A civil liberties dispute is escalating in Cumberland, Rhode Island, after a false-arrest case raised new questions about what the town's Flock Safety cameras are actually capturing.
At the center of the fight is a demand from the ACLU of Rhode Island that Cumberland end its deal with Flock Safety, saying the town may have enabled a level of surveillance far beyond what residents were told to expect.
What happened?
According to SteveAhlquist.news, a June federal false-arrest lawsuit prompted the ACLU of Rhode Island to ask the Cumberland Town Council to stop using Flock Safety's automated license plate readers. The group says the case shows the devices captured images of drivers and passengers, not just license plates.
The lawsuit, Pizzarelli v. Town of Cumberland, was filed on behalf of a woman who was falsely identified from a Flock-captured image and then wrongly arrested, according to a press release. The case says an officer reported seeing a car make unsignaled turns before a brief chase, and that police later turned to Facebook to decide who they believed was driving.
In a March 2025 police report, officers allegedly wrote that "a photo from the Flock camera of [the plaintiff] driving the vehicle during the pursuit . . . matches [her] license photo."
The ACLU says the town approved the camera purchase in 2024 without revealing that the system could be used in that broader way. As the group put it: "These cameras are concerning enough when used just as license plate readers, but their danger is exponentially increased when expanded to take photos of people as well."
TCD Picks » Quince Spotlight
💡These best-sellers from Quince deliver affordable, sustainable luxury for all
Why does it matter?
A camera that reads license plates is different from one that can also photograph people inside a vehicle. One system tracks cars; the other can help identify specific people, raising privacy concerns and increasing the risk of mistakes.
The Cumberland case also raises questions about how surveillance technology, officer judgment, and social media searches can combine to produce a false arrest.
The controversy also raises questions about transparency. If residents and elected officials were not fully told what the cameras could do before the town approved them, that can erode public trust. Critics say the dispute points to a business model and a local decision-making process that may downplay the scope of surveillance.
What's being done?
Beyond asking Cumberland to terminate its Flock contract, the ACLU wants the town council to publicly detail the cameras' capabilities, say when images of drivers and passengers began being collected, explain how often that has happened, and clarify whether that broader use was ever disclosed.
TCD Picks » Quince Spotlight
💡These best-sellers from Quince deliver affordable, sustainable luxury for all
Cumberland is not the only Rhode Island community facing pressure over these systems. The South Kingstown, Narragansett, and Glocester town councils have each moved to end their Flock agreements.
The case also raises questions about what data is being collected, whether people inside vehicles are visible, how long the information is stored, and who can access it.
Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, said: "This technology can do more than 'just record license plates,' and the secrecy surrounding its more invasive uses deserves special condemnation."
Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.
