The County Knows Who’s Searching Our Cameras. It Won’t Say.
Set aside, for a moment, where you stand on immigration. This story isn’t about that. It’s about a simpler question with a troubling answer: who is allowed to search the cameras your tax dollars paid for — and why won’t the county tell you?
New Hanover County holds the records of who has searched its Flock cameras — and released them with the name of every searching agency and officer redacted.
Source: DeFlockILM, from records released by the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office, 2026. DeFlockILM.org.
Across the country, federal immigration authorities have searched local police license-plate cameras — even though the agency holds no formal contract with Flock. Reporters at 404 Media obtained search logs (through a public-records request to the Danville, Illinois police) showing officers nationwide ran lookups with reasons typed into the system like “immigration,” “ICE,” “ICE+ERO,” and “ICE WARRANT.” By that reporting, more than 4,000 such lookups were run at the federal government’s request — through a side door, using local and state police as the point of access. (404 Media)
To be clear about what this is and isn’t. Reasonable people across New Hanover County hold very different, deeply held views on immigration enforcement, and that debate belongs in Congress and at the ballot box — not on this page. The concern here is narrower, and we’d argue it’s shared across the political spectrum: a surveillance network funded by local taxpayers is being queried by agencies with no local authorization, no contract, and no warrant — and the community has no way to see it or stop it.
The policy says one thing. The records show another.
Flock’s stated policy prohibits using its system for immigration enforcement, and some departments have moved to block immigration-related searches. (Dayton Daily News) Yet the searches happened anyway, because any agency opted into Flock’s nationwide pool can query cameras far outside its own jurisdiction. A written policy is not a warrant, and it is not enforceable oversight. That gap — between the policy on paper and what the system actually allows — is the whole problem, and it’s why communities across the country have started canceling contracts. (NPR; U.S. House oversight letter)
Why this lands in New Hanover County
Our cameras are part of that same nationwide pool. DeFlockILM’s own review of New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office records found the county’s Flock network was searched nearly three million times in about 16 months — with the name of every searching agency and officer redacted. (See our analysis.) We’ve also documented out-of-state agencies querying North Carolina Flock data. (See the records.) Put plainly: the county could tell you who has searched New Hanover’s cameras — it holds the unredacted records. It just won’t. The records the Sheriff’s Office released to us blacked out the name of every searching agency and officer. The question every resident should be asking is simple: what are they hiding?
Audited once a year — by the office that runs it
New Hanover County’s own ALPR policy requires the Sheriff’s audit of the camera system to be reviewed just once a year — an internal self-audit by the program’s own manager, forwarded up to the Sheriff “annually.” There is no independent, public, or commissioner oversight.
Source: New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office SOP 222, §222.4(A)(9), effective Dec. 9, 2024 — the county’s own policy, compiled by DeFlockILM. Read the policy.
Supporters answer the “who’s watching the watchers” question with one word: audits. But read the county’s own policy and the answer gets thin. The audit is a self-audit — the same ALPR manager who runs the program is the one who conducts, reviews, and retains it (§222.4(A)(9)) — and that same manager decides who gets access in the first place (§222.5(D)(1)). The results travel up the chain to the Sheriff, once a year. Not to the county commissioners. Not to the public. So an improper search run in January may not be formally reviewed until the following year, by the very office that ran it. That isn’t oversight; it’s a promise to grade its own homework, annually.
Two more things the policy quietly allows. Its hot-list categories include the elastic phrase “Persons of Interest” (§222.3(E)(4)(k)) — a label with no fixed limit. And it expressly contemplates sharing ALPR data with federal agencies on written request (§222.5(A)) and pulling in feeds from private and HOA cameras (§222.4(A)(8)). The network is wider, and the oversight narrower, than the reassurances suggest.
This outlasts any election
Here’s the part that should give pause no matter which party you vote for. The infrastructure doesn’t change when the administration does. A camera network that can be searched without a warrant, without a contract, and without local control will be used by whoever holds the keys — for whatever purpose they choose. If the idea of one administration wielding that power makes you uneasy, the tool itself should, because the next administration inherits it. Limited, accountable government is a principle that doesn’t expire on Election Day.
Supporters of these cameras make a fair point: police say the searches help solve real crimes, and some do. The question isn’t whether the tool is ever useful. It’s whether a tool this powerful should operate with no warrant, no contract limits, and no way for the people paying for it to know how it’s used.
The county knows who’s been searching our cameras. It’s choosing not to tell us. The only question left is what they’re hiding.
What you can do
- Sign the petition to remove Flock cameras from Wilmington and New Hanover County.
- Email your commissioners a simple, nonpartisan question: who can search our cameras, under what rules, and where are the audit logs?
- Demand the basics — a warrant requirement, public audit logs, and an end to nationwide sharing — or cancel the contract.
Sources
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.