ALPR surveillance contract

A Clarkdale systems engineer thanked the Board for denying item 20 and warned about mission creep, citing Cottonwood's Flock contract and warrantless search policy.

A Prescott Valley resident opposed the license plate reader program, citing Fourth Amendment concerns and saying the public learned of it only the day before.

A Prescott Valley resident objected to the mobile surveillance contract being handled as routine business and listed detailed questions about data retention, access, auditing, and sharing.

A Prescott Valley resident echoed the prior speakers and asked that any future ALPR consideration include full public discussion of capabilities, data practices, and safeguards.

Said he was told the item had been tabled and nearly missed the vote; argued the surveillance system conflicts with constitutional principles.

A Williamson Valley resident with a cybersecurity background called mass surveillance tools dangerous and unconstitutional and urged proper public discussion before any deployment.

Questioned the funding source for the camera purchase and demanded full cost transparency and data safeguards before any future approval.