License Plate Readers Across the UNC System, Campus by Campus

This work grew out of our New Hanover County records project. On June 28, 2026, we filed materially identical requests to all sixteen of the UNC System’s constituent universities — the vendor contract, the ALPR policy, camera counts and locations, the retention schedule, data-sharing agreements, and any search audit. The picture emerging from the responses is not the simple one you might expect. It is not “the UNC System uses Flock.” It is a patchwork — of different vendors, different retention rules, different policies (or none), and very different levels of candor.

But one finding cuts across the whole patchwork: every university that has answered has admitted it runs cameras. Not one has said it uses none. Whether the vendor is Flock, Rekor, Genetec, or BriefCam, or the system is billed as “parking,” each responding campus has confirmed it operates some form of automated plate or vehicle surveillance. And because these are public universities — arms of the State — this is not a private camera on a storefront. It is government surveillance, run by state agencies, and it carries the constitutional weight that comes with that: the Fourth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution constrain what the government may do, in a way they do not constrain a private company.

The scoreboard so far

All sixteen requests were filed on June 28, 2026. We sent first follow-ups on July 13 and second follow-ups on July 22, narrowing each to the two items of greatest public interest — the vendor contract and the search audit. As of July 27, 2026, here is where all sixteen stand:

Key: Compliant — produced   Resisting — deficient or deflecting   Non-compliant — no production   Awaiting response

The Flock count so far. Among the campuses that have disclosed, the Flock networks alone total at least 24 cameras — NC A&T’s 16 and Winston-Salem State’s 8 — with UNC Pembroke’s and other campuses’ counts still pending. That is before counting the Rekor licenses at UNC Greensboro (16), the Genetec parking system at NC State, and the BriefCam cameras at UNC School of the Arts. The tally grows with each production.

Each campus’s full entry — the request, our follow-ups, and every document produced — lives on our NC records hub, and complete productions are mirrored at the Internet Archive (linked above where a school has produced in full). NC A&T’s audit has its own breakdown.

The responsive end: transparency in days

Some campuses simply did the job. UNC School of the Arts produced in three days — a clean, complete answer showing a small BriefCam video-analytics system at its entrances, with a policy checked against NCIC, SLED, and DMV files and, notably, no data-sharing at all. NC A&T produced in eleven days, including the full Flock audit (more on that below). NC State handed over its entire Genetec/AIMS parking file — quote, purchase order, the camera list, a 2018 privacy procedure, and the police-access MOU. UNC Pembroke released its Flock contract on July 23 and, a day later, a four-part Network Audit of more than 1.5 million searches — though, unlike A&T, it blacked out the searcher and reason on every row — and is producing the balance of the request on a rolling basis. None of this required litigation; it required a records officer deciding to answer.

The records that should stop you: A&T, UNC Pembroke, UNC Charlotte — and App State

Two campus Flock networks in the System have now produced search audits, and both tell the same story at scale. North Carolina A&T — the nation’s largest historically Black university — had its sixteen cameras searched 1,390,776 times in a single three-month window, by 3,487 organizations, overwhelmingly from outside North Carolina (Texas DPS, Houston PD, Dallas PD), with the N.C. SBI and a federal agency — the U.S. Postal Inspection Service — among the top searchers, and 974 searches logged with immigration reasons. A&T’s own campus police ran 261 searches in the same period, mostly for traffic. A campus network, opened to the country. (The full breakdown.)

Then UNC Pembroke produced its audit — and the numbers are larger still. Pembroke’s network was searched 1,529,853 times in three months by roughly 3,480 agencies, with Houston, Texas PD alone accounting for 210,170 and the N.C. SBI for 12,952. The difference is what each university let you see. A&T produced the reasons — which is how we know about the immigration searches. UNC Pembroke initially redacted them — then, after our July 24 deficiency letter, produced the reason field unredacted on July 27 (searcher names still withheld, which we did not contest). Now we can see why a rural North Carolina campus’s cameras get queried a million-and-a-half times a quarter. The stated reasons are led by auto theft (98,067), drugs/narcotics (86,992), and ordinary traffic infractions (71,013) — and more than 600 searches cite an immigration reason, with dozens more tagged for ICE, HSI, or Homeland Security. Two campuses, two million-plus-search audits, both now with reasons attached.

Then UNC Charlotte produced the largest audit yet — and it landed in the middle of a criminal case. In the same city where the SBI charged a Charlotte-Mecklenburg officer on July 29 for misusing Flock, UNC Charlotte’s cameras were searched so many times each month that the export hits Excel’s row ceiling and stops — 1,048,575 rows — every single month. The true totals are larger than the file can even show. Across March–May that is at least 3.1 million searches, overwhelmingly out of state (Houston, TX PD alone ran about 57,000 a month), while UNC Charlotte’s own police ran roughly 228 in the whole quarter. And Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD — the department whose officer was just charged — searched this public campus 13,733 times. (The full UNC Charlotte breakdown.)

And then Appalachian State — a public campus in the mountains — produced three months of audits on August 11, and the pattern holds a fourth time. App State’s cameras were searched 1,511,722 times in three months by 3,487 agencies, 84% of them from outside North Carolina (Texas agencies alone ran 335,385, led by Houston, TX PD with 177,461); North Carolina accounted for just 15.5%. But App State did what UNC Charlotte did and the producing campuses did not: it withheld the camera count, the sharing configuration, and the names of its data-sharing partners — all under § 132-1.7, the narrow “sensitive security information” exemption — even though the Network Audit it produced already names all 3,487 searching agencies. That exemption covers building-security plans and critical infrastructure, not a camera count or a vendor’s sharing screen, and Article 3D of Chapter 20 — the statute that actually governs ALPR — makes none of it confidential. We sent a deficiency response the same day; the whole production is on the Internet Archive.

Three campuses, three audits, each larger than the last: this is no longer one striking file. It is a pattern.

The resistant end: deflection, delay, and legal gaps

Others have been harder, and the records raise questions under North Carolina law:

• UNC Greensboro first closed our request on the ground that it has “no agreements with Flock” — while its own production showed it has run Rekor Scout since December 2020. The request was never limited to Flock, and the vendor-neutral framing reopened it. UNCG then engaged in good faith and, on August 5, produced a full point-by-point response: 18 cameras at 14 locations (including public thoroughfares), a 90-day retention period (compliant), statements that it shares no ALPR data and participates in no network, and — correcting our earlier reading — a written policy, UNCG Police General Order 1-5.5. Two items remain. The policy as produced carries no adoption or effective date, yet N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183.31 requires one to be in place before the system becomes operational — and UNCG’s has run for more than five years; and the annual audit reports the policy itself requires were not among the records. We have asked the University to confirm the policy’s adoption date and to produce those audits. On the current record we credit the production as substantially complete.
• Western Carolina first answered, in writing, that it keeps plate data for “1 year (365 days)” and produced a policy for only its parking tablets. On an August 4 supplement it cured most of that: the “1 year” described the parking system, the Flock system retains data 30 days, and the police department does have a written policy (General Order 302). On August 6 it produced the audits, and they show the opposite of the county networks — WCU’s cameras were searched just 15 times across April–July, every one by WCU’s own campus police, with network sharing off throughout. Two threads remained, and on August 8 the University closed both in writing: the single search coded “Traffic Infraction,” the use § 20-183.31(b) bars, was a lieutenant testing his new login by running his own plate on April 14, not enforcement; and the University confirmed its Genetec parking LPR falls outside Article 3D, with campus police barred from its data absent a case-specific request. On the completed record WCU is the System’s model of a contained deployment.
• NC Central sent a form letter — producing nothing, setting no date, and naming no exemption, and explaining the delay on a “first come, first served” basis. We replied with a formal demand letter and a firm date (August 3). UNC-Chapel Hill began the same way, then moved into rolling production: the February 2026 Flock contract and Insights dashboards on July 30, and — after our August 5 deficiency letter — its written ALPR policy and a usage audit on August 7. The policy sets a 30-day auto-purge; the usage data records 17,189,148 reads year to date against just 33 searches in the reporting window. The Network Audit in native CSV — which outside agencies searched the campus cameras, and why — and the data-sharing MOUs remain the open items.

We offer these as observations from the records, not as verdicts — the governing documents and the specific facts would decide any of them, and a licensed attorney is the right person to weigh a legal claim.

What the patchwork teaches

Four things stand out once you line the campuses up side by side. It is not just Flock: Rekor, Genetec AutoVu, and BriefCam are all here, which means “we don’t use Flock” is never a complete answer. Retention is all over the map — from NC State’s seven days to the 365-day parking-system settings at Western Carolina, which the University says sit outside Article 3D, against a 90-day statutory ceiling for the law-enforcement systems. Written policies exist but their timing is the question — the statute requires one before the cameras go live, yet several campuses produced policies that carry no adoption date or postdate a deployment already years old, UNC Greensboro’s Rekor system among them. And even a “parking” system is a police system once an MOU hands officers the keys, as NC State’s does. The same on-demand records that one university produced in three days took another more than twenty-five — which tells you the delay is a choice, not a burden.

Does my UNC campus use Flock? Campus-by-campus answers

The quick answers, for the schools people search by abbreviation. We update these as productions arrive.

Does NC A&T use Flock cameras? Yes — NC A&T runs 16 Flock cameras. Its network audit recorded 1,390,776 searches in three months by 3,487 organizations, mostly from outside North Carolina.

Does UNC Pembroke (UNCP) use Flock cameras? Yes — UNCP runs Flock. Its Network Audit, produced July 24, 2026, recorded 1,529,853 searches in three months by roughly 3,480 agencies, overwhelmingly from outside North Carolina — though UNCP redacted the searcher and “reason” fields, which we are challenging.

Does UNC-Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) use Flock cameras? Yes — UNC-Chapel Hill contracted with Flock in February 2026 for roughly 23 readers. After a slow start it is producing on a rolling basis: the Flock contract and Insights dashboards (17,189,148 reads year to date), its written ALPR policy (a 30-day auto-purge, dated June 7, 2024), and a usage audit showing 33 searches in the reporting window. The Network Audit in native CSV and the data-sharing MOUs are still outstanding.

Does Western Carolina (WCU) use Flock cameras? Yes, among others — WCU runs a T2 parking system, Flock, and Rekor. After a deficient first response it produced in full: the Flock system retains data 30 days (the earlier “1 year” was the parking system), sharing is off, and its Network Audit shows just 15 searches across four months, all by WCU’s own police — the most contained campus deployment in the System.

Does UNC Greensboro (UNCG) use Flock cameras? No — UNCG runs Rekor Scout, not Flock. It has operated an ALPR system since December 2020 — 18 cameras at 14 locations, 90-day retention, no data-sharing — and produced a full response on August 5, including a written policy (General Order 1-5.5) that, as produced, bears no adoption date.

Does NC State (NCSU) use Flock cameras? No — NC State runs a Genetec AutoVu / AIMS parking system (14 fixed plus about nine mobile cameras), not Flock.

Does UNC School of the Arts (UNCSA) use Flock cameras? No — UNCSA runs a BriefCam video-analytics system at its campus entrances, not Flock, and reports no data-sharing. It produced in three days.

Does NC Central (NCCU) use Flock cameras? NC Central has not disclosed — it produced no records and cited a “first come, first served” backlog. We have escalated with a formal demand letter.

Does UNC Wilmington (UNCW) use Flock cameras? UNC Wilmington’s response is pending; it acknowledged our records request and said production is forthcoming.

Does Appalachian State (ASU) use Flock cameras? Yes — App State runs Flock. On August 11, 2026 it produced the Flock contract, its ALPR policy, and three months of Network Audits (Request #26-154). Those audits show App State’s cameras were searched 1,511,722 times in three months by 3,487 agencies, 84% from outside North Carolina (Houston, TX PD alone 177,461). The University withheld the camera count, the sharing configuration, and its data-sharing partners under § 132-1.7; we sent a deficiency response the same day. The production is on the Internet Archive.

Does East Carolina (ECU) use Flock cameras? No — ECU runs a Genetec AutoVu / AIMS parking system (five mobile units plus two fixed SharpV cameras), not Flock. It produced in full on August 7, 2026: a 90-day retention setting, no data-sharing, and no hot list. The production is on the Internet Archive.

Does Elizabeth City State (ECSU) use Flock cameras? Elizabeth City State’s response is pending; it acknowledged the request on filing.

Does Fayetteville State (FSU) use Flock cameras? No — on August 11, 2026 FSU reported it has no Flock contract and no operational ALPR system yet, but confirmed it has executed contracts for a non-Flock ALPR system it is onboarding. It committed to producing records on a rolling basis, and we clarified that our vendor-neutral request covers that non-Flock system too.

Does UNC Asheville (UNCA) use Flock cameras? Yes — on August 10, 2026, after a June 28 request and an Aug 5 escalation, General Counsel Caroline McLean produced UNC Asheville PD’s Flock Safety “Law Enforcement Agreement” (the vendor contract). The Network Audit and ALPR policy are still pending. The produced contract is posted on the Internet Archive.

Does UNC Charlotte (UNCC) use Flock cameras? Yes — UNCC runs Flock (plus a separate parking LPR system) and holds an MOU with the N.C. SBI. Responding to Request #26-206 on July 30, 2026, it produced a full file — the Flock contract, three months of Network Audits, an MOU with the N.C. SBI, and its policies. Those audits show UNCC’s cameras were searched over a million times a month, overwhelmingly by out-of-state agencies — and Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD searched them 13,733 times in three months, the same department whose officer the SBI just charged for Flock misuse. UNCC still withheld its camera count and sharing configuration under § 132-1.7. (The full UNC Charlotte breakdown →)

Does Winston-Salem State (WSSU) use Flock cameras? Winston-Salem State’s response is pending; it signaled a possible special-service charge, which we defeated by narrowing the request — and the University then produced the contract without a charge, with the Network Audit to follow.

A living document

This comparison is not finished, because the records project isn’t. This August 6 update rewrites UNC Greensboro’s entry: after first closing the request on the “no Flock” ground, the University produced a full point-by-point response on August 5 and the historical Rekor invoices on August 6 — a written policy, 18 cameras at 14 locations, a compliant 90-day retention period, and no data-sharing — moving it from resisting to substantially producing, with two narrow items still open (the policy’s adoption date and the annual audits the policy requires). Western Carolina likewise cured most of its deficiencies in an August 4 supplemental production. Several universities’ files remain under review, and UNC-Chapel Hill’s is in hand. As productions arrive, we rewrite this page in full and note the date of each update, so the comparison stays current and you can see how each campus’s posture changed over time. Every underlying record is published, unaltered, on our records hub and mirrored at the Internet Archive.

If you filed a similar request to a North Carolina university — or if you’re a student, employee, or parent who wants to know what your campus runs — send us what you have. We’ll add it, with credit, and keep the map growing.

Sources. Every figure here is drawn from the universities’ own productions under the North Carolina Public Records Act, published in full on our NC records hub and mirrored at the Internet Archive (including NC State and UNC Pembroke). Statutes cited: N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-183.31 and 20-183.32. This article describes public records and North Carolina law for public education; it is not legal advice.

This article is general information about North Carolina law, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you are involved in litigation, some steps described here may conflict with a duty to preserve evidence or an existing protective order. Consult a licensed North Carolina attorney before acting.