The city announced it was ending its Flock contract, but it approved a $22 million deal with Axon that includes ALPRs, drones, and AI. Now Councilmember Devon Reese is defending the decision.
For months, Reno residents have objected to automated license plate readers (ALPRs), particularly the Flock surveillance cameras installed around the city. The controversy has sparked protests, public criticism, and calls for the city to stop using technology that constantly tracks ordinary citizens' movements.
The message has been straightforward: People do not want the government systematically recording where they drive, when they travel, and where they visit.
Residents delivered that message to the Reno City Council during its October 21 meeting. They spoke against the surveillance technology, questioned the city’s ability to protect personal information, and urged councilmembers not to approve another surveillance agreement.
The opposition was not simply about Flock Safety, the company supplying Reno’s existing license plate readers. It was about the surveillance itself.
Then came what initially seemed like a victory for the opponents. The City of Reno announced that it was ending its contract with Flock.
After months of public objections, the announcement created the impression that city officials had finally listened to residents and were responding to their concerns. But there was a catch.
Reno wasn’t getting rid of automated license plate readers. It was consolidating vendors and expanding its police technology agreement.
Rather than abandon ALPR surveillance, the City Council voted 5-2 to approve an eight-year, approximately $22 million agreement with Axon Enterprise, a company already supplying equipment and technology to the Reno Police Department.
The agreement includes automated license plate readers, drones, artificial intelligence tools, and other police technologies.
Mayor Hillary Schieve and Councilmember Meghan Ebert voted against the agreement, citing privacy concerns and public opposition. The other five councilmembers approved it, including Devon Reese, who justified it.
The Public Opposed Surveillance, Not Just Flock
Automated license plate readers capture information about passing vehicles, including license plates, locations, times, and distinguishing markings. When deployed across a city, they create searchable records of vehicle movements.
The concern is not limited to whether police use that information to investigate crimes. It also raises whether the government should routinely collect information about thousands of people who are not suspected of crimes.
For opponents, that is the fundamental privacy issue. Replacing Flock with Axon does not eliminate it.
Nevada Assemblymember Selena La Rue Hatch, who has announced plans to introduce legislation banning ALPR technology during the 2027 legislative session, criticized Reno’s decision.
“Announcing the end of Flock just to switch to another intrusive tech surveillance company is an insult to our community,” she said in a statement reported by Nevada Current. La Rue Hatch added that constituents had made clear they did not want government surveillance.
The ACLU of Nevada was equally critical, describing the proposal as a “bait-and-switch tactic.” Its executive director, Athar Haseebullah, questioned whether the city could effectively oversee the surveillance technology it was purchasing.
The opposition reflects a larger national controversy over ALPRs, including concerns about unauthorized searches, misuse by law enforcement personnel, and information sharing between agencies.
Flock Cameras in Reno: a Growing Crisis of Public Trust
Devon Reese Defends His Vote
The morning after the council meeting, Councilmember Devon Reese published a lengthy Facebook statement explaining why he voted for the Axon agreement.
Reese acknowledged that people were frightened by surveillance technology and that public distrust of government was understandable.
He also referenced recent investigations and news coverage involving former Reno police leadership, recognizing that those controversies had damaged public confidence.
But rather than reconsider whether the city should continue collecting license plate information, Reese argued that Reno could balance surveillance with privacy protections.
“Yesterday, I voted YES to continuing to use modern technology to help keep our community safe,” Reese wrote. He said he spent hundreds of hours studying the proposal and negotiating safeguards.
Reese described six protections he said were included in the approval. These included a 15-day retention limit for ALPR information not connected to a documented investigation, restrictions on sharing data with other agencies, quarterly compliance audits, quarterly public reporting, City Council approval for significant future surveillance expansions, and the ability to terminate the agreement on 30 days’ notice without penalties.
But Reese’s explanation avoids the central issue opponents raised. The public wasn’t merely asking Reno to store surveillance information for fewer days. Opponents were asking the city to stop collecting it in the first place.
Reese Is Answering a Different Question
Much of Reese’s defense concerns technology that was never at the center of the controversy.
He discusses body cameras, TASERs, digital evidence management, translation services, artificial intelligence-assisted report writing, and technology used to investigate serious crimes.
But these capabilities don’t require a network of cameras that routinely records motorists’ movements.
Reese argues that Reno police handled more than 208,000 calls for service last year, compared with 192,000 in 2021, while operating with fewer sworn officers than nearly two decades ago.
Those figures may demonstrate a need for greater efficiency. They do not establish that expanded ALPR surveillance is the best solution.
Reese also cites instances in which license plate readers helped identify suspects, recover stolen vehicles, and investigate a fatal hit-and-run.
Those examples illustrate investigative benefits. But they do not answer whether those benefits justify routinely collecting information about motorists who are not suspected of crimes.
Reese’s statement largely reframes the issue as a choice between using modern police technology responsibly and leaving officers without necessary tools.
Even if every safeguard operates as Reese describes, however, the fundamental privacy question remains.
The safeguards may reduce the risks, but they do not eliminate the surveillance that residents opposed.
The Hidden Story in TrackerGate: Allegations of Corruption
Schieve and Ebert Took a Different Position
Mayor Hillary Schieve and Councilmember Meghan Ebert voted against the agreement. Schieve knows what it’s like to be tracked.
Schieve acknowledged that the controversy was not simply about which company supplied the equipment.
“Let’s be honest, people, this is about trusting your government with the technology,” she said, according to Nevada Current.
She also said the debate had pitted public protection against personal privacy. Her position highlights the political problem the council’s decision created.
Residents were already questioning whether city government could be trusted to manage surveillance technology responsibly.
The city then announced it was ending its relationship with the company at the center of the controversy, only to approve another agreement that continued the disputed surveillance capability.
For people who believed the Flock announcement represented a policy change, the subsequent Axon vote reinforced their distrust.
Why the Rush - Rules are Coming.
An unanswered question is why Reno needed to approve an eight-year agreement while Nevada lawmakers were preparing to consider legislation regulating or prohibiting ALPR technology.
La Rue Hatch has proposed a ban, while a legislative committee has supported a separate measure to regulate ALPR use.
Those proposals may or may not become law. But they create uncertainty about the future of surveillance technology in Nevada.
Police Chief Corey Solferino argued that Reno should not wait for the Legislature to determine what it could do.
Reese maintains that the city can terminate the agreement on 30 days’ notice without penalties.
But it still leaves the question of why the council needed to approve expanded surveillance now, rather than wait several months for the Legislature to establish statewide rules.
Public opposition was already evident. The legal environment was uncertain. Councilmembers themselves had questions about oversight and accountability.
Yet the majority chose to proceed, just like they did with data centers.
Reno Approved the Data Centers. Now It’s Trying to Regulate Them.
The city heard the objections, changed vendors, negotiated restrictions, and approved a broader technology agreement.
For residents who wanted an end to ALPR surveillance, that is not the outcome they requested.
And no matter how extensively Reese explains the benefits of Axon or the protections he negotiated, he cannot change the central fact:
The public came to City Hall demanding less surveillance. The council majority voted to continue it.
Do you have a story to tell? Write to me at: mike@mikesrenoreport.com
Support Reno independent journalism. Click to donate: Mike’s Reno Report.