One Neighbor Filed a Complaint. It Reached the Whole State.

We asked North Carolina’s Security Systems Licensing Board for its file on Flock Safety on July 15. Director Paul Sherwin acknowledged it the next day and produced two days later, on a rolling basis, before we had finished asking. That is faster than any agency has moved for us.

What he sent is the origin story of the only state in the country that makes Flock hold a license.

An anonymous resident, and their own HOA’s letter

The complaint that began all of it came from a neighbor. Not a competitor, not an advocacy group. The investigative file records it plainly:

“My neighborhood HOA has contracted with the Flock Group Inc./Flock Safety to install at least four security cameras/license plate readers at the entrances/exits to my neighborhood. Furthermore, a Google search shows Flock Safety has performed similar work for various neighborhoods and local governments in N.C. The company’s website advertises services in N.C. … but this company is not licensed to install cameras.”

They attached their HOA’s own announcement letter as the evidence — the cheerful one their board had emailed them: “We are pleased to announce that [our community] has partnered with Flock Safety… The footage and data that is collected is automatically deleted after 30 days.”

The Board issued a cease and desist on January 5, 2022.

A second complaint followed from a different direction entirely: a WSOC-TV report about Flock cameras at Concord Mills Mall. Two complaints, filed the same day — one naming the company, one naming its chief executive personally. Both cited the same statute.

Selling crime-detection cameras is what made it an alarm business

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74D-2(a)(2) requires a license from anyone who installs or services “cameras used to detect burglary, breaking or entering, intrusion, shoplifting, pilferage, theft, or other unauthorized or illegal activity.”

The investigator opened Flock’s website and quoted it back: “Stop missing investigative leads. Flock has cameras for both neighborhood and police use.” And the Vehicle Fingerprint™ pitch — search by “make, color, type, license plate, state of the license plate, missing plate, covered plate, paper plate, and unique vehicle details like roof racks, bumper stickers, and more.”

Flock’s regional director told the Board in February 2022 that the company was “unaware of the need to be licensed.” The staff finding was blunt: “Flock Safety has never held a license in NC.”

Both court orders, in full

The Board sued in Wake County Superior Court on March 3, 2023 — N.C. Alarm Systems Licensing Board v. Flock Group, Inc., No. 23CV003667-910. The file contains both orders.

The temporary restraining order, entered October 9, 2023 at 10:49 a.m., records Flock’s position: “That Defendant disputes that its business activities are governed by the Alarm Systems Licensing Act.”

Three weeks later, on October 30, 2023, Judge Vinston M. Rozier, Jr. entered a preliminary injunction. His findings:

“That although unlicensed, Defendant has continued to advertise, solicit contracts, contract for installation, and install its system for municipalities, universities, and homeowners associations.”

“That Defendant has—and continues to—violate the laws of the State of North Carolina even after being advised of the license requirements and ordered to Cease and Desist.”

“That Defendant’s actions are an immediate and direct threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.”

The judge enjoined Flock from installing or servicing camera systems in North Carolina — unless the work was “supervised or completed by a third-party company that is licensed” by the Board. Flock did not get its own license until July 23, 2024.

Two things we will say plainly, because they cut the other way. A preliminary injunction is not a final judgment; it is a finding that the Board was likely to win. And the staff findings carry the Board’s own caveat that they had “not yet been reviewed” and could be “adopted, amended, or reversed.” Flock is licensed today. This is history, not a live violation.

Are these things even alarm systems? The Board says yes

We asked whether the Board had ever formally decided that an ALPR falls under Chapter 74D. Director Sherwin answered in writing on July 17:

“Automated license plate readers that are used for the purpose of detecting or observing burglary, breaking or entering, intrusion, shoplifting, pilferage, theft, or other unauthorized or illegal activity fall under the Board’s jurisdiction. Flock’s cameras undoubtedly fall into this definition, which is why the Board required the company to get a Security Systems license.”

That matters beyond one company. If the reasoning is about what the cameras do, it is not obvious why it stops at Flock — so we asked the Board about the rest of the ALPR industry. On August 28, 2026, it answered. Verkada (license No. 625479-CSA, held by Dennis Pieta, exp. Nov. 30, 2027) and Motorola/Vigilant (No. 721547-CAS, Robert Tebault, exp. Jul. 31, 2028) hold Board licenses. But Rekor, Leonardo/ELSAG, Plate Ranger, and Axon/Fusus do not — the Board has no license, no records, and no complaints on file for any of the four. Set that against where the cameras actually are: UNC Greensboro runs Rekor, Onslow County runs Plate Ranger, and Wilmington PD runs Axon/Fusus — three North Carolina deployments of vendors the Board shows as unlicensed under the very Chapter 74D it litigated and won against Flock in 2023. The same question that forced Flock to get a license in 2024 has simply never been put to them. (The Board also confirmed it does not track third-party installers, while noting that Hodges Triad Electric reportedly did Flock contract work in 2023.)

And the requirement has teeth. The Board’s own meeting minutes show it routinely citing companies for “unlicensed activity” under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74D-2 — consent agreements, civil penalties, cease-and-desist orders. In September 2024, one of the companies it dinged was KNC Technologies, which entered a consent agreement for operating without a license. That name matters locally: KNC is the vendor that later ran a free “Cloudrunner” ALPR demonstration at UNC Wilmington. So the question we started with — who is allowed to run these cameras, and who is even checking — is not academic. The Board checks. It just hasn’t been asked about four of the vendors already operating here.

We said the license expires July 31. It doesn’t.

We reported in several places that Flock’s North Carolina license expires July 31, 2026, and we built a small argument about timing on top of that date. The Board’s record says otherwise: license No. 367626-CSA, Class Alarm, held by Ralph Taylor for Flock Safety, issued July 23, 2024, expiring August 31, 2026.

Taylor filed the renewal on July 15. Staff reviewed it July 16 and asked for a corrected certificate of insurance and continuing-education certificates. He has 60 days to cure, and the license stays valid the whole time. We said from the start that we were not predicting a shutoff. We were right about that and wrong about the date, and we have corrected it everywhere it appeared.

The whole file, unaltered

Everything the Board produced is published at the Internet Archive — the complete email thread, both 55- and 40-page investigative files, both court orders, and Taylor’s 2024 and 2026 applications. We host none of it:

The NC licensing file (Internet Archive) →

We redacted two things and nothing else: the email addresses of the two attorneys in the file, one for Flock and one for the Board. That is our practice, and it is the only alteration.

The rest of our request — the compliance history, the installer records, and the six other vendors — is still open. Director Sherwin says he will work through it. The tracker is here.

One neighbor asked whether the company putting cameras at their subdivision entrance was allowed to. Four years later, the answer is a statewide licensing requirement, a judge’s order, and a file we can hand to anyone. That is what a single question is worth.