A Price County Sheriff’s Office official defended the department’s use of license plate-reading cameras Thursday after a Phillips resident asked county officials to examine the privacy consequences of collecting information about drivers who have done nothing wrong.
At the Nov. 12 Law Enforcement Committee meeting, the official said the county has four Flock cameras and that its system data is kept for 30 days. The Sheriff’s Office had conducted 51 searches in the previous 30 days, the official told the committee. A resident who spoke during public comment questioned who can access the information, how searches are monitored and what prevents it from being shared or used beyond criminal investigations.
The discussion adds a local accounting of the cameras’ use to a debate the county has faced before. At an earlier Executive Committee meeting, a resident raised an allegation about Flock data sales. Allegations made in public comment are not, by themselves, proof of wrongdoing.
What the office says the cameras collect
Last updated: November 2026
The official described the cameras as automated license plate readers that capture a vehicle’s plate and characteristics, along with the location and time of the image. The official said the county’s cameras do not collect facial recognition or other biometric data and cannot connect to vehicles or phones through Bluetooth.
The official told the committee the county’s four cameras were installed between October 2024 and April 2025. Asked for their locations during the meeting, the official declined to identify them.
The official said the county owns its camera data and that neither the county nor Flock sells it. The official also said data can be shared with other law enforcement agencies when appropriate justification is provided, but is not automatically shared with every agency nationwide. Those are the official’s descriptions of local practice; the meeting recording alone does not independently establish every technical or contractual detail.
For searches, the official said officers or dispatchers must enter information including the offense, a case number if applicable, and a reason. The official said the chief deputy conducts a monthly audit and that improper use could result in discipline or referral for criminal charges. The official told the committee the department had not had personnel issues involving the cameras.
A resident asks about surveillance
The Phillips resident who addressed the committee said law enforcement has a responsibility to investigate crime, but urged officials to consider the long-term consequences of collecting information about ordinary people’s movements. He asked what safeguards prevent tracking or sharing without adequate oversight.
The resident pointed to other Wisconsin communities’ reconsideration of Flock as part of his appeal. The details of those communities’ decisions vary; our statewide tracker distinguishes local votes and actions rather than treating every decision as the same.
The official argued that license plate readers provide investigative leads and described checks intended to prevent misuse. The competing concerns at the meeting were not simply whether a camera can help solve a case, but what records are collected from everyone else and who can use them.
Cases cited by the official
The official described the 2024 Park Falls homicide investigation as an example of information sharing across jurisdictions. The official said a camera in Woodruff detected a vehicle connected to the investigation and another police department alerted Price County. The official said the case helped spur the local department’s interest in the technology. That camera was outside Price County; the example should not be read as an instance of one of the county’s four cameras making the detection.
The official also said Price County cameras later helped identify a vehicle involved in a pursuit and assisted a timber-theft investigation. Those examples reflect the account presented at the meeting; the underlying case records were not presented in the recording.
The official argued that license plate readers are constitutional while acknowledging legal challenges. Courts’ treatment of surveillance technologies and location data involves distinct factual and legal questions; the existence of a claimed public-safety benefit does not settle those questions. Our earlier explainer examines what Carpenter does and does not decide about license plate readers.
Staffing and radio work
The committee also heard that Lt. Joe Janak and his K-9 partner, Dixon, had retired, leaving a potential need for a future K-9 unit. County Administration Committee minutes list Janak’s retirement date as Oct. 21, 2026. The department reported two deputy openings and an internal posting for chief deputy.
The department also discussed its radio-system study and the need for a system that can communicate with surrounding agencies. The county board had recently discussed that work as well in its Nov. 10 meeting.
Source
Price County Law Enforcement Committee meeting, Nov. 12, 2026.