This transcript was generated automatically by AI speech-recognition software and
has NOT been reviewed by a human for accuracy. Errors, omissions, misattributed
speakers, and misheard words may exist. It is provided for convenience only and is
not an official record. For the authoritative account, consult the official meeting
minutes and the original video/audio of the Brunswick County Board of Commissioners.
[00:00] FRANK WILLIAMS: I would certainly want to invite [President Trump] to Brunswick County — the fastest-growing county in the state, and if not one of the safest counties in the state. I feel like we've got a safe community, we've got great law enforcement, and I think they do a tremendous job for the citizens of Brunswick County.
My goal in bringing up this particular item is so that we — not only as elected officials, but the citizens — would have a better understanding of the use of the Flock system, the camera system, so we can all understand the importance of this.
So what I have come up with is a motion for us to pause any procurement of any new surveillance camera equipment, in addition to anything we currently have. During this pause, I would ask that we immediately form a committee, within a short period of time, and that committee look at the items that deal with the ability to conduct a review — legally, financially, operationally. There may be things the committee can't actually address, but in policy form we should be able to address the concerns that have been raised by residents across the county and across our state: about the data sharing; the long-term vendor contracts; the warranties; the training that goes into it; and the issues associated with misuse and how that's actually addressed.
I think this goes to building public trust, addressing civil liberties, and understanding the whole county-wide operation better. So I'd like to see a committee appointed in short order — from county administration, the county commissioners, the Sheriff's Office, our two communications offices (county and Sheriff), and legal from the county and the Sheriff's Office — together with any technician engaged in the use of this technology, to help this group get the information we need to understand it better, so we can decide on either continuing operations as-is or making modifications, in the interest of the public.
Because this issue, in my opinion, has really come in and divided not only our state and our country — it's impacted our county, primarily because we've had an incident involving misuse, and we need to step up and address how we're going to move forward. I'm thinking maybe not this week, but by next week, bring this group together and come out of it with a format in which we can educate ourselves and the public on what use is acceptable. So that's my motion.
[04:50] CHAIRMAN FORTE: Okay — make sure I understand. The motion is to pause procurement of new equipment that would fall under this category, and to form the committee as structured. Is that correct?
FRANK WILLIAMS: Yes — not just new, any purchasing, anything new. We can't stop what's already here, and we can't stop paying for what's already here, because of the legal aspects. But any buying of anything new, while we look at this and study it — that's what I'm talking about. Any new procurement.
CHAIRMAN FORTE / COUNTY STAFF: But the agreement with Axon is ongoing for five years.
FRANK WILLIAMS: Yes. So we need to put a pause on it if possible. We'd have to check with them. As long as it doesn't disrupt what we've already approved… during the process of understanding it, with legal in the room while we discuss it. I'm thinking two commissioners — it can be anybody we choose. We need to discuss the long-term commitments, because you're talking millions.
And here's the other thing about this system — and I'll admit, I got the paperwork again today. When we approved the agenda item back on November 17th, this body approved it. But if you look at the agenda item, there's very little information in there that hits you and says, "Hey, this is a Flock system for every Sheriff's vehicle in Brunswick County." Nothing hit me like that when I read it. But the truth is, this agreement — signed on November 17th, 2025 — means every Sheriff's vehicle has a Flock camera in it, in addition to the Flock cameras across the county in stationary positions. That's why we need better education for ourselves and the public, because I don't think staff knew that the vehicles had Flock cameras in them until this week.
PAT SYKES: And that agenda item was $4 million. When the public finds out we have these ALPRs and Flock cameras in the cars, I'm sure they're going to be even more upset. Four million dollars was put into the capital, with a five-year contract. In November, I voted for this because it was already approved in the budget — but I was not here for the budget approval, because my sister died. And this is over a hundred pages — it also covers a lot more than just the license-plate cameras.
Yes, it does. And I'm not against anything else in there that's not a Flock camera or an ALPR — if the body cameras are regular body cameras, I'm fine. That was going to be my request for the motion: as written, it applied to all surveillance cameras. I'd just ask that it apply to procurement of all ALPR cameras.
[Motion refined to ALPR cameras.]
PAT SYKES: Now I have another concern — same concern, another question. I called Aaron today to ask if we had anything outstanding for cameras or software for the Sheriff's Office. He said there was a purchase order for Airship AI. I think that needs to be paused too, because it's my understanding the Airship AI software can be incorporated into the ALPR cameras.
CHAIRMAN FORTE / COUNTY STAFF: What is that — Airship AI?
PAT SYKES: They have cameras placed in certain areas, and this is the software used for those cameras that goes into the Axon program to be tracked.
AARON SMITH (Finance Officer): The Axon cameras aren't just body cams. Airship AI has other cameras used for specific purposes — pole-mounted cameras, typically put on power-line poles, placed for specific purposes. We did just approve a PO for those, a short-term agreement, because they want to integrate them into Axon. I believe there are about 12 cameras. It has a cloud-based database; each camera has a certain amount of storage accessible remotely. I don't know who all has access to it.
BRYAN W. BATTON (Asst. County Attorney): By "specific purposes," I believe he means a specific targeted investigation — to look at something in particular, not global monitoring.
PAT SYKES: The Sheriff's Department spent a lot of money to get their national CALEA certification, and they have governing guidelines for Flock. I want to make sure we're doing everything correctly. Does this attach itself to Flock?
AARON SMITH (Finance Officer): Yes — but Airship AI is mostly used by the FBI on a national level; not many people are buying Airship here. The email I have describes it as pole cameras — video cameras strategically placed on telephone poles throughout the county in specific areas. The PO was already approved — it was for six months, while they work on a potential solution to integrate it with Axon. It was under the purchasing policy, so it didn't rise to the level of board approval, and funds were available in the budget.
PAT SYKES: But it is 12 additional cameras, in addition to the Flock cameras. I don't think we should move forward with software or cameras — we need to pause it all until we make sure the public understands why we have them and why we're using them, or else we do away with them.
CHAIRMAN FORTE: I have a motion, I have a second. Any discussion? To be clear, the motion is still: pause procurement of new equipment and form the committee. Did you specify how many commissioners?
FRANK WILLIAMS: I threw two out, but that's up to you — one commissioner and the Sheriff, one elected official on each side.
[A commissioner indicates he's fine with the numbers.]
[≈16:30] MARTY COOKE: Commissioner [Williams] said we live in probably the safest county in North Carolina. I believe we have over 1,000 cameras in school systems. Companies around the county have cameras — some are Flock cameras. Individual municipalities: Ocean Isle Beach, and I know Holden Beach has over 60 cameras. That's not counting industry, or individuals who have them at home, be it Ring cameras or whatever. This is a law-enforcement issue, not a layman's issue. One reason we're safe is the integration of a variety of tools, so that individuals here who have warrants are flagged.
It was brought up that this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I'm not an attorney or a constitutional scholar, but I took constitutional law. I looked into this: it has been reviewed by the federal 5th, 9th, and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeals, and every one of them said it was constitutional and fine. It was tried in 27 cases in 19 U.S. district courts, and 12 cases in 11 state courts as well. Look at Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, 2026 — federal courts upheld these ALPR programs. They emphasized limited camera density and short retention windows, and that those cameras observe vehicles, not people. They read license plates and vehicle characteristics that are made to be publicly visible. From those images, you can't figure out who drove it. Now, people say that's unreasonable — no, because that's a state-issued license, and on a state roadway it's considered open season.
I did sit in a Motorola presentation a couple of years back where they talked about these cameras — they can even determine whether a person has a weapon. But we're looking at it from the standpoint of an individual driving into our jurisdiction with a warrant on their car, and it flags it. The courts consider that similar to an individual officer writing that information down and running the tag.
That said, I don't believe we should do anything beyond a 30-day wait and some education by the Sheriff's Office. A committee? No, sir. Now we'd be running the law-enforcement aspect by committee, and that's not what we're charged to do. On misuse — yes, there's been misuse, but there have been guardrails on it, and those individuals were caught, as someone said earlier tonight, by an audit. I've had attorneys and people who work in this field weigh in. Education is fine. A 30-day pause, I don't have a problem with. A committee — no, sir, I can't go along with that.
PAT SYKES: One thing you said — about the reader getting behind the vehicle and running a tag. Is there not any probable cause needed to run that tag?
MARTY COOKE: According to all these rulings, no.
PAT SYKES: So they're tracking people, basically.
MARTY COOKE: No — they're tracking license tags.
PAT SYKES: The Sheriff in Wilmington made the statement that they were tracking people.
MARTY COOKE: That's not what the software does.
PAT SYKES: The other thing — who's doing the audit?
MARTY COOKE: The Sheriff's Office did.
PAT SYKES: Who's watching the Sheriff's Office? Anybody can do an audit and say this one did this and that one did that. The other problem is third party — giving information to a third party is against the Fourth Amendment. That's my rights being taken away. So if we cannot have a committee to have a decent discussion about what the citizens want to know about the cameras, then we need to do away with them.
MARTY COOKE: I've done the research — there are over 30 or 40 cases on this very thing, and it cleared every one of them, at the state as well as the federal level.
PAT SYKES: So your Sheriff's association and your local police have not endorsed any of these cameras — I haven't seen that they have. I'd also like to know: have the employees of the Sheriff's Office received proper training on these cameras — the training they were supposed to get? I don't think there's been any training. There should be a question there about their training.
[≈22:30] FRANK WILLIAMS: I'm as strong a supporter of law enforcement as you'll find — I think they do an amazing job, and I started my career in law enforcement. But with this particular incident — and none of those court cases came out of Brunswick County — the public recognizes we've got an issue we ought to address. They look at their leadership in adjoining counties who, in my opinion only, made decisions that maybe they should have taken more time and gotten more information on, and worked with their Sheriff, before taking the action they took. I'm not saying that won't be one of the results here — but my goodness, if you don't sit down and give it a chance to talk through, and learn, and educate yourself…
To be honest, we wouldn't have all this overdevelopment going on if some of us had been a little more educated in the planning aspect many years ago. Use that same scenario here, with the outcry from the public — and I'm hearing both sides. There are supporters of the Flock system, and there are those who hate it and say do away with it. I'm just looking at a way to educate everybody that there's potential good, and then educate the public as we educate ourselves — because this is going to be a continuing thing; technology is going to continue.
The other thing this has taught me: whenever you send me a 150-page agreement, I'm going to have to go through it with a highlighter and highlight everything that isn't totally understood. So the county is going to have to do a whole lot of printing — because I'm not printing it at my house. If I've got an agenda item that addresses one thing, and an agreement that addresses it in a different way, the two need to come together. That's part of why we're where we're at today.
I'm just trying to move this forward in a positive way and find a way to address the public's concerns without having a fight over the whole thing. I mean — you come to my house, you're going to get on camera. That's the way it's been ever since I've been in law enforcement. But I'm not finding out about all your history, and I don't know where you've been — I just know you drove by the house. So I think we need to come together with a small group. Marty, I'm thinking this can happen in less than 30 days. I don't like doing a pause to do something, but I'm not in favor of doing a committee.
BRYAN W. BATTON (Asst. County Attorney): For clarification — was the motion modified to add software? It's my understanding the software's relationship to Axon is regarding cloud storage, which per the agenda item is what the Axon contract was; it's not related to license-plate reading.
FRANK WILLIAMS: I don't want to mess with anything on their storage.
CHAIRMAN FORTE: Let me make sure I understand the current version of the motion — it's still the same: pause procurement of new equipment and form the committee, with one commissioner and the other folks you mentioned. With that version, I'm okay voting for it. I have no problem putting a pause on new procurement — it's a hot potato right now, with strong opinions and valid concerns on both sides, and a reasonable discussion will help. But if it deviated much from the current wording, it could get to where I couldn't support it — that's why I wanted to make sure I understood the wording.
[≈28:00] CHAIRMAN FORTE: Every year when we go through the budget, I proclaim that I'm a law-and-order guy — that hasn't changed. I personally don't have a problem with the Flock camera. It's a license-plate reader; that's about all it does. There's no expectation of privacy on your license plate — it's there to identify the vehicle for anybody. Anybody behind you all day long could see your license plate. I can promise you that as we're speaking, there are 50 cars driving in this county right this minute that have warrants on them — people who didn't show up for court, didn't pay their child support — and some don't even know they have a warrant. I think it's a valuable tool and asset to the Sheriff's Office.
It was an audit that caught the individual who misused it. It was dealt with swiftly, the next day; that employee is no longer with the Sheriff's Office. What he had in place worked. My understanding is they do the audits very regularly — they found it, they dealt with it. You're always going to have somebody who's going to bend the rule; that's human nature.
Mr. Emery is here — I wouldn't mind asking: are they all trained in how to use this?
GLEN EMERY: They have that training in the ALPR systems, yes, sir.
PAT SYKES: All deputies?
GLEN EMERY: They have access to it; they've been trained in it, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FORTE: And we have somebody auditing this on a regular basis?
GLEN EMERY: We do. We have two separate systems that are audited in slightly different ways, but both are being audited. The Flock system has an AI program attached to it that does the audit and flags things — and it's what flagged the particular individual who was removed from the Sheriff's Office and has been referred to the SBI for investigation. The SBI is doing that investigation now.
CHAIRMAN FORTE: Seems to me it did what it's supposed to do. I don't have a problem with it. You want to do a 30-day pause? I'll go along with it, but I don't know what that's really going to accomplish. Again, Marty — I'm not a fan of another committee. It's death by committee these days; you put more than five people in a room and very little gets accomplished. I'm in favor of a small committee — I'd even be willing to let staff, legal, and communications work it out and come back to us with something. That way you wouldn't have a committee; you'd have staff working with the Sheriff's Office. Committees just do nothing.
FRANK WILLIAMS: I'm fine with that. Something needs to be done that reassures the public. I'm sure the Sheriff feels he's done everything he should. But seeing our neighbors going through their situation — which has obviously divided the Sheriff's Office and the elected body over there — I don't want to see that happen here. The public is still asking questions, and I'd really like to see something come out of it. If I'm the one chosen, I'd love to sit and listen, because I expect legal and communications to come up with something we could all agree on that would better inform us and the public — in a positive way, outside of what they've been getting from the media. That's the only goal I'm looking for. No longer than 30 days.
[≈34:00] PAT SYKES: I've got another statement before you change the motion. Number one: I continuously see the agenda items, and the "purpose of the request" is always there — but the purpose of the request is totally different from what you're actually asking. It never matches what was really requested. I've looked at grants and different things, and it doesn't match.
I'll give you an example — the software that was on the agenda last month. Y'all said it was essential personnel software that you really needed. But then I find out that the one selling the software is our past Sheriff, Sheriff Ingram. So why are we purchasing software from our past Sheriff? We weren't even told that he works for the company and manages that part. That's not trust — you're falsifying a purpose when you don't explain the whole detail.
The Flock cameras — you're saying they're just license-plate readers. That's not accurate either. They read everything on that car: the stickers, the license plate, the color, the model — everything is put in that Flock system. And when you say everybody's been trained — that's not what I'm hearing. So where's the proof they've been trained? Did they get a certificate? Is it in their folder?
We're not New York City. We don't need all these cameras like New York, California, or Miami Beach. We're putting up so many cameras — it's like we have a lot of crime in this county. We don't have a lot of crime. I'm totally against the Flock cameras. I think they take away my privacy, and I think it's a Fourth Amendment issue, because it's a third party you're sharing it with.
MARTY COOKE: The courts would disagree with you.
PAT SYKES: I don't care what the courts agree. I'm the county commissioner, and our taxpayers don't need to be paying $4 million for all this equipment that is following me and tracking me.
MARTY COOKE: It doesn't track you — it's a snapshot in time.
PAT SYKES: So one Sheriff says it does, and another says it doesn't. I'll get proof of that.
[≈37:00] FRANK WILLIAMS: My revised motion: have legal, administration, and communications come together with the Sheriff's Office to provide better clarity to us — just like Commissioner Sykes said. She asked how we know they've received training, other than being told they have. What documentation is there? Seeing it is the proof and provides clarity. I think if the Sheriff's Office, administration, legal, and the two communications folks come together, they can bring back something we could agree on — a good message to send out, because right now the message out there is dividing folks.
PAT SYKES: I'll second the revised motion.
CHAIRMAN FORTE: So the motion I'm confirming is: pause procurement of new equipment for 30 days, and direct staff to do what you just said and come back to the Commissioners in less than 30 days.
FRANK WILLIAMS: Right — y'all could meet this week and come back at our next meeting, so we'd have a better understanding of exactly how to answer the public's questions. I'm not a technical person — my son had to fix my computer tonight. There's a lot I don't understand at my age; it's been 40 years since I wore a badge, so things have changed quite a bit.
CHAIRMAN FORTE: So I have the motion, you seconded the revised motion. Thompson… Williams — got that? [to Clerk] Any other discussion? All those in favor, please say aye.
BOARD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FORTE: Any opposed? Passes. That was 5–0.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────── [The Board then moved to other business — a request for staff to evaluate a PFAS-related program, and a separate presentation by Shelby Lloyd of Novant Health Brunswick Medical Center — which are unrelated to the Flock item.]
⚠ Reminder: This is an AI-generated transcript, not reviewed by a human for
accuracy. Mistakes may exist. It is not an official record.