Remove Flock Safety ALPR cameras from Chattanooga streets

329

Let’s get to 500 signatures!
Petitions with 1,000+ supporters are 5x more likely to win!

The Issue

To: The Mayor and City Council of Chattanooga, TN, and the mayors and councils of surrounding municipalities in our viewing area (including but not limited to East Ridge, Red Bank, Collegedale, Cleveland, Signal Mountain, and Hamilton County government)

Started by: DeFlock Chattanooga

Petition Statement
We, the undersigned residents of Chattanooga and the surrounding region, call on our city and county governments to remove Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras from public streets and to end all current and future contracts with Flock Safety.

Why This Matters
Mass surveillance without consent. Flock cameras scan and log the license plate, location, and travel patterns of every vehicle that passes — not just those suspected of a crime. This creates a searchable database of residents' daily movements: where we work, worship, seek medical care, and spend time with family.

No meaningful public input. In many of our cities, these systems were approved through police department budgets or vendor contracts with little to no public notice, hearing, or debate before installation.

Weak data protections. Flock's own contract language has allowed the company to disclose data to other government entities or third parties based on a vague "good faith belief" standard — language specific enough that other cities, including Hillsborough, NC, have cited it as a reason for ending their contracts. Nashville has held off on adopting the technology in part over concern that plate data could be shared with federal immigration enforcement, and Tennessee's ACLU has flagged this as an ongoing concern statewide.

Safety and quality concerns. In July 2026, Flock Safety's own CEO announced a nationwide equipment safety audit after a Tennessee advocate flagged hazards with camera installations — with 16 cameras in Tennessee already found to need fixes. If the vendor itself can't yet vouch for the safety of its installed hardware, that undermines confidence in the program broadly.

Little proven return. Despite the cost of these contracts, cities have not produced clear, independent evidence that ALPR networks meaningfully reduce crime relative to their price tag and privacy cost. Public safety dollars deserve better-justified spending.

  1. What We're Asking For
    Immediate removal of existing Flock Safety cameras from public rights-of-way in Chattanooga and participating surrounding cities.
  2. Termination or non-renewal of existing Flock Safety contracts.
  3. A public, transparent process — including community hearings — before any future surveillance technology is adopted, with clear rules on data retention, access, and sharing with outside agencies.
  4. Independent, public reporting on the actual crime-reduction impact of any camera network before further investment is considered.

Our communities deserve safety solutions that don't come at the cost of everyone's privacy and civil liberties. We urge our elected officials to act now.

Sign this petition to tell Chattanooga and surrounding city leaders: remove Flock cameras and give residents a real say in surveillance decisions.

The Decision Makers

Signal Mountain Town Council
4 Members
1 Responded
J. Jorgensen
Signal Mountain Town Council
Councilman Jorgensen published an op-ed in the Chattanoogan on the issue of ALPRs and invited us to pass it along to the signers of this petition. You can find the op-ed and link to the original article below: Public Safety And Privacy Should Not Be Opposing Values I was recently contacted through Change.org regarding a local petition calling for automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, to be removed from Chattanooga and surrounding communities. It caused me to think more about a subject I have been following for some time. I understand why law enforcement wants these systems. I spent 10 years working as a 911 dispatcher. I have worked alongside police officers, listened to calls as crimes were unfolding and seen the importance of getting useful information to officers quickly. When I was campaigning for my first term on the Signal Mountain Town Council, I remember discussing license plate readers with one of our officers. From a law-enforcement perspective, the appeal was easy to understand: a tool that can help locate a stolen vehicle, identify a suspect vehicle or find someone who is missing can have real value. At the time, I was generally receptive to that argument. But the more I have learned about the capabilities of modern ALPR networks, the more concerned I have become. Unlike a traditional police investigation focused on a particular suspect, these systems can collect information on thousands of ordinary people who are suspected of nothing. A license plate, vehicle description, location and time can be recorded simply because someone drove down a public road. Those individual observations can become much more revealing when they are searchable across locations and agencies. That changes the question for me. The question is no longer simply, “Can this technology help solve crimes?” Clearly, it can. The better question is, “How much surveillance infrastructure should government build around everyone in order to investigate the relatively small number of people suspected of committing crimes?” There are also legitimate concerns about misuse. These aren’t entirely hypothetical. This summer, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation arrested five former Albany police officers after an internal audit found they had allegedly accessed retained license-plate information for non-law-enforcement purposes. Other departments have conducted similar audits as concerns about improper searches have grown. That does not mean our local law-enforcement officers are abusing these systems. I have no reason to make that accusation. It does demonstrate something more fundamental: when we build a powerful database, we also create the possibility that someone - today or years from now - will use it for a purpose for which it was never intended. Technology companies and police agencies have responded to many of these concerns with audit logs, access controls and other safeguards. Those are positive steps. But safeguards around a surveillance system are different from deciding whether the surveillance should occur in the first place. Signal Mountain wrestled with this question before I was elected. The town was approached about participating in an ALPR program, and concerns were raised about how the resulting information could be stored and used. The town ultimately did not participate. Since taking office, I have raised my own concerns about ALPRs with our town manager and with Hamilton County Commissioner Chip Baker. The issue has now become even more immediate. On Aug. 31, Hamilton County Sheriff Austin Garrett announced a pause in the Sheriff’s Office’s Flock and Motorola license-plate-reader programs, involving approximately 70 cameras. Importantly, Sheriff Garrett made clear that he believes the technology can help fight crime, while also citing serious concerns about public data and potential misuse. I think that pause is the right decision. Knox County reached an even stronger conclusion the same day, with its County Commission unanimously ordering the sheriff’s Flock cameras removed within 30 days. I don’t view this as a left-versus-right issue, and I don’t think supporting law enforcement and protecting individual privacy should be competing values. Police officers should have effective tools to investigate crimes. Citizens should also be able to drive to work, church, a doctor’s office, a political meeting or a friend’s home without government routinely building a searchable record of those movements simply because the technology makes it possible. There may eventually be a version of this technology with sufficiently narrow purposes, strong local control, minimal retention, strict limits on data sharing, independent auditing and meaningful consequences for misuse. I am not convinced we are there today. For now, I believe Hamilton County is right to pause these systems, examine them carefully and put the burden on the technology - not the public - to demonstrate that its benefits justify the…
Clay Crumbliss
Signal Mountain Town Council
Andrew Gardner
Signal Mountain Town Council
Red Bank City Commission
5 Members
1 Responded
Stefanie Dalton
Red Bank City Commission - At Large
The Red Bank City Commission opted during this year's budget cycle for FY26-27 not to renew the contract for the 2 ALPRs from a pilot program grant we received approximately three years ago. Because of a delay in installation, the grant program does not officially end until March 2027, after which time the ALPRs will be removed from Red Bank. Stefanie Dalton, BA, LMSW Mayor, Red Bank City Commission City of Red Bank [Note: The Change.org Civic Engagement Team reaches out to decision makers to let them know about petitions in their community and to help facilitate engagement with supporters. The above was an email response we received regarding this petition.]
Terri Holmes
Red Bank City Commission - At Large
Jamie Fairbanks-Harvey
Red Bank City Commission - District 3
Chattanooga City Council
9 Members
Raquetta Dotley
Chattanooga City Council - District 7
Chip Henderson
Chattanooga City Council - District 1
Marvene Noel
Chattanooga City Council - District 8
Collegedale City Commission
4 Members
Tonya Sadler
Collegedale City Commission
Tim Johnson
Collegedale City Commission
Morty Lloyd
Collegedale City Commission
East Ridge City Council
4 Members
David Tyler
East Ridge City Council
Jacky Cagle
East Ridge City Council
Jeffrey Ezell
East Ridge City Council

Supporter Voices

Petition Updates