VIENNA — Maries County Commissioners on Oct. 19 voted 3-0 on a motion approving Sheriff Mark Morgan’s recommendation to terminate the memorandum of understanding with Flock, halting the installation of the cameras.
About 30 people Oct. 15 gathered in the courtroom of the Maries County Courthouse to share their concerns with the commissioners and Morgan about Flock cameras, which are automated license plate readers. Morgan planned to install a camera on Highway 63 near Vichy and another on Highway 28 near Belle, paid for with the 2025 Blue Shield Grant.
Morgan coordinated for a Flock representative to answer questions virtually, but he never joined the meeting.
Morgan’s letter to the commissioners cited this failure to join as the first basis for terminating the agreement. He said this left privacy and security concerns unanswered. Morgan also said that Flock did not “accurately organize and submit camera location data required for the MoDOT permitting process,” causing delays.
Morgan said he will see if the county can be refunded the $13,300 spent and if the state will allow the use of the funds for other purposes.
Multiple officials also attended, including state Rep. Bennie Cook, his challenger Marsha Snodgrass, Vienna Alderman Ken Dixon, Police Chief Shannon Thompson, Belle Marshal Jerry Coborn, Prosecuting Attorney Tony Skouby and others.
The commissioners made a commitment to not install Flock cameras until revisiting if that was the best option.
After hearing residents give their feedback, Morgan said that he was still comfortable with installing the cameras.
After the meeting, however, Morgan said that if the commissioners decided not to move forward, they would probably have to meet with an attorney to determine the county’s legal standing. But he said he would honor the commissioners’ decision.
Morgan on July 9, 2025, signed a memorandum of understanding with Flock, detailing the terms between Flock and the Maries County Sheriff’s Office. The commissioners did not sign the agreement.
The commissioners, however, on June 18 did sign a June 9 invoice to pay Flock $13,300 for two years. The invoice says, “Contracted Billing Structure: 100% of Contract up front.”
Morgan said that if the county can’t afford the cameras after two years or doesn’t have another grant, he will end the agreement and have Flock collect the cameras.
Joyce Kilmer, now former sheriff’s office clerk, told The Advocate in an email that there is not a separate contract. Morgan also said during the Oct. 15 commission meeting there is not a contract.
“Sometimes the paper is not right,” Morgan said. “I don’t think it’s intentional.”
The MOU allows the county to access “Captured Data,” which is the “still images and associated information (e.g., metadata, geo-location of devices, time stamp, and vehicle description) captured by Flock’s devices.”
While Flock’s website says that customers own their own data, the MOU says, “Customer acknowledges that it neither owns nor acquires any rights, title or interest in Flock IP or Captured Data.”
The MOU also allows either party to terminate the agreement with a 30-day notice.
Retired Sheriff Chris Heitman sent a letter Sept. 30 to the commissioners, opposing Flock cameras. He said that the commissioners didn’t give Morgan the authority to enter a contract.
In his letter, Heitman referenced Revised State Statute 432.070, which says that local governments cannot enter contracts unless it is “within the scope of its powers or be expressly authorized by law” and Revised State Statute 431.090, which says the county commission has the authority to appoint an agent to sign contracts.
During the June 18 commission meeting, Presiding Commissioner Vic Stratman mentioned the invoice, recognizing the Blue Shield Grant that also paid for the county’s boat.
Stratman and Patrick Kleffner, Western District commissioner, recognized the company, asking if it was about the cameras that read license plates.
“I don’t see anything on it that says anything about cameras,” Stratman said.
Before the conversation moved on, Stratman and Kleffner both said that they didn’t know anything about the Flock purchase. No vote or motion was made.
During the Oct. 19 commission meeting, the commissioners approved 3-0 a motion that any memorandums of understanding, memorandums of agreement and contracts must go through the county commission.
Morgan explained during the Oct. 15 meeting that the cameras take a photo of the back of the vehicle; they are not red-light or speeding cameras, which he opposes. Officers issue citations for these violations by pulling over a car and verifying the driver. He said that someone could drive a car that he doesn’t own.
For automated license plate readers, while an officer can’t determine the driver, it can help with investigations.
“It’s not a grounds for an arrest. It’s not a grounds to even stop you,” Morgan said. “It’s an investigative tool, and that’s it.”
Virginia Staabs, Democratic candidate for the 16th state Senate District and Pulaski County resident, asked Morgan about data sharing. She said that other law enforcement agencies, including in Pulaski County, have ended their Flock contracts because data was being shared outside of the agreement.
Morgan said that the data is only shared with other law enforcement agencies within Missouri. But Staabs said that Flock has more data than what Morgan has access to.
“Well, that would definitely be a violation of the agreement with me,” Morgan said.
Stratman said that an unacceptable use of the data would be for anything other than for public safety, such as investigating a stolen vehicle or searching for a missing person. And Morgan said that it would be a “dealbreaker” for him if he found out that the company was selling or giving data other agencies.
Rodney Southard, Eastern District commissioner, also said that the cameras would be taken down in such a scenario.
As for data retention, Morgan said that the data is deleted after 30 days, but Flock’s website says that its default is now seven days. If Morgan found out that the data existed after 30 days, that would be another dealbreaker.
Benjamin Simpson, of Belle, a software engineer, shared security concerns about the Flock cameras.
He said that if Flock does retain or share data in violation of the agreement, the company won’t be required to tell Maries County. Furthermore, Simpson said that the company has more revenue than Maries County, making it difficult to sue.
Simpson also said that Flock cameras are vulnerable to being hacked. For someone with his skillset, he believes the camera could be accessed undetected within a few minutes. He also said that data purging is generally not in line with what Flock says.
“People that gained access into that saw that they could access data stored way beyond the purged limits,” he said. “We don’t really know what this private corporation is doing with the information they collect on us.”
He said that data includes facial recognition, bumper stickers, phone GPS locations and people’s movements.
Simpson also discussed audio detection, a separate Flock service. Flock’s website says that it is not possible to access live audio and that it only retains audio that matches specific events, like a gunshot or a crash. All other audio is deleted.
Simpson denied that claim and said that it also records conversations, ambient noise and voices. With artificial intelligence, he believes that his voice, his face and his way of walking can be identified.
And Flock, not the local sheriff’s office, is collecting the data.
“They’re being owned by a multi-billion-dollar corporation that’s doing honestly God knows what with this data and, in the future, may do anything with it,” he said.
Simpson also said that the American Civil Liberties Union and other entities are suing people for violating the Fourth Amendment and is concerned about Maries County being legally responsible.
In response, Morgan said that Flock is CJIS compliant, meaning that the company meets the security standards for the sheriff’s office to use. He also said that other systems, like the computer-aided dispatch (CAD), are provided by a third party.
Morgan also said that courts have ruled that there is no expectation of privacy on a public road.
“You could go down here and stand on the corner of (Highways) 63 and 42, and you can film until your camera dies, until the end of time,” he said. “That’s your freedom. You can do that. Nobody can stop you from doing it.”
Dixon also said there are nine cases pending through the federal court system regarding Flock cameras, and Morgan said that he will research those cases.
Edward Gehlert, reporter for The Advocate and former deputy, noticing that Skouby had entered the meeting, asked about Sunshine Law, which governs open and closed records in Missouri.
If Gehlert collected the license plate numbers near the courthouse and asked for public records about those plates, could the Flock data be released, even if there was no criminal investigation?
“I wouldn’t say no,” Skouby said.
While Morgan said that he would like the state attorney general’s opinion on the subject, Dixon from Vienna’s board said that he can make a Sunshine request for that data as a personal citizen.
Residents also expressed concerns about legal notice requirements before the purchase and questioned why it wasn’t advertised in The Advocate.
According to Revised State Statute 50.783, the commissioners must advertise in at least one daily and weekly newspaper for purchases of $12,000 or more. A public notice must also be posted. Both must be at least 10 days before the contract is approved.
If the county determines that there is only a “single feasible source for the supplies,” the commissioners can, in writing, waive the requirement for requesting bids, and the waiver must also be in the meeting minutes.
The June 18 meeting minutes do not mention the Flock invoice, but the document does say that the commissioners approved invoices for payment.
A single feasible source is determined if the supplies are proprietary and only available from a single manufacturer, if only one manufacturer supplies them in the area, or if a distributor offers a discount for a limited time.
Revised State Statute 50.660 also says that contracts and purchases shall be awarded to the “lowest and best bidder,” and the newspaper must be in the county and have a circulation of at least 500 copies per issue.
The June 18 and Oct. 15 commission agendas both only list the following: the pledge of allegiance; the approval of minutes, invoices and reports; miscellaneous business; and the right to enter closed session. The Oct. 19 commission agenda, however, also lists open discussion, contracts and Flock cameras.
Toward the end of the meeting, Southard invited Cook to speak in front of the crowd. Cook is from Belle but now lives in Houston.
Cook said that the next legislative session will include bills about Flock cameras. Snodgrass asked multiple times how he was going to vote, and Cook said that it depends on what the legislation looks like.
“I want to ensure our privacy is protected,” he said.
Dixon said that all elected officials for Maries County will have to answer whether they supported Flock.
Cook recognized that there are several concerns and said that he wouldn’t put Flock cameras in any county.
“Right now, if I was Sheriff Morgan, I would not put Flock Cameras up,” he said.
