Montgomery's License-Plate Cameras, Explained

What the cameras are

Montgomery’s police use automated license-plate recognition (ALPR) cameras made by Flock Safety, an Atlanta company. Each fixed camera sits on its own pole with a solar panel. It photographs the rear of every passing vehicle, reads the plate into text, and stamps it with a time and place. It also checks each plate against “hotlists,” such as stolen cars, wanted people and Amber Alerts, and alerts officers when there is a match.

According to the department’s public transparency portal, read October 19, 2026:


Cameras	7 (six fixed, one movable, per the police)
Vehicles detected, last 30 days	255,979
Searches by officers, last 30 days	14
Hotlist hits, last 30 days	57,880
Hotlists checked	NCIC (national crime database), NCMEC Amber Alert, NJ DMV, NJ SNAP

The portal lists “Facial recognition, People, Gender, Race” as not detected. Its prohibited uses include immigration enforcement, traffic enforcement, “harrassment or intimidation,” and personal use. It does not state the retention period, list the agencies with access, or show where the cameras are. The portal does not explain what counts as a “hit,” and the department has not said what makes up the 57,880.

How it started

The record tells the story in pieces. The early steps come from what the police said at meetings, because the earliest documents were not found.

Before Flock. The department had used car-mounted plate readers for about ten years, the lieutenant told the Committee in 2023 (uncorrected captions). In July 2023 the Committee donated an older “ELSAG MPH 900” reader, “no longer needed for public use,” to the Somerset County Sheriff’s Office (Resolution #23-7-202).
December 2022. According to Lieutenant Andy Perry in August 2026, the relationship with Flock began with “a township approved MOU” that gave Montgomery access to other agencies’ plate data, with no cameras yet (captions). This site did not find that agreement. 2022 minutes are not in the township’s online agenda center, and the Swagit transcripts of the late-2022 meetings do not mention Flock.
September 2023. Four fixed cameras and one movable “Flex” camera were bought, per the lieutenant. No 2023 resolution awarding that first contract appears in the 2023 minutes. On September 21, 2023, the police captain and the lieutenant presented the cameras to the Committee. The minutes record that they “monitor ingress and egress into the municipality twenty-four hours a day,” and that “the data is owned by the municipality and will not be sold.”
2024-2025. A fifth fixed camera was added in November 2024 and a sixth in September 2025.

How it is approved and paid for

There has been no ordinance or policy vote on the program itself. The Committee’s part has been approving contracts, as resolutions on regular agendas:

June 19, 2025, Resolution #25-6-219 (5-0). Awards Flock Group, Inc. a contract “not to exceed $36,000.00 for a two-year term commencing on August 1, 2025.” The resolution calls Flock “the sole manufacturer” of the camera and “sole provider” of its services. At the meeting, the first two years were said to have cost $31,600 (captions).
August 7, 2025, Resolution #25-8-259 (4-0, Martin absent). One more fixed camera, $7,650 over 24 months. Introducing it, an official said “Montgomery Promenade has agreed to purchase one of the cameras,” paid for by the shopping center but “tied into the system that we have” (captions).
Funding. Both resolutions draw on the police operating account, #01-201-20-240-200. No grant was found. The township’s 2024 and 2026 capital bond ordinances (#24-1730 and #26-1776) each include an “automated license plate reader” in a $100,300 police equipment line. Neither says what that reader is or what it costs.
Yearly cost. In August 2026 the lieutenant gave $3,000 per fixed camera, $3,500 for the movable one, and $500 per camera for the extended data storage the state requires: about $25,000 a year, covering maintenance. The cameras are leased, not owned: “It’s a lease agreement between the township and Flock Safety” (captions). By our arithmetic, six cameras at $3,000, one at $3,500 and seven at $500 come to exactly $25,000.

The rules that govern it

Most of the rules come from Trenton, not the township.

The Attorney General’s Directive 2022-12, in effect since January 23, 2023:

Retention. “Records and ALPR data covered by this Section shall be retained for three years,” then purged unless tied to an active case.
Searching. Officers may search stored data only for listed purposes, such as a specific crime or a lookout list. Searches “may not be conducted to review data based on general crime patterns,” and every access is logged.
Ownership. The data belongs to the police agency, “not any ALPR vendor.”
Audits. Each department audits itself every year by January 31 and certifies “that a random survey of ALPR accesses revealed no misuse.” County and state coordinators may audit any agency at any time.
Complaints. Citizen complaints go to the County Prosecutor.
Records. Stored plate data is a “criminal investigatory record,” so it is not released under the Open Public Records Act.

The State Police’s statewide audits. For the second half of 2023, 517 agencies completed the audit, including Montgomery’s. The State Police found two significant violations statewide, both involving logins, and no citizen complaints. For 2024, 523 agencies certified and two violations were reported, both involving training (as reported by WRNJ).

The Privacy Protection Act, P.L.2026, c.4, signed March 25, 2026:

Agencies may not share plate data except to other government entities “when permitted by law,” under a judicial order or warrant, with consent, or to out-of-state police for a criminal investigation.
Out-of-state police must first certify that they will not use the data for civil immigration enforcement or pass it on.
Those sharing agreements are public records.
Agencies must post updated policies on their websites within a year.

What happened on August 6, 2026

At the Committee’s request, Lieutenant Perry and Chief Bet presented the program. Three members were present: Mayor Singh and Committee Members Martin and Herring. Martin read questions from Committee Member Ahn, who was absent, then asked his own.

On misuse. The questions cited reports of other departments “tracking a … wife, a girlfriend, stalking an ex” (captions). The lieutenant said any violation must be reported, that Montgomery had “no major violations,” and that misuse would go to an Internal Affairs investigation and be reported to the State Police. Every search needs “a valid case number” and a reason. The township attorney asked whether officers track people “randomly.” The answer was no.

On retention. Could it be cut to six months? The minutes: “The data retention period is three years per the Attorney General’s Policy and the Township does not have the authority to change that period.” In the captions, the lieutenant added that any change “would have to come from the State.”

On storage. The data is kept in Flock’s cloud. Asked about breach protection, the lieutenant said he could not speak to Flock’s security directly. Vendors must pass State Police vetting. Martin suggested it “might be something to follow up on” (captions).

On sharing. The answers on sharing do not all line up:

In the presentation the lieutenant said, “We share our data only with New Jersey law enforcement agencies … We don’t share with any federal agencies, and we don’t share outside New Jersey” (captions).
The minutes add that “the PD has access to the national system so any information within will be shared nationally.” In the video, that remark answers a question about an out-of-state fugitive. It describes checking plates against national warrant lists, not sending Montgomery’s data out of state.
Asked whether the state could pass Montgomery’s data on, the lieutenant said, “the State Police may authorize and that’s for them to answer” (captions).
The transparency portal says data “can be shared with other authorized law enforcement entities.”
The state rules above allow some out-of-state sharing under conditions.

The department has not published a list of the agencies that can see Montgomery’s data.

On volume. Committee Member Herring noted that the portal showed about 252,000 plates read in 30 days. The minutes attribute that number to “the Flock System in New Jersey.” In the video, Herring and the lieutenant agree it was Montgomery’s own count. Herring also said the data showed where people “came from” and “are going.” The lieutenant disagreed: the system records only the plate, time and camera location. A driver on “the major highways” would likely pass more than one camera.

On cost. Asked if the program is “worth the investment,” the lieutenant pointed to six or seven 2026 cases in which the system helped, including a stolen vehicle, mail theft at the Skillman post office and an out-of-state fugitive (captions). Chief Bet called it “a very small price to pay for the safety of this community.”

Public comment. Resident Biren Saraiya asked what share of searches is audited and whether the Attorney General’s office does the auditing. The mayor said public comment is not a question-and-answer forum and that the police could be contacted. No answer appears in the minutes through October 1. On paper, the audit is done by the department’s own coordinator. In the first statewide audit, the State Police told agencies to sample at least 1% of activity.

No vote was taken.

Where the record is unclear

Retention in 2023 versus 2026. In September 2023 the lieutenant told the Committee that data not tied to a crime was “deleted and purged” after 30 days (captions). The three-year state rule was already in effect by then, and in 2026 the police said three years applies. The record does not say when Montgomery’s setting changed or what was kept in between.
The contract term. In August 2026 the lieutenant described Resolution #25-6-219 as covering spending “from 2023 until the current budget year.” The adopted text gives a two-year term from August 1, 2025, ending about July 31, 2027.
Reproductive health care. The police presentation said state law bars sharing plate data to investigate lawful reproductive health care. The 2026 Privacy Protection Act text reviewed here contains the immigration limit but no reproductive-health language. Which law or directive the police were citing is not clear from the record.

Concerns raised elsewhere

Questions like Montgomery’s have come up across the state and the country.

Franklin Township. In neighboring Franklin Township, residents objected in August 2026 to 22 Flock cameras paid for with a $339,000 state grant. A petition to end the contracts passed 800 signatures. The township’s public safety director said the cameras had helped solve robberies and burglaries and identify vehicles linked to shootings (NJ101.5).
Nationally. NPR reported in February 2026 that at least 30 localities had turned off Flock cameras or canceled contracts since the start of 2025. Officials in some places said they found their data shared more widely than they knew. Flock acknowledged pilot programs with two federal agencies, which it said have ended. It said each customer controls its own sharing, and that it added search filters and audit tools. NPR also reported that other cities kept their cameras, and that police credit the readers with solving crimes.

Some of the steps those cities took are not open to a New Jersey town. For example, one Arizona city shortened its retention to 14 days. In New Jersey, the three-year period is set by the state.

What is not known

Where the cameras are. The township has not published locations, which go to the State Police before installation.
The December 2022 agreement, the 2023 purchase records, and the current Flock contract terms.
The department’s written ALPR policy. It was cited on August 6 but is not posted. The 2026 law requires updated policies to be posted on agency websites within a year.
Which agencies can search Montgomery’s data, and whether any out-of-state sharing agreement exists.
Montgomery’s annual audit results.
Whether the privately funded Montgomery Promenade camera was installed, and how its data is handled.
What the 57,880 monthly hotlist hits consist of.

What residents can do

Read the portal. The Flock transparency portal is linked from the Police Department Links page on the township website, and its figures update daily.
Speak at a meeting. Comment at any Township Committee meeting. Meetings are generally held on the 1st and 3rd Thursday at 7 p.m. The remaining 2026 dates are November 12, December 3 and December 17 (live calendar). Questions can also be sent to the Township Clerk or the police department.
Request records under OPRA. The plate data itself is exempt, but program records are a different matter. Ask the Township Clerk for:
- the current Flock agreement and Quote Q-143569;
- the department’s ALPR policy;
- its annual ALPR audit certifications for 2023-2025;
- the list of agencies with access to its data;
- any out-of-state sharing certifications under P.L.2026, c.4.
Complaints. Under the Attorney General’s directive, a complaint about an agency’s ALPR program goes to the Somerset County Prosecutor.
Changing the rules. Retention and sharing rules are set by the Attorney General and the Legislature. A change there, not at the township, would alter how long the data is kept.
Watch the renewal. The current contract runs to about July 31, 2027. A renewal would come to the Committee as a resolution.