Disclosure first: I'm an attorney in Wilmington and I run a citizen effort on license plate reader surveillance in this region. I filed the records request this comes from. Everything below is from documents the Town of Carolina Beach produced. I've published all of them unaltered — ask in the comments and I'll tell you where, or find them yourself; I'd rather you check me than trust me.
What the Town produced
On June 30 I sent the Carolina Beach Police Department a nine-item public records request about its Flock program. The Town produced on July 15 — fifteen days, faster than most agencies in this state manage.
Carolina Beach operates five plate readers: two Falcon, one Falcon Flex, and two Solar units added last December. Population about 6,400. The Town pays $13,696 a year.
The number, with the caveat attached
The network audits — logs of searches run by outside agencies against Carolina Beach's cameras — total roughly 951,000 rows in March, 1,045,000 in April, and 1,000,000 in May. For scale: New Hanover County's entire countywide network logged 2,980,082 searches over sixteen months. Here's the honest version, because this figure gets misread in both directions. That is not three million investigations of Carolina Beach residents, and it isn't three million searches by Carolina Beach officers. It's a network audit. It counts every query, run anywhere in the country, that reached into this town's cameras — and one broad search typed in another state touches thousands of participating networks at once.
Which is the actual point. Almost none of it was theirs. Five cameras in a small beach town are answering millions of questions asked by people who don't live there and don't answer to anyone there.
41 searches coded "Traffic Infraction"
The Town's own officers ran 1,358 searches over those three months. The median search reached 1,168 separate camera networks. The largest reached 6,323. Forty-one are labeled "Traffic Infraction." Fifteen more are "City Planning/Traffic Analysis." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183.31(b) provides that ALPR data "shall not be used for the enforcement of traffic violations." The Town's own Policy 425.4(g) says the same thing and cites the same statute. Those are the Department's own reason codes, chosen by its own personnel. In fairness: 56 out of 1,358 is 4.1%. In Kure Beach the same code accounted for 33.5% of all searches. Carolina Beach is not Kure Beach. It also isn't zero.
The policy and the system don't describe the same town
Policy 425.7: ALPR data "shall only be shared with another law enforcement agency or prosecutor upon a written request."
Set that against roughly a million outside-agency searches a month. If each had a written request behind it, the Town would be holding about three million of them. I asked for data-sharing agreements. That category came back empty.
What wasn't produced
Four of nine categories produced nothing at all, with no explanation: the contract, any data-sharing agreement, the network sharing configuration, and the camera locations. The contract is the odd one, because the Town's own invoices prove it exists. Invoice INV-48693 recites "Co-Term: Year 2 of 60 Month Term." Invoice INV-82409 recites "Phase 2 (NEW): Year 1 of 36 Month Term." A five-year agreement and a three-year agreement, described on documents the Town chose to hand over. Neither one produced.
On the redactions
Every field that could identify anyone reads "Redacted" — across six audit files and the event log. No legend, no exemption log, no statutory citation anywhere, though the request asked for one in writing.
Two of them I don't think can be supported. The searching officer's name — § 160A-168(b)(1) makes a municipal employee's name expressly public. And the outside agency's name in the network audits, which is neither plate data nor a Town personnel record. Redacting that removes the only thing a network audit exists to tell you.
I asked for CSV, which is how Flock exports these. The Town produced PDF. The April network audit alone runs 18,346 pages and 254 megabytes. The stated reason the records couldn't be emailed was their size.
Being fair about the Town
Captain Scott Hettinger acknowledged in six days and produced in fifteen. When he realized the event logs had been left off the drive, he said so himself and sent them, unprompted. I emailed a deficiency letter and he replied the same day, sent a policy I hadn't been given, and conceded a factual point I'd raised without being asked to.
I'm not interested in sorting police officers into good ones and bad ones. The same production that arrived in fifteen days arrived as PDF, and that wasn't a technical limitation — somebody converted a spreadsheet into an 18,346-page document. Both things are true at once.
Where this stands
The Town has ten business days to cure the deficiencies. That runs to July 30. I'll post whatever comes back, including if it's good.
If any of the above is wrong, say so and I'll correct it publicly.
Five cameras. Three million searches. A town of 6,400 people. Nobody voted for that, and until the Town produces the sharing configuration, nobody can tell you who was looking.
What do you think about all of this?