Sept. 18, 2026
VIROQUA, Wis. — Vernon County Sheriff Roy Torgerson delivered a comprehensive defense of his department’s automated license plate reading cameras and artificial intelligence technology during a presentation to the Vernon County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 17, 2026, describing the surveillance tools as an indispensable “extra set of eyes” for public safety.
VernonReporter began inquiring with county officials in June about the use of Flock cameras in Vernon County. We made several records inquiries regarding the county’s contractual agreements with Flock Safety including contracts, terms of service and county policy on their use. Immediately following his presentation to supervisors, Sheriff Torgerson provided those signed contractual documents to the board and to us.
Torgerson’s defense comes amidst a growing wave of nationwide and statewide pushback against Flock Safety, a venture-backed surveillance vendor based in Atlanta. Nearly 50 municipalities nationwide have moved to terminate or decline Flock contracts over the past year. In Wisconsin, a rapid succession of local governments have acted to halt or restrict the technology:
- Dane County supervisors voted 31-1 to defund their 24 Flock cameras, leading deputies to cover unremoved cameras in plastic bags.
- Verona, Sturgeon Bay, and Oshkosh all voted to terminate, decline renewal, or rescind Flock contracts following intense public concern over data privacy.
- Appleton and Neenah moved to end their Flock contracts, with Neenah’s council voting 9-0 after the police chief cited a breakdown in vendor trust and communication.
- Sheboygan workers wrapped 15 cameras in plastic over contractual disputes, while Altoona removed its Flock units to replace them with city-owned readers that do not share data with third parties.
- Waukesha, Oconomowoc, and Racine recently voted to discontinue or end their Flock camera agreements.
Privacy advocates and residents have raised widespread concerns over dragnet mass surveillance, noting that Flock cameras continuously log every passing vehicle to build searchable “vehicle fingerprints”—capturing make, model, color, and visual traits like bumper stickers or roof racks. According to the ACLU, Flock’s network has expanded beyond plates to include continuous audio sensors and video cameras, as well as an integration with Amazon Ring doorbell cameras that merges street surveillance with residential doorsteps. According to the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Flock operates a national network that facilitates data sharing with federal agencies like ICE and CBP, often bypassing local sanctuary laws, and has been utilized by out-of-state agencies in abortion investigations. According to a FOX6 Milwaukee audit report, the ease of access also creates risks for internal abuse, evidenced by a former Milwaukee officer criminally charged with using Flock to stalk an ex-partner. Furthermore, according to Linton News and Central Current, Flock recently updated its standard terms to remove an explicit promise not to sell customer data while asserting a perpetual license to use customer travel data to train its artificial intelligence algorithms even after contracts end.
Sheriff Torgerson’s Presentation to the County Board of Supervisors
Addressing the Vernon County Board during his initial presentation, Sheriff Torgerson outlined the specific law enforcement cases that he said justify the department’s use of Flock cameras.
“I can look back to where this really happened here in Vernon County, where the plate reader technology was used to bring a terrible situation to a safe conclusion, safe as it could be,” Torgerson told the board. “There was a double homicide in July of 2025 in Dane County that we stopped here in Vernon County, and the flock camera was used to aid in that investigation and bringing that very potentially dangerous situation to a close”.
He added: “We can’t be everywhere. The camera is another set of eyes for us out there—not ears, but eyes”.
Torgerson also highlighted a Silver Alert success story involving a La Farge resident.
“One other success story was a silver alert,” Torgerson said. “We had a resident of La Farge with early onset dementia was traveling somewhere on Interstate 90 and got lost going back and forth, and we received a plate read on Highway 16 in West Salem, and within seven minutes, we had a deputy sheriff out with her, and I, along with one of our dispatchers, was able to escort her safely back home to her family”.
Presenting legal precedents to reassure supervisors, Torgerson walked the board through judicial rulings upholding license plate readers.
“So legally, I want to talk very, very briefly about this legally, so right here I have the LPR technology has been challenged in the courts,” Torgerson said. He noted that among federal Court of Appeals cases, “one of them was in the Fifth Circuit. It was the United States versus Porter, a 2026 case, and the courts held that the plate reader did not constitute a search; therefore, a warrant was not required”.
Torgerson cited 28 U.S. District Court cases, specifically referencing two:
“Illinois Scholl versus Illinois State Police, a 2025 case, did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search by the plate reads. The second case is in Ohio, United States versus Sturdivant, a 2025 case, and the courts held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the appearance of a vehicle or its license plate in distinguishing ALPR data involving 26 images over a Six week period in tracking that defendant”.
He also cited state court decisions, including the 2020 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling Commonwealth v. McCarthy, stating that the court held ALPRs did not invade a reasonable expectation of privacy because the limited network did not reveal the “privacies of life”.
Torgerson concluded his opening remarks by assuring supervisors of his department’s intentions:
“Not asking for a blank check,” said Torgerson. “We want to use this technology wisely, and I think all of us enjoy a safe community, and I want to keep it that way, and I promise to use this technology wisely. May not be able to answer all of your questions, but if you do have questions, seek me out, and I will do my best to find those answers”.
Board Questions, Employee Instructions, and Guardrails Against Misuse
Following his presentation, several supervisors questioned Torgerson regarding operational specifics, oversight, employee instructions, and contract approval.
Supervisor Wayde Lawler asked whether operational limits are codified in written policy, if copies were available for review, and how many cameras operate in the county. Torgerson replied that he would immediately email the department’s written policy upon returning to his desk and clarified that Vernon County pays for four leased Flock cameras—three fixed units and one mobile reader—though county committee records indicate five camera locations are currently utilized across Viola, Genoa, Coon Valley, Hillsboro, and the mobile unit.
Torgerson stressed his explicit instructions regarding how employees are allowed to use the equipment, emphasizing that minor infractions are off-limits.
“I do not allow my people to use them for minor traffic violations,” Torgerson said. “That is not why we have them. We have them for big things. And I think a double homicide suspect is a big thing”.
Supervisor Charles Jacobson raised concerns about auditing and potential misuse, asking how the department verifies that officers enter legitimate case numbers rather than fake codes. Torgerson explained that deputies must enter a specific investigative reason for every search, which supervisors randomly audit against the department’s records management system.
Addressing the potential for insider abuse, Torgerson shared his strong thoughts on camera misuse and the mandatory training required for all personnel. He explained that before any deputy is granted system access,
“We require training on how to use the system, how to look things up, but also what our policy is and the trouble there could be if it’s violated,” said Torgerson
He insisted that strict agency guidelines are essential.
“I do think that you have to have really rock solid agency policies,” said Torgerson. “So if there is a misuse of the system, that is dealt with harshly.”
Referencing high-profile cases of misconduct elsewhere, Torgerson made clear that his office maintains zero tolerance.
“The stories you hear of someone tracking a girlfriend… that’s the stuff we absolutely will not tolerate, and we will deal with it up to and including criminal charges for misconduct in office,” said Torgerson
Supervisor Alycann Taylor pressed Torgerson on how the decision was made to bring Flock cameras to Vernon County and whether a county committee had approved the program
“So it didn’t go to a committee?” asked Taylor.
“No,” said Torgerson. “I look at, if I have a line item in my budget for tools, I don’t feel I’ve got to get permission to buy a screwdriver versus a hammer. But in full transparency, no, there was no vote on it.”
Taylor further asked for clarification on whether the contract signed with Flock had been vetted by Corporation Counsel, the county attorney. Torgerson clarified that he did not think Corporation Counsel had reviewed the agreement, explaining that the contract was sent to the county Administrative Coordinator Cassie Hanan and signed by the her and himself. When Taylor asked if he was concerned or wished that an attorney had reviewed the contract, Torgerson responded that a community member had recently reached out regarding potential changes to Flock’s terms of service, noting that his office is currently looking into the matter and providing copies of the contract to fulfill public records requests.
Supervisor Nathaniel Slack requested technical details on back-end operations and asked for full copies of the contract and terms of service. Torgerson explained that system access requires password protection, mandatory training, and legitimate case justifications, noting deputies search specific suspect plates rather than browsing general traffic logs. County Corporation Counsel Brian Weber and Supervisor Patrick Sullivan clarified that the four cameras represent leases operated specifically by the Sheriff’s Office, distinguishing county equipment from cameras that municipal police departments or private entities might deploy independently.
Camera Cost and Funding
In a phone interview Torgerson said the cameras cost roughly $3,000 per camera per year, or about $12,000 total annually and were initially funded through a private foundation donation, then treated as an equipment expense within the sheriff’s office budget.
Contract Language, Employee Policies, and Vendor Language
A review of the Vernon County Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual (Policy 427), the 2023 Flock Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and Flock’s standard Terms & Conditions illustrates the legal framework governing Vernon County’s surveillance infrastructure. While Vernon County Policy 427 mandates that ALPRs be used solely for official law enforcement business, it explicitly states that individualized suspicion is not required prior to scanning:
Vernon County SO Policy Manual (Policy 427.3): “An ALPR may be used in conjunction with any patrol operation or official office investigation. Reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not necessary before using an ALPR.”
Under the Vernon County Flock MOU signed on Oct. 8, 2023, by Sheriff Torgerson and Flock General Counsel Mark Smith, the county is granted search access to cloud footage:
Vernon County Flock MOU (2023): “…in order to view and search photos and videos recorded by Flock (‘Recordings’) which are stored for no longer than thirty (30) days, utilizing its software for automatic license plate detection.”
While internal county guidelines tie general digital records to a 120-day retention standard, Flock’s standard cloud system hard-deletes unflagged footage after 30 days. However, civil liberties groups point out that Flock’s standard Terms & Conditions grant the vendor broad, long-term rights to customer data even after a contract ends.
Civil rights organizations such as the ACLU emphasize that default vendor agreements expose local data to national lookup networks accessible by thousands of law enforcement agencies nationwide. Furthermore, court rulings in Washington state and public records releases in Sun Prairie, Wis., confirm that camera images and audit logs stored on Flock’s cloud servers are public records subject to disclosure.
Other Flock Cameras and Public Transparency Databases
While the Vernon County Sheriff’s Office leases four Flock units, additional cameras may operate within county borders through private businesses, homeowners associations, or municipal police departments. Residents seeking to verify surveillance locations can access several publicly available databases:
- DeFlock (
deflock.org): A community-built, crowdsourced map that pinpoints automated license plate reader locations nationwide and allows drivers to plan alternate routes. - Have I Been Flocked? (
haveibeenflocked.com): A public transparency portal indexing millions of Flock audit logs from open records requests, allowing individuals to check if their license plate has been searched. - Atlas of Surveillance: Maintained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, this database tracks law enforcement surveillance technology deployments across Wisconsin and the nation.
Add comment