeting, citizens presented their concerns with Flock cameras, including fears that police officials could misuse them for personal reasons. In an interview with the Miscellany, Madison Anthony, a resident of Hyde Park, said, “I don’t like how there isn’t really any oversight. Any sort of law enforcement officer can access where I’m going without needing a warrant. There’s been other instances of different officers using these cameras to track their ex-romantic partners.” A senior investigator in Albany was recently arrested for allegedly using the Flock network to stalk her ex-girlfriend, allegedly searching her ex’s license plate in an LPR database over 3,000 times.
According to the ARTCIC transparency website, there were three safeguards in place to avoid data leaks and the network’s abuse: a login system to enter the database and the assurances that individuals approved for access could only access data for “law enforcement purposes only” and there would be regular system audits to ensure proper use.
In addition to fears regarding misuse, residents raised concerns about trusting Flock with access to the county’s data. Vassar student Nicholas McDonald ’29, who did not attend the forum but had heard of the recent reversal, shared, “ I just am reluctant because I feel that there’s personal data that’s being taken and then is being stored on like a third party database, and I don’t know how much I really trust this Flock database to keep this information safe.”
According to Flock, all collected data gets deleted after 30 days. However, like McDonald, many are skeptical of the database’s security. “ We didn’t vote for the corporation, right? Sheriffs, county officials, these people get elected. No one voted for the corporation to come in here and surveil us,” Baldwin voiced.
Hyde Park resident David Phelps, along with other community members, also argued that Flock cameras violate their Fourth Amendment rights by enabling the government to track everyday movement. “Although [Flock’s potential constitutional violations] haven’t come out yet and had a case, because it’s a new technology, they’ve had precedent with U.S. v. Jones, Carpenter v. U.S. and, in 2026, Chatrie v. U.S., all stating that the police acquisition of data that tracks travel, you can’t do it. It constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. You can’t do it,” Phelps stated.
This summer, a coalition of New York civil rights and legal advocacy groups filed a class-action lawsuit against the Westchester County Police Department claiming the network of 575 LPRs violated New York State’s constitutional right to “security against unreasonable searches, seizures and interceptions.” The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the case under the legal precedent set by United States v. Knotts, a 1983 Supreme Court case that permitted law enforcement agencies to use radio transmitters to track vehicles traversing public roads.
Residents who spoke at the forum expressed concerns that the system could be exploited and data could be leaked. Julia Wardell of Pleasant Valley voiced, “I’m sorry, and forgive me but I’m very lacking in trust right now… What happens if the next person [with access to the Flock network] has no integrity?”