Sheriff McMahon’s Position on Flock — and How He’s Misinformed

On the record, the Sheriff’s Office prepared a memorandum for the Board of Commissioners and county leadership explaining its License Plate Reader program — the document that begins, “As many of you are aware, the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office has recently deployed License Plate Reader technology…” A copy was provided to us. Because we publish the correspondence on this issue — including our own — we wrote to Sheriff McMahon directly on July 22 and offered him the chance, before we posted anything, to confirm the memo was authentic, correct anything in it, or add a statement of his own that we would publish unedited alongside it. We asked for a reply by the end of the day on July 28. That deadline has passed without a response. So we reproduce the memo in full below, exactly as provided, and answer it with the county’s own records.

Let us start with what we concede, because much of the memo is accurate. The technology can help. A missing man with dementia found; a fleeing suspect located; a Silver Alert resolved. North Carolina law authorizes those uses, and we have never argued otherwise. The county is a listed participant in the SBI pilot, its state-road cameras are real, and the SBI’s own report to the legislature shows no pilot data held past ninety days. We dispute none of that. Yes — mass government surveillance solves crime. It always has. A system that watched everyone, everywhere, all the time would surely catch more criminals still — which is exactly the modest proposal we made in satire, and the point a resident made deadpan to his own city council in Casa Grande. Effectiveness was never the question.

This country was founded in no small part to end the Writs of Assistance — the open-ended authority British officers used to search colonists at will, without naming a suspect or a cause. That grievance is why our search protections are written as strongly as they are, and why the North Carolina Constitution guarantees them. So the real question is not whether cameras solve crimes. It is whether New Hanover’s residents should live under the kind of persistent, warrantless location tracking we have always associated with authoritarian states — and whether that is a trade they should get to make for themselves.

With respect, the memo is a careful answer to a question no one asked. We never asked whether a license plate reader can help a given investigation; the memo offers a list of cases suggesting it can, and we do not dispute those individual anecdotes. But anecdotes are not evidence that the program makes the county safer — and we have found no peer-reviewed study establishing that these camera networks reduce crime. We asked three different questions: what this system actually is, who checks it, and who decides. On each, the county’s own records are louder than the memo.

The Sheriff’s memo, in full

Below is the memorandum exactly as the Sheriff’s Office prepared it — reproduced without edits or omissions. Our response follows it.

Memorandum — reproduced in full and unaltered
Sheriff Edward J. McMahon to the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners & County Leadership

Dear County Commissioners and County Leadership,

As many of you are aware, the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office has recently deployed License Plate Reader (LPR) technology as part of our ongoing efforts to improve public safety and strengthen our investigative capabilities.

Because this technology has generated questions from members of the public and the media, I wanted to provide you with some background information that may be helpful if you are asked about the program. Please feel free to share this information with constituents who have questions about the technology.

License Plate Reader technology has become a well-established investigative tool that helps law enforcement identify suspect vehicles, establish investigative timelines, corroborate witness information, and generate leads that might not otherwise exist. These capabilities enable investigators to respond more effectively when time is critical and help improve public safety. Law enforcement agencies throughout southeastern North Carolina have successfully incorporated this technology into criminal investigations for several years, and the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office is now joining that existing regional network to better serve our community.

The Sheriff’s Office has adopted a comprehensive written policy governing the use of License Plate Reader technology. That policy establishes who is authorized to access the system, the circumstances under which it may be used, and reinforces that the technology is used only for legitimate law enforcement and public safety purposes. It is not intended to monitor the daily activities of law-abiding citizens.

Statewide Oversight and Accountability. It is important to understand that this is not simply a local Sheriff’s Office initiative. North Carolina’s statewide License Plate Reader program is administered by the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), which establishes program requirements for participating agencies.

To participate in the statewide program, law enforcement agencies must maintain a written policy governing the use of the technology and comply with state-established operational standards. Participating agencies are also subject to annual audits conducted through the SBI-administered program. In addition, the addition or removal of cameras within the statewide program is managed through the SBI to ensure consistency and accountability.

The New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office was proud to participate in North Carolina’s initial License Plate Reader pilot program. Following the program’s demonstrated success, the North Carolina General Assembly recently enacted legislation making the statewide program permanent, further recognizing its value as a public safety and investigative resource for law enforcement agencies across the state.

There are several common misconceptions about License Plate Reader technology that are important to address.

Our system does not use facial recognition technology. It does not identify drivers or passengers, nor does it capture images of the occupants inside a vehicle. The cameras photograph the rear of vehicles only and collect limited vehicle-related information, including the license plate number, vehicle make, model, color, and other distinguishing characteristics.

The system is not used for traffic enforcement. It does not issue speeding citations, red-light tickets, or other automated traffic violations. It is also not a live surveillance system where Sheriff’s Office personnel continuously monitor the public. Rather, it is an investigative tool that provides detectives with valuable information after a crime has occurred or during active emergencies such as AMBER Alerts, Silver Alerts, or other critical public safety incidents.

Protecting privacy remains a priority. Information collected through the system is retained for a limited period in accordance with Sheriff’s Office policy and applicable law before being automatically purged unless it becomes part of an active criminal investigation. The Sheriff’s Office does not use this technology to monitor the routine movements of law-abiding residents. Information is accessed only when it serves a legitimate law enforcement or public safety purpose.

It is also important to recognize that License Plate Reader technology is not unique to law enforcement. Information is collected through technology every day in ways most of us rarely think about. Cell phones, navigation applications, electronic toll systems, banking transactions, retail loyalty programs, package delivery services, home security cameras, and countless other technologies collect information to provide services that people depend on every day.

Likewise, Flock Safety is simply one of many companies that provide License Plate Reader technology. Similar systems are utilized by law enforcement agencies, retailers, shopping centers, homeowners’ associations, towing companies, parking management companies, hospitals, apartment communities, and other private organizations throughout the country. In fact, many major commercial businesses already have License Plate Reader systems in their parking lots to deter crime, improve security, recover stolen vehicles, and assist law enforcement when criminal activity occurs.

One of the questions we are often asked is whether this technology truly makes a difference. Based on our experience, the answer is yes.

Although our program is relatively new, License Plate Reader technology has already assisted New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office deputies and detectives in several significant investigations.

Earlier this year, deputies responded to a report of an 89-year-old man with the early stages of dementia who became separated from his wife and failed to return as expected. Using License Plate Reader technology, deputies quickly identified the location of his vehicle and safely located him before the situation became more serious.

In another investigation involving a domestic-related homicide, the suspect fled North Carolina immediately after the crime. License Plate Reader technology helped investigators quickly determine the suspect’s location, allowing law enforcement to apprehend the individual within 24 hours.

Detectives have also successfully used the technology to investigate organized criminal activity, including a multi-state trailer theft operation and a catalytic converter theft ring responsible for crimes across numerous jurisdictions in North Carolina and South Carolina. In both cases, License Plate Reader technology helped investigators identify suspect vehicles, connect related cases, develop critical investigative leads, identify additional victims, and coordinate efforts with partner agencies that resulted in arrests.

In another investigation, detectives used License Plate Reader technology to identify and apprehend a bank robbery suspect within a short period of time after the crime occurred. In a separate narcotics investigation, the technology assisted deputies in identifying and stopping a vehicle involved in drug trafficking, resulting in the seizure of approximately one kilogram of cocaine before it reached our community.

Patrol deputies have also used the technology to quickly locate stolen vehicles entering New Hanover County, allowing deputies to recover property and safely take offenders into custody.

These are real examples from our own community demonstrating that License Plate Reader technology is not a replacement for good police work — it is another investigative tool that allows deputies and detectives to develop leads more quickly, collaborate more effectively with neighboring agencies, and resolve cases that directly impact the safety of our citizens.

While no single technology prevents crime, License Plate Readers provide investigators with timely, objective information that can significantly improve the speed and effectiveness of criminal investigations. Whether helping identify a suspect vehicle, locating a missing child or vulnerable adult, or providing critical information during an active public safety emergency, this technology enables deputies to make informed decisions more quickly while operating under written policy, state oversight, legislative authority, and established safeguards that respect the privacy and constitutional rights of the citizens we serve.

Thank you for your continued partnership and support of the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office. I hope this information provides helpful context as questions arise within the community, and I encourage you to share it with constituents whenever you believe it would be beneficial. If you would like to discuss our License Plate Reader program in greater detail, I would be happy to meet with you personally to answer questions and explain how this technology is helping us protect the citizens of New Hanover County.

Respectfully,
Ed McMahon
Sheriff, New Hanover County, N.C.

Our response

1. What it actually is

The memo presents a plate reader — cameras that “photograph the rear of vehicles only” and collect “limited vehicle-related information.” The county’s own equipment and its own network audit say otherwise. The county’s signed contract includes eight Solar Condor PTZ cameras — dual-lens, pan-tilt-zoom units that record live and recorded video and can zoom in on people, not rear-plate devices. One has already been found watching a new neighborhood; a second is now pointed at a children’s soccer field at Veterans Park — on a system the Sheriff describes as reading only the rear of vehicles.

And the network these cameras feed is used to search for people, not only plates. Flock’s own log distinguishes an “object class” of vehicle from one of people — and among the FreeForm queries run against this county’s network are searches in the people class. One typed, in words, “2 young teenage black males.” This is not a hypothetical. It is a row in the audit New Hanover County released to us on June 18, 2026 in response to our April 28 public-records request (No. 26-594).

Set the racial term aside; the point that survives is larger. Someone was searching for human beings by description against cameras this county pays for — on a system the Sheriff describes as reading only plates. And on all 2,980,082 rows, the searching agency is redacted to “***,” so neither the public nor the Board can say who ran any given search — the Sheriff’s Office included, or not. Kure Beach released that field. NC A&T released it in eleven days. Publishing it here would let the Sheriff’s assurance be verified instead of merely trusted. We are still pressing the County on exactly that.

2. Who checks it

Here the Sheriff’s own policy answers. SOP 222 — printed in the SBI’s report — is explicit at §222.4.A.9: the ALPR manager conducts the audit and forwards it “through the chain of command to the Sheriff annually.” That is the oversight the memo invokes as “annual audits conducted through the SBI-administered program”: the county employee who runs the ALPR system conducts the audit of his own program, once a year, and reports it up to the Sheriff. The man who operates the system audits his own work. There is no independent audit, no outside security review, and no one from outside the agency ever looks. And on what permits a search, §222.5.D.2.c sets the bar at a deputy’s “reasonable belief that the ALPR-generated data may be related or useful” — not reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.

This matters because every misuse we know of nationally surfaced through an audit. The Milwaukee officer who ran 179 searches on an ex-partner. The Georgia officers charged this summer. An internal, annual, self-performed audit is the thinnest version of the one safeguard that has actually caught abuse everywhere else.

3. He answers only for his own deputies

Read the memo again and notice what it can actually promise. It says the Sheriff’s Office uses the system “only for legitimate law enforcement and public safety purposes” and does not “monitor the routine movements of law-abiding residents.” Take both at face value. They still cover only one set of hands. The memo says nothing about the thousands of outside agencies that reach into this county’s cameras — and on a shared Flock network, they do. The Sheriff cannot vouch for Texas, the FBI, ICE, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, or the hundreds of other departments that search the network. He does not control them, no one here audits them — and no North Carolina law even authorizes him to. He has no power to audit how an agency in Texas, or a federal office, uses data pulled from this county’s cameras. Those agencies operate under their own policies, written for other states or for no state at all — policies that may permit precisely what North Carolina law forbids, from the traffic enforcement § 20-183.31(b) bars to retention and sharing our statutes restrict. When the Sheriff promises the system is used lawfully, he can only be speaking for his own deputies. For everyone else searching these cameras, his assurance is not merely unaudited — it is outside his authority to give.

Two things follow. First, “legitimate purpose” is unverifiable exactly where it matters most. The reason an officer types to justify a search is free text that no one reviews, and in the audits we have read that reason is often a single unchecked word — “Intel,” “suspicious.” A one-word “Intel” attached to a search for a person is not self-evidently the legitimate law-enforcement purpose the memo promises. It is a label, entered by someone the Sheriff does not oversee, checked by no one.

Second, we already know some of those outside searchers have abused the system. New Hanover redacts who searches its cameras — but UNC Pembroke released that field, and it shows the very Georgia sheriff’s offices whose officers were criminally charged for Flock misuse searching a North Carolina university’s cameras. Flock’s network shares data across participating agencies, and New Hanover shares widely enough to log 2.98 million searches. In our reading, it is a reasonable inference that the same out-of-state agencies searching Pembroke’s cameras are also searching New Hanover’s — and the only reason we cannot say so with certainty is that the county redacts the one field that would prove it. The memo describes what the Sheriff’s own deputies do. The risk lives in the searchers he never mentions, and no one audits.

4. How far it reaches

The Sheriff’s Office may not monitor residents’ routine movements. But on the same vendor network, down the coast, 93.6% of Kure Beach’s 1.39 million searches came from outside North Carolina — the Texas Department of Public Safety its single largest searcher, the FBI running 25,664. Those agencies are reconstructing the movements of people who have never set foot in their states.

And the county’s own contract adds a piece the memo omits. It bars Flock from selling the county’s data — but it also lets Flock convert that data, by its own definition of “anonymized,” into a set the county grants it “a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right to use and distribute… for other Flock offerings.” A promise not to sell the county’s data, and a right to build products on a derived version of it, are not the same protection. The same contract, at §5.3, also lets Flock “access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage” to third parties on a “good faith belief” that it is reasonably necessary. In our reading, that clause appears difficult to square with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183.32(e), which restricts disclosure of this data to law enforcement — and the statute’s written-request requirement for data sharing is one we have seen no evidence the out-of-state agencies are meeting.

One smaller note. The memo compares this to cell phones and loyalty cards. Respectfully, those are consumer choices, and the Constitution restrains the government, not the grocery store. A resident can decline a loyalty card. She cannot decline to drive a public road — and the Fourth Amendment has something to say about the government keeping a searchable record of where she went.

Follow the 2.98 million

The memo’s strongest implicit reassurance is scale: a local tool, for local cases. But the audits we have pried loose across North Carolina point the other way. When a small agency’s log is unredacted, the searches are overwhelmingly from out of state, and a striking share come from agencies with documented or apparent misuse:

• Kure Beach — 1,391,951 searches in three months, 93.6% from outside North Carolina, Texas DPS the largest single searcher and the FBI in the top five, on four cameras in a town of 2,400.
• Carolina Beach — about three million searches in one quarter of five cameras in a town of 6,400 — and the Town could not say who ran them.
• NC A&T — 1,390,776 searches by 3,487 organizations, mostly out of state, including the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (11,781) and 974 searches citing immigration reasons; the campus’s own officers ran 261, of which 77.8% were traffic infractions.
• UNC Pembroke — 156,730 searches citing a traffic infraction, a use § 20-183.31(b) says the data may not be put to — run by, among others, the Polk County (2,673) and Union County (2,436) Sheriff’s Offices here in North Carolina, Houston, Texas PD (210,170), and every one of the six Georgia agencies whose officers were investigated for Flock abuse (about 12,000 searches).

New Hanover County ran 2,980,082 searches in about sixteen months. If the unredacted logs from every comparable NC agency are any guide, the great majority of the searches touching this county’s cameras are not the local investigations the memo describes — they are out-of-state agencies, federal users, and departments with proven or apparent abuse, running searches no one here reviews. We cannot prove that for New Hanover, because the one field that would settle it — the searching agency — is the field the County has redacted. That redaction is the whole argument. Restore it, and the Sheriff’s assurance can be checked. Until then, it can only be taken on faith.

Who decides

This is not a fringe position, and New Hanover is not being asked to go first. A growing number of communities across the country are pulling these systems out, and four North Carolina communities already have — Hillsborough and Pittsboro cancelled, Chatham County pulled its own, and on July 14 the Macon County Commissioners voted 5–0 to defund the program over their own Sheriff’s public objection. We raise Macon not to embarrass anyone, but because it is the cleanest version of the point: a board looked at the same case the Sheriff makes here, judged the public’s interest ran the other way, and used the one power that is unambiguously the board’s — the appropriation.

Not one of these programs, here or there, was ever put to a public vote before it went live. Neither was ours — and that is the heart of it. This surveillance network went up at the Sheriff’s request, funded through his office’s budget. The elected Board of Commissioners never held a vote on whether New Hanover County should operate a mass-surveillance system, and the people who live here were never asked. A government simply decided, on its own, to place its own residents under persistent, warrantless observation — and then redacted where the cameras are and who searches them. Whatever one thinks of the technology, that is not how a free county is supposed to make a decision this large. The residents who have signed the petition — more than 2,300 as of today, most of them New Hanover voters — are not asking anyone to agree with them. They are asking for the vote they were never given.

The Sheriff runs the program. The Board funds it, and only the Board can put it to the public. So the two questions we have asked from the start are the Board’s to answer, not the Sheriff’s:

• Do you support the county’s continued funding of the Flock program?
• Will you support putting the contract to a public vote by the Board?

Sheriff McMahon offered to meet and explain the program. We take that offer seriously, and we would welcome the chance to sit down, walk through these records together, and hear his view. The disagreement here is honest, and it is about the records — not the man. Our door is open.