Answers Regarding Flock Cameras From Greene County Prosecutor Jared Holtsclaw

1.    Decision Process:

§  What factors led the Commission to pursue contracts with Flock Safety?

I’m not sure who you are referring to as the Commission, do you mean the County Council and/or the County Commissioners?  If so, I and Sheriff Dallaire made multiple presentations to them last Fall/Winter (October through December of 2024) requesting permission and funding to enter into contracts with Flock to install additional cameras in Greene County.  At that time, the Indiana State Police had already begun installing Flock Cameras in the County and I believe at least one other municipality had as well. 

As for my decision to ask the County Council and Commissioners to enter into a contract with Flock, it began with requests from multiple law enforcement officers to me to try to bring this technology to the County.  I was already aware of its existence as a Prosecutor due to being involved in a number of investigations that were aided or, in some cases, solved by using information gained from Flock cameras installed in other counties.  (I would note that as of last October when the first public meeting was held on obtaining Flock cameras 76 Indiana counties had Flock cameras installed and another 8 were in discussions to obtain them.  I don’t know what the current number is now.) 

Out of county Flock camera photos have previously assisted us in a number of cases, and the following are some of the most important: vehicle information obtained from out of county Flock cameras helped solve a residential burglary in Bloomfield, assisted in the location and/or prosecution of multiple cases of young juveniles being taken from their homes and out of the area by adult men and was vital in the apprehension and successful prosecution of Josh Penick for his murders of Samantha Jerrels and Colton Shields. 

Evidence from Flock cameras in the Penick case led to additional evidence we would not have found and helped form a timeline that resulted in a straight up plea to both murders and a 120-year sentence.  I was also aware of Flock cameras being utilized to find endangered adults who had driven away from home and not returned.  I ultimately agreed to seek additional Flock cameras in Greene County because I know they will help our investigators solve important crimes, out of county Flock cameras already have.  I wish we had Flock cameras in existence during the time of the unsolved homicide cases that have occurred in Greene County during the past thirty years.

§  Were any public hearings, cost analyses, or legal thought considered prior to purchase?

Yes, there a few public meetings held with both the County Council and Commissioners between October and December of 2024.  These were advertised, open to the public and I believe they were livestreamed by the County as they were held during the course of their regular monthly meetings. 

Members of both boards asked questions and Sheriff Dallaire and I answered those questions.  The cost of the contract, as well as an evaluation of the legality of the cameras was discussed at these meetings.  The contract was set at five years, as that term provided the lowest price per year for the cameras. 

At the time of these meetings, and I still believe currently, there were no statutes or case law decisions prohibiting the use of Flock cameras to monitor public roads.  If the law were to change, we will follow the law, whether that change would require a court-order to access the information or removal of the cameras if they become unlawful. 

A change in the law to prohibit these cameras would obviously nullify our agreement with Flock and void the contract.  Additionally, Sheriff Dallaire and I informed the Council that if at the end of the contract they did not feel that the cameras were worth the investment in terms of crimes solved and people aided, that they should not renew the contract.

2.    Public Awareness:

§  Do you believe residents were given adequate opportunity to weigh in on county-wide surveillance measures?

As I mentioned above, there was a series of meetings held by the County Council and Commissioners between October and December of 2024 where this contract was discussed and ultimately approved.  These were regularly held meetings by these boards and the agendas were made public. 

I believe they were broadcast as well.  I obviously can’t speak to how many people follow the meetings of our county agencies, but I can tell you that there was at least one citizen who attended and voiced his concerns over the Flock cameras.  I tried to answer the questions he had regarding what the cameras can and cannot do. 

Another citizen submitted a written concern to the Council as they were not able to attend in person.  There were also officers who showed up in support of the contract as well.  These meetings did contain discussions about the pros and cons of the Flock camera system.

3.    Financial Impact:

§  How will the roughly $430,000 cost be funded — through general funds, grants, or another source?

This question may be better suited for the County Council as they ultimately decide which accounts they use to fund all the various requests and budgets they are responsible for. 

However, my understanding at the time of the approval was that the cost of the cameras my office requested was to be covered by the Public Safety Local Income Tax and that the cost of the cameras requested by Sheriff Dallaire was to be funded out of the Jail Commissary Account. 

The purpose of the Public Safety Local Income Tax is to assist funding law enforcement, fire and emergency service agencies and can be used to support community safety and crime prevention.

§  What is the total expected cost to taxpayers after renewals and service fees?

The total cost of the Flock contracts for my office and the Sheriff’s Office, including service fees, is $434,750 spread over five years.  There is no auto-renewal of the contracts.  And, as I mentioned, the County Council and Commissioners will be free not to renew these contracts if they do not believe the service provided has been worth the cost. 

4.    Data & Privacy Concerns:

§  Who within Greene County government has access to the camera data, and how is access logged or audited?

§  What steps are being taken to prevent misuse or unauthorized sharing of collected data?

§  Given recent reports of stolen police credentials allowing unauthorized access to Flock systems (TechCrunch, Nov. 3, 2025), what assurances can the County provide residents that their information will remain secure?

The only people within Greene County government who can access Flock camera information are sworn law enforcement officers of the Greene County Sheriff’s Department and the Greene County Prosecutor’s Office.   In my office, I have two investigators who will have access and I, as the Administrator, will have access as well though I intend only to access it to complete the required audits of the system. 

Users of the system have to have credentials and a password to enter the system, along with multi-factor authentication.  Use of the system can only be for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and that purpose must be recorded before use.  Examples of legitimate law enforcement purposes would include vehicle information in criminal investigations, stolen vehicles, missing persons, Amber/Silver/Blue alerts, child abductions and criminally wanted persons. 

Audits of the use of our system will occur every six months to verify that it is being used by authorized users and for legitimate law enforcement purposes.  Additionally, any authorized user must complete training on how to use the Flock system properly before given access.   

I trust my investigators completely with this information, as I do with all other types of sensitive information they receive on a daily basis as part of their job.  They know if they were to misuse this system, just as if they were to misuse sensitive information on any other investigation, they will be terminated.

It is also important to note, I think, that the information obtained from Flock cameras are pictures of vehicles, usually quartering away, that show the passenger side of the vehicle and its license plate.  Most often you cannot tell who is inside the vehicle. 

Additionally, the photos are only kept by Flock for 30 days and are then deleted unless they are obtained and saved by a law enforcement agency for their legitimate law enforcement use.   Flock also prohibits non law-enforcement agencies from accessing this information.

I believe that information that will be gathered by Flock cameras in Greene County is safe and secure.  I am aware that the Sheriff’s Department, the Indiana State Police and the local municipalities who have installed Flock cameras have similar, if not identical, protocols as to those used in my office to make sure that only appropriate individuals can access the system for only legitimate law enforcement purposes. 

We are all sworn to uphold the laws of Indiana and the United States.  Until I read the November article you listed I had not heard of any such breach of access by stolen law enforcement credentials.  I’m certainly not aware of any such breaches in Indiana.  It also appears that all new users have to use multi-factor authentication (MFA), like we do, and that 97% of all users currently use MFA.  It appears the risk of such a breach is very low, but any time technology is involved it can probably never be zero.  It would not surprise me to see Flock require all users to go to MFA soon in response.   

5.    Accountability & Oversight:

§  Are there written county policies outlining when and how Flock data can be accessed or shared with other agencies?

Each agency that has Flock cameras has a written policy, that includes my office and the Sheriff’s Department.  These policies, among other things, do address when Flock data can be shared with other law enforcement agencies. 

In order for information to be released to another law enforcement agency the following guidelines are in place.  For emergency situations where time is of the essence, the requesting law enforcement agency can submit their investigation details and their case number and an authorized user of the system will enter that into Flock and retrieve the information. 

In all other situations, the requesting law enforcement agency is required to make a written request to me that contains the name of their agency, the name of the officer and the intended purpose of obtaining the information and I will review it before deciding whether it is appropriate to allow one of my investigators to enter that information into Flock and provide the information requested.  The requests are retained on file.

§  Can any police agency and any officer currently access these cameras at will?

No, as I have outlined above.

6.    Public Transparency:

§  Will the County commit to publishing a map of camera locations or a yearly usage report showing how often data is accessed and for what purpose?

I cannot speak for every agency that currently has Flock cameras, but as I mentioned above, once our cameras are operational I will be auditing my office’s use of them every six months.  I’m not opposed to sharing the results of those audits upon request, specifically how often and for what purpose they are used.  I would not release any sensitive information.

I would like to add that in going through this process for the past 13 months I have fielded questions and concerns about Flock cameras.  I want to let your readers know that Flock cameras are not used to issue traffic tickets.  They do not employ facial recognition technology.  They are not producing live video.  They are only capturing digital photographs of vehicle’s license plates as they drive on public roads. 

(EDITORS NOTE; Flock Cameras do not only capture license plates, here is what Flock's website states:

Flock Safety cameras apply machine learning to the footage they capture to identify important details that traditional LPR cameras overlook. Besides just a license plate number, Flock Safety captures and organizes vehicles into categories based on:

• Make
• Model
• Color
• Resident or non-resident vehicle
• Timestamp
• Type of plate (standard v. temporary)
• Damage or alterations (i.e. broken taillight, after-market wheels)

The same could be lawfully done by a police officer.  I do understand that some people have privacy concerns and I hope the information I have provided helps to alleviate those concerns.  In today’s society we are recorded almost everywhere we go, be it the courthouse, the school, Walmart, the bank, or our neighbor’s front porch.  I drive by a Flock camera every time I leave my house and drive to work or make a run into town. 

As law enforcement, we utilize videos from all of these locations to help solve crimes.  As I mentioned above, I decided to make the request for these tools because I know they can help our investigators solve major cases that might otherwise go unsolved and do so in a timely manner that would allow for the discovery of additional evidence to build a stronger case.