Blount County — A new letter from Chief Deputy Jeff French, written on behalf of Sheriff James L. Berrong, seeks to reassure county commissioners about the Blount County Sheriff’s Office’s use of Flock Safety automated license‑plate readers. The July 21 letter responds to citizen criticism at a recent commission meeting and emphasizes that the ALPR program is lawful, ethical, and tightly controlled. The letter also had adverse impact on a new un-filed Blount County Resolution to remove the Flock cameras and cancel the County’s contract with Flock Safety.
But while the letter leans heavily on safety, professional standards, and policy compliance, it does not directly confront the constitutional questions that have driven most of the public pushback. Across Tennessee, sheriffs and police chiefs have increasingly relied on the “public safety” argument to justify expanding surveillance tools, even as residents raise concerns about liberty, privacy, and warrantless searches. Many citizens concede the safety argument but insist safety does not trump civil liberties..
Safety Framed as the Central Justification
French stresses that the ALPR system does not identify individuals, does not use facial recognition, and is used only to generate investigative leads or flag vehicles already listed in national databases. He notes that every search requires a case number, every alert requires human verification, and all actions are logged and audited. The letter highlights successes such as locating missing persons, recovering stolen vehicles, monitoring sex offenders near schools, and apprehending wanted offenders.
The Sheriff’s Office also points to privacy safeguards stricter than state law: Tennessee permits 90‑day retention, but BCSO limits access to 30 days before data is destroyed. The agency says it never sells data and does not allow Flock to use BCSO‑owned data for any purpose.
The Constitutional Debate the Letter Avoids
While the Sheriff’s Office fairly point.s out that ALPRs improve safety and help solve crimes, the public argument is not about safety — it is about constitutional limits. Residents have repeatedly raised concerns about liberty, freedom of movement, and the growing risk of warrantless, dragnet, or AI driven “mosaic” surveillance on a national network, where the government can reconstruct a person’s life through thousands of data points collected without individualized suspicion.
The letter does not address whether continuous vehicle tracking implicates the Fourth Amendment, nor does it acknowledge the national debate over whether ALPR networks constitute a search requiring a warrant. It also does not engage with concerns about long‑term data aggregation, cross‑agency sharing, or the potential for future misuse as technology evolves.
As long as sworn officers and courts avoid these constitutional questions head‑on — and instead rely solely on safety narratives — public criticism of ALPR systems is likely to continue and escalate.
Summary of the BCSO Chief Deputy French Letter
French’s letter asserts that BCSO’s ALPR program is lawful, ethical, and compliant with state law, CALEA standards, and internal policy. It emphasizes strict privacy safeguards, limited data retention, and the investigative value of the technology. The letter also notes that drone‑as‑first‑responder programs are being evaluated but are not yet cost‑effective. Finally, the Sheriff’s Office invites the public to review its ALPR transparency portal and encourages residents to contact the agency with questions.