A Model Resolution: Real Oversight, Ready to Adopt
We wrote the language so your commissioners don’t have to start from scratch. A model resolution that puts surveillance technology — ALPR, drones, and the rest — under public approval, independent audits, and enforceable limits. Free to download, adapt, and adopt.
A ready-to-adopt oversight framework for North Carolina boards of commissioners and town councils.
Download the model resolution (PDF) ↓Most of the problem with surveillance technology in North Carolina isn’t that the law allows it — it’s that the law asks almost nothing of the agencies that run it. The ALPR statute requires only an annual, internal audit reported to the agency’s own head; drones, gunshot detection, social-media monitoring, and real-time crime centers carry no recurring audit requirement at all. (The oversight gap, in full.)
Local governments don’t have to wait for the General Assembly to fix that. A county or town can set its own rules today. So we wrote the language — grounded in North Carolina statute and the best model policies in the country — ready for a board to introduce, adapt, and adopt.
What it does
The resolution puts every surveillance tool an agency might use — not just ALPR — under one accountable framework:
- Public approval before deployment. No acquisition, expansion, or renewal without advance public notice, a written Surveillance Impact Report, a public hearing, and a recorded vote of the board — authority that can’t be delegated to staff or a vendor.
- Two independent, recurring audits. A use audit — reviewed outside the agency, on a real schedule — confirming every search had a documented, lawful purpose and that data left the agency only to law enforcement on a written request; and a recurring security audit confirming the cameras and data can’t be breached from outside.
- Public reporting. Audit results and an annual summary presented in open session and published, with a public transparency page.
- An end to blanket redaction. Consistent with Chapter 132, the identities of agencies and users that search the data are public; redaction is limited to what the law specifically protects.
- Retention and sharing limits. Prompt deletion of data not tied to an active investigation; no enrollment in nationwide open-lookup networks; no standing federal access without lawful process.
- A warrant standard for retrospective searches that reconstruct a person’s movements over time.
- Hard limits on use — no traffic enforcement, no federal immigration enforcement, no monitoring of worship, protest, or protected activity, and no profiling.
- Enforcement and a sunset — violations carry consequences (including the Class 1 misdemeanor already in state law), and each authorization expires unless the board renews it.
Why a resolution
A resolution can be adopted now, with a single vote, and it commits the board to a standard the public can hold it to. It can also serve as the blueprint for a binding ordinance later. Either way, it moves the default from “trust us” to “show us” — which is the whole point.
How to use it
- Residents: download it and hand it to your commissioners — it’s far harder to dismiss a specific, drafted proposal than a general complaint. (Email your leaders and attach it.)
- Officials and staff: the bracketed items (jurisdiction name, audit frequency, retention period) are yours to set; the framework is ready to introduce.
- Everyone: it’s a template, not legal advice — the adopting body should run it past its own attorney before introduction.
Download the model resolution (PDF) Send it to your commissioners →
The full text — copy-paste ready
Here is the complete model resolution. Bracketed items are for local completion; your board’s attorney should review it before introduction. It’s also in the downloadable PDF.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PUBLIC OVERSIGHT, AUDIT, AND ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER AND OTHER SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
WHEREAS, the [Board of Commissioners / Town Council] of [Jurisdiction], North Carolina (the “Governing Board”), finds and declares as follows:
WHEREAS, the [Jurisdiction] is committed to both public safety and the constitutional rights of its residents, and recognizes that these goals are complementary, not opposed;
WHEREAS, automated license plate reader (“ALPR”) systems and related surveillance technologies collect data on all persons within their range, regardless of any suspicion of wrongdoing;
WHEREAS, North Carolina law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183.30 through § 20-183.33, regulates ALPR systems but requires only that an operating agency’s written policy provide for “annual or more frequent auditing and reporting … to the head of the agency,” without independent review, public reporting, or any mechanism to verify that the audit occurs;
WHEREAS, the North Carolina drone statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-300.1, and the absence of any statute governing gunshot-detection systems, social-media monitoring and open-source-intelligence tools, real-time crime centers, and similar technologies, leave those technologies with no comparable recurring audit or public-reporting requirement;
WHEREAS, the acquisition and use of such technologies has, in numerous jurisdictions, occurred without public notice, competitive procurement, or a recorded vote of the governing body;
WHEREAS, documented cases across North Carolina and the United States establish that these systems can be, and have been, misused — including access by law-enforcement personnel to track individuals for personal reasons, and disclosure to outside or federal agencies contrary to stated policy — and that such misuse is typically discovered, if at all, only through an audit or after harm has occurred;
WHEREAS, some of these systems have been breached and data released to the public, including live video feeds of minor children;
WHEREAS, security researchers have documented instances in which ALPR camera feeds and stored data were exposed to unauthorized access over the public internet;
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has recognized, in Carpenter v. United States (2018) and Chatrie v. United States (2026), that the aggregation of location data over time may constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment; and
WHEREAS, public confidence in local government requires that surveillance technology be subject to transparent approval, independent oversight, meaningful limits, and enforceable accountability;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Governing Board of [Jurisdiction], North Carolina, as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. “Surveillance technology” means ALPR systems; fixed or mobile cameras with video or analytic capability; unmanned aircraft systems (drones); gunshot- or audio-detection systems; cell-site simulators; social-media monitoring and open-source-intelligence platforms; real-time crime centers and camera-integration platforms; and any comparable device or software whose primary purpose is to observe, record, identify, or analyze the activities, movements, or communications of persons. “Data” means information collected, generated, or retained by such technology.
Section 2. Approval Required. No department or agency of [Jurisdiction] shall acquire, deploy, materially expand, or renew any surveillance technology except upon (a) at least thirty (30) days’ advance public notice; (b) publication of a Surveillance Impact Report describing the technology, its purpose, the data collected, retention, sharing, total cost, and civil-rights impacts; (c) a public hearing; and (d) a recorded affirmative vote of the Governing Board. This authority shall not be delegated to any department, official, or vendor.
Section 3. Independent and Recurring Audits. Use of each surveillance technology shall be audited no less than [quarterly / semi-annually] by a person or entity independent of the department that operates it. Each audit shall verify that every access to or query of the data was tied to a documented, legitimate purpose, and shall identify any access lacking such documentation. The audit shall confirm that no data was disclosed to any entity other than law enforcement and that a written request for such data was received pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183.30 et seq. In addition, an independent security audit confirming that the cameras and surveillance data cannot be breached from outside shall be performed on a [quarterly / semi-annually] basis.
Section 4. Public Reporting. The results of each audit, together with an annual summary report for each surveillance technology — stating the number of queries, the purposes recorded, the agencies granted access, any misuse identified, and its disposition — shall be presented to the Governing Board in open session and published for the public. [Jurisdiction] shall maintain a public transparency page describing each surveillance technology it operates.
Section 5. Public Records; Limitation on Redaction. Consistent with Chapter 132 of the General Statutes, records concerning the operation of surveillance technology — including the identity of the agencies and users that access the data — are public records subject to disclosure upon request. Redaction shall be limited to information specifically made confidential by law, and the burden of justifying any redaction rests with [Jurisdiction].
Section 6. Data Retention and Deletion. Data that is not part of a documented, active criminal investigation shall be deleted no later than [X] days after collection, and in no event later than the maximum period permitted for ALPR data by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183.32. Data shall not be preserved beyond that period except pursuant to a lawful preservation request, subpoena, or search warrant.
Section 7. Limits on Data Sharing. [Jurisdiction] shall not enroll its surveillance data in any statewide or nationwide open-lookup network that permits outside agencies to search that data as a matter of course. Disclosure to another agency shall be made only upon a written request identifying a specific, documented case or lawful purpose, and every disclosure shall be logged. Standing or automatic access by any federal agency is prohibited absent a warrant or other lawful process.
Section 8. Warrant Standard for Retrospective Searches. A query of retained surveillance data undertaken to reconstruct the past movements or activities of an identified person over time shall require a search warrant supported by probable cause, except in exigent circumstances, which shall be documented contemporaneously.
Section 9. Prohibited Uses. Surveillance technology and its data shall not be used (a) to enforce civil traffic violations, consistent with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183.31(b); (b) for the enforcement of federal civil immigration law; (c) to monitor or record persons engaged in constitutionally protected activity, including religious worship, political expression, or lawful assembly, absent an individualized and lawful basis; or (d) on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or political affiliation.
Section 10. Enforcement. A violation of the policies adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be grounds for discipline and, where applicable, may constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183.33. [Optional: Any person aggrieved by a violation may bring a civil action and, if substantially prevailing, may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.]
Section 11. Sunset and Reauthorization. Authorization for each surveillance technology shall expire [twenty-four (24)] months after approval unless reauthorized by the Governing Board following the procedure set out in Section 2.
Section 12. Effective Date; Existing Technology. This Resolution is effective upon adoption. Within [ninety (90)] days, each department operating surveillance technology already in service shall bring it into compliance with this Resolution or discontinue its use.
ADOPTED this ______ day of ______________, 20____.
____________________________________
[Chair / Mayor], Governing Board
ATTEST: ____________________________________
[Clerk to the Board]
This model is general information, not legal advice, and creates no attorney-client relationship. Adopting bodies should obtain independent legal review before introduction or adoption.
Related
- DeFlockILM — Who’s Watching the Watchers? (the oversight gap) · Flock in New Hanover County, by the numbers · the statewide tracker.
This model is general information, not legal advice, and creates no attorney-client relationship. Adopting bodies should obtain independent legal review before introduction or adoption. Last updated July 11, 2026.
You’re not a suspect. So stop being tracked like one.
It takes one minute. Add your name, then tell your county commissioners to cancel the Flock contract.