> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://bsquarebulletin.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Bloomington council votes 7–0 to ban license plate readers, after debate over some exceptions
- URL: https://bsquarebulletin.com/bloomington-council-votes-7-0-to-ban-license-plate-readers-after-debate-over-some-exceptions/
- Published: 2026-10-15T13:51:05.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-15T14:13:29.000Z
- Description: Bloomington’s city council voted 7–0 to ban automated license plate readers and certain surveillance cameras. A disputed amendment allowing access to recordings for criminal investigations passed 5–2, despite concerns it could weaken the ban. At least 29 people spoke from the public mic.
- Author: Dave Askins
- Tags: Local Government, #no-inline-feature

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/20/6f/206f9007-c0a7-47d4-b87b-686c21961f22/content/images/2026/10/2026-10-15-alpr-Bloomington-city-council-PXL_20261015_005401806.PANO.jpg)

Bloomington’s city council deliberates on the ordinance prohibiting automated license plate readers (ALPRs) in Bloomington. It passed 7–0\. (Dave Askins, Oct. 15, 2026)

Bloomington’s city council voted 7–0 on Wednesday (Oct. 14) to prohibit city agencies from using automated license plate readers (ALPRs), along with certain surveillance camera systems that allow outside entities to access recordings and data.

The unanimous outcome came after nearly three hours of discussion that surfaced some disagreement among councilmembers over an amendment to the [ordinance](https://bloomington.in.gov/onboard/meetingFiles/17579/download#page=148), related to how broadly the prohibition should apply.

The council chambers were full, and the balcony was unlocked to accommodate overflow. At least 29 different members of the public spoke on the ordinance and its amendments. Councilmembers Matt Flaherty and Kate Rosenbarger were absent.

The ordinance was sponsored by councilmembers Isabel Piedmont-Smith, Sydney Zulich and Isak Asare.

The council changed the order of its agenda to consider the surveillance ordinance ahead of other items, most notably the [final adoption of the 2027 budget](https://bsquarebulletin.com/bloomington-council-approves-2027-budget-6-1-with-president-as-lone-dissenter/). Dave Rollo made the motion to change the agenda, saying he wanted to respect the time of residents who had come to speak. Hopi Stosberg cast the lone vote against changing the agenda, because delayed consideration of the budget.

From the motion to change the agenda until the final vote on the ordinance, the proceedings on the ALPR ordinance took 2 hours and 52 minutes. The full council meeting, which started at 6:30 p.m., lasted roughly five and a half hours, ending shortly after midnight.

### What the ordinance prohibits

The [purpose of the new ordinance](https://bloomington.in.gov/onboard/meetingFiles/17579/download#page=148) is to prohibit “the City and its agencies from acquiring, operating, or accessing Automated License Plate Reader technology or surveillance cameras controlled or accessed by an external entity.” The restriction also extends to recording and storing ALPR data.

The prohibition is not limited to cameras installed in Bloomington. It also restricts city agencies from searching, requesting or obtaining ALPR data collected by other agencies or private companies. That part of the prohibition is especially impactful because police agencies could otherwise use information collected by cameras in other jurisdictions to locate suspects or vehicles involved in crimes.

Beyond license plate readers, the ordinance restricts the city’s use of certain camera systems equipped with automated detection, recognition, classification or tracking technology when third parties can independently access the information they collect.

Conventional security cameras that do not fall within that definition are still allowed. The ordinance also requires the city to publish guidelines for permitted surveillance cameras, addressing matters such as access, storage, retention and public reporting.

One amendment added a requirement that even surveillance cameras that are otherwise allowed cannot be used for facial recognition, biometric identification or automated tracking of people without authorization by city council ordinance.

### Months of controversy

Wednesday’s vote followed more than eight months of public controversy over Bloomington’s relationship with Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based company that makes ALPR cameras and other surveillance technology.

On Jan. 30, an estimated [700 people gathered outside city hall](https://bsquarebulletin.com/protestors-call-for-the-end-of-flock-camera-contract-with-city-bloomington-mayor-says-that-is-one-of-the-options/) to demand cancellation of Bloomington’s Flock contracts. Much of the demonstration focused on concerns that federal immigration authorities were using ALPR databases to locate immigrants.

On the day of that demonstration, Bloomington mayor Kerry Thomson said that ending the city’s Flock contract was “one of the options” under consideration.

On March 4, the council unanimously [adopted a resolution](https://bsquarebulletin.com/bloomington-city-council-adopts-resolution-on-flock-license-plate-reader-cameras-as-first-step/) calling for a report on Bloomington’s ALPR program, limits on expansion and development of legislation governing the technology. More than 30 people spoke on that resolution.

On April 15, Thomson announced that Bloomington [had not renewed its Flock ALPR contract](https://bsquarebulletin.com/bloomington-flock-camera-contract-expired-march-5-mayor-reveals-non-renewal-6-weeks-later/) when it expired March 5, six weeks earlier. Her announcement indicated that the administration would continue evaluating alternative technology and vendors.

Police chief Mike Diekhoff later provided the council with a briefing on the city’s contracts and use of the technology. The briefing included descriptions of investigations in which ALPR information had been useful.

In one case, Bloomington police said Flock camera information [helped locate a suspect](https://bsquarebulletin.com/bloomington-police-man-arrested-on-charge-of-attempted-murder-with-aid-of-flock-cameras/) who was arrested on attempted murder, aggravated battery and arson charges after an April 21 fire on South Rogers Street left a woman critically injured.

On July 23, Monroe County commissioners v[oted to end the county government’s Flock contract](https://bsquarebulletin.com/monroe-county-commissioners-vote-to-end-flock-contract-remove-six-license-plate-cameras/) and remove six license plate readers.

### Thomson administration wanted narrower legislation

Although Thomson’s administration had already ended the city’s ALPR contract, it did not favor the entire ordinance that was enacted Wednesday night.

In an [Oct. 7 memorandum](https://bloomington.in.gov/onboard/meetingFiles/17585/download#page=26 ) that was included in the council’s Oct. 12 packet addendum, deputy mayor Gretchen Knapp, Diekhoff and corporation counsel Margie Rice proposed splitting off the ALPR prohibition from the wider camera restrictions.

The administration’s first recommendation was to address just ALPRs in the current legislation.

The administration proposed forming a small working group, potentially including councilmembers, to review existing camera uses and policies. That work would become the basis for separate legislation defining which surveillance practices would be prohibited and which cameras could continue to be used for criminal investigations, building security and routine city operations.

The administration also expressed interest in preserving the possibility of considering ALPR technology for parking enforcement in the future, if warranted by recommendations from the city’s parking study.

According to the administration’s Oct. 7 memo, four fixed Flock security cameras remain in use, along with four security trailers that are not being used. The memo disputes the ordinance’s description of those cameras as connected to Flock’s nationwide network, saying their recordings are stored on a separate server accessible only to Bloomington police. The administration said it was seeking replacement security cameras, not replacement ALPRs.

The memo says the administration is seeking replacements for security cameras, not replacement ALPRs.

One of the administration’s most consequential objections concerned the prohibition on obtaining ALPR data from outside agencies.

The memo said that the language could prevent Bloomington police from obtaining essential investigative information when someone commits a serious crime in Bloomington and flees elsewhere. It cited possible investigations involving kidnapping, murder and drug dealing.

Other concerns included the possibility of inadvertently prohibiting police body cameras, dashboard cameras, interview-room recording systems, security cameras at city facilities and equipment used by other municipal departments.

The administration also questioned whether vendors providing secure cloud storage would count as prohibited third parties.

### Amendments address some concerns

At Wednesday’s meeting, the council considered four amendments, all of which passed. But the last one drew opposition from two of the ordinance’s three sponsors.

Amendment 1, sponsored by Piedmont-Smith, removed the reference to “Flock” from the ordinance title. That’s because the prohibition applies to ALPR technology generally, not just one company’s equipment.

Amendment 2, sponsored by Zulich, revised the definition of surveillance cameras. Its wording requires both the collection or monitoring of images and the use of automated detection, recognition, classification or tracking technology.

Amendment 3, sponsored by Piedmont-Smith, clarified the prohibition on acquiring ALPR systems and accessing ALPR data collected by others. It also allowed limited technical access to internal systems for maintenance, subject to documentation, and added the provision addressing facial recognition and biometric identification.

The first three amendments passed unanimously. There was an Amendment 4 that did not get introduced.

But the fifth numbered amendment generated extended debate.

### Disagreement over Amendment 5

Amendment 5, sponsored by Piedmont-Smith, was intended in part to respond to the administration’s concerns about law enforcement access to camera recordings.

It explicitly allowed police body-worn cameras, and clarified the ordinance’s application to the jointly operated city-county central dispatch system. The amendment also provided an exception involving surveillance recordings used in criminal investigations that were assigned a case number.

Piedmont-Smith offered an example of a murder outside a convenience store. If the store’s cameras had recorded useful evidence, she did not want police to be prohibited from obtaining it.

Several members of the public objected that the amendment could substantially weaken the ordinance.

Thomas Westgård argued that the exemptions were inadequately defined and potentially expansive. Referring to the body-camera provision, he said it was “a hole you can drive a truck through.” Seaforth Breeze also questioned whether permitting exceptions for police cameras could simply shift surveillance from fixed cameras to devices carried by officers or mounted on vehicles.

Asare questioned whether the investigative exception was necessary. He suggested that established legal procedures already allow police to obtain evidence. Asare worried that the proposed language would allow requests to third parties to collect surveillance information.

Council attorney Larry Allen confirmed that the exception could permit police to receive recordings from cameras with tracking technology, including potentially Flock cameras operated by another agency, if they were connected to an assigned criminal investigation. Without the exception, police might need to obtain such recordings through a subpoena or other legal process.

Corporation counsel Rice posed a hypothetical involving a murder and a neighbor’s Ring camera. She asked whether the council intended to make investigators obtain a subpoena before receiving potentially useful recordings.

Stosberg said she did not want police officers responding to a crisis to have to worry that accepting voluntarily provided footage would undermine a case.

Piedmont-Smith rejected the suggestion that the amendment would defeat the purpose of the ordinance. She said maintaining police body cameras was important for accountability and that she wanted investigators to be able to obtain evidence needed to bring justice to victims.

Amendment 5 passed 5–2\. Voting for it were Piedmont-Smith, Rollo, Stosberg, Andy Ruff and Courtney Daily. Asare and Zulich voted against it.

The dispute did not end with the vote on the amendment.

During final council comments, Zulich reminded colleagues who had supported Amendment 5 that one of them could move to reconsider it, particularly if public testimony had changed their thinking.

Rollo, who had voted for the amendment, subsequently described his vote as difficult and said he was open to reexamining its specifics.

Later, Zulich returned to the subject, noting that because she and Asare had voted against Amendment 5, neither could move to reconsider it under Robert’s Rules of Order. But any councilmember who had voted in favor could do so.

No one made a motion to reconsider Amendment 5, which left it intact.

Piedmont-Smith said during her final remarks that the amendment might not have been the ideal way to address the concern about criminal evidence. “Maybe the answer was not in Amendment 5,” she said, which indicated the council might revisit the issue. She stressed that her goal with Amendment 5 was to make the ordinance clearer, not to weaken protections for constitutional rights.

### Public testimony: Safety, privacy and accountability

Most of the 29 people who spoke from the public mic supported the prohibition of ALPR technology. But some opposed the investigative exceptions added through Amendment 5.

Sarah Owen, community engagement coordinator for the Bloomington office of Exodus Refugee Immigration, described experiences involving immigrants helped by her organization after their encounters with federal immigration enforcement.

Owen said she understood the police department’s public safety objectives. But she said that collecting more information and relying on private surveillance companies would make immigrants less likely to trust police, even when they themselves are victims of crimes.

Scott Tibbs urged the council to reject the ordinance, saying that restrictions on access to ALPR data would be preferable to an outright ban. Tibbs acknowledged documented abuses of ALPR technology, but said that misuse did not invalidate legitimate applications. He cited investigations involving kidnapped children, stolen vehicles and violent criminals.

Seaforth Breeze, who had previously told the council about a Flock camera facing their home, reported that the camera had since been removed. That removal, Breeze said, had been a major personal relief.

The city council’s consideration of the ordinance drew attention from outside Bloomington. Cara Silver, representing groups opposing ALPR use in Palo Alto, California, spoke through a remote Zoom connection. Bloomington and Palo Alto are sibling cities. Silver said Palo Alto advocates had been following Bloomington’s actions and described Bloomington as a “north star” for the effort to restrict surveillance technology.

Chris Doran, who introduced himself as a member of the Bloomington Democratic Socialists of America, criticized Bloomington’s mayor Thomson for what he described as spending much of the public comment period looking at her phone. He also pressed the administration to release internal audits of police ALPR searches and to commission an independent audit.

Doran singled out the three sponsors of the ordinance for praise, referring specifically to “mayoral candidate Sydney Zulich.” Zulich [announced her candidacy](https://bsquarebulletin.com/zulich-announces-for-2027-bloomington-mayors-race-putting-district-6-council-seat-in-play/) or Bloomington mayor on Aug. 22, setting up a congested race in the 2027 Democratic Party’s primary. Thomson is expected to make her formal announcement on Nov. 10.

### Unanimous final vote

In their final comments, the sponsors returned to the broader question of what kind of government surveillance Bloomington should permit.

Zulich cited examples from Indiana and Ohio of law enforcement personnel accused of misusing license plate reader systems, including searches involving former romantic partners and other people with whom officers had personal relationships.

Piedmont-Smith described the legislation as a response to risks extending beyond individual instances of misuse. She cited the potential for surveillance databases to track people not suspected of crimes, as well as the consequences for immigrants, people seeking reproductive health care and residents participating in lawful protests.

Asare framed the vote as a decision about the relationship between government and the people it serves. “A safe society must protect people from all forms of violence,” he said, “and a free society must also protect people from the unchecked power of the very institutions that are established to protect them.”

Despite their disagreements over Amendment 5, all seven councilmembers present supported the ordinance on the final roll call.

Assuming Thomson signs ordinance into law, her administration will have [60 days](https://bloomington.in.gov/onboard/meetingFiles/17579/download#page=150) to post on the city’s website the use guidelines for any surveillance cameras that are not subject to the ban in the new ordinance. 

\[[audio recording](https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2026-10-15-Bloomington-city-council-audio-recording.m4a) of Oct. 14, 2026 Bloomington city council meeting\]