Flock Camera Opposition Floods Will County Board’s Written Comment File

Will County Board | September 17, 2026

Article Summary: No resident spoke at either public comment period of the Will County Board’s Thursday, Sept. 17, 2026, meeting — but the board’s packet carried dozens of written comments on Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras, nearly all of them marked “Oppose,” and the cameras drew pointed exchanges among board members during closing comments.

License Plate Camera Comment Key Points:

• Written submissions in the Sept. 17 packet, dated Aug. 14 through Sept. 13, 2026, are dominated by opposition to Flock Safety automated license plate readers, with the heaviest volume in the days before the board’s Aug. 20 meeting.
• Several commenters identify the resolutions at issue, naming Resolutions 26-260 through 26-266 as license plate camera intergovernmental agreements with Mokena, Crete, Manhattan, Beecher, Frankfort, Naperville and Wilmington.
• Member Destinee Ortiz said residents “weren’t trying to tweak the ordinance” and called a January timeline for a county ordinance “insulting.”
• Member David G. Oxley said the board’s prior vote authorized cameras on county road rights-of-way, not the cameras themselves; Committee Chair Jacqueline Traynere said an ordinance against misuse is coming “sooner rather than later.”

WILL COUNTY — The Will County Board heard from no one in person on Thursday, Sept. 17, 2026. Twice the presiding officer opened the floor — once for agenda items, once for general comment — and twice got silence.

The written record was another matter. The board’s packet for the meeting, filed under correspondence, contains dozens of public comment submissions concerning Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras, nearly all marked “Oppose” on the county’s public comment portal form. The submissions are dated between Aug. 14 and Sept. 13, 2026, with the heaviest volume on Aug. 18 and 19 — the two days before the board’s Aug. 20 meeting, at which members approved six camera intergovernmental agreements as amended, each 14-8, and rejected a seventh, with the Village of Beecher, 8-14.

The comments arrive at a board that has already acted. Oxley used his closing remarks to draw a line around what that action was. “I would just like to clarify that this board voted to allow Flock cameras on the rights-of-way of county roads,” he said. “We did not vote on cameras as reported.”

What Residents Wrote

The written comments return repeatedly to four themes: the Fourth Amendment, data handling by a private company, documented misuse by police officers elsewhere, and the energy and water demands of the data centers that store the footage.

Jack Krygowski’s submission names Resolutions 26-260 through 26-266 as “License Plate Reading Camera Intergovernmental Agreements (Mokena, Crete, Manhattan, Beecher, Frankfort, Naperville, Wilmington).” He wrote: “These IGAs authorize mass surveillance of every driver on these roads with no data retention limit, no restriction on who can access the data, and no audit requirement written into the agreements,” asking the board to reject the agreements or table them “until the county adopts a public data governance policy covering retention, access, and audit.”

Meta Mueller asked the board to demand four things: “Independent external audits — rather than solely relying on the vendor to monitor its own system,” meaningful public transparency, clear limits on searches, data retention and information sharing, and “real accountability when the system is misused.”

“The prevalence of Flock cameras is deeply unsettling,” wrote Kristen Lemke, who submitted both a portal comment and a direct email on Aug. 18. “What peace still exists for anyone? Where can we find peace on our daily walks, in our cars, in our homes?” In her second message she asked a set of questions the board never publicly answered: “How is it being stored? Who is able to access? What are the regulations in place to make sure data collected by Flock stays in the hands of trustworthy people?”

Matthew Moore itemized invasion of privacy, data sharing and security risks, civil liberties errors and financial cost, writing that “data collected by Flock can be shared with outside agencies and federal authorities without a warrant” and that recurring subscription fees “draw taxpayer money away from proven community and social programs.”

Jacob Schultz said he could see the cameras’ value for local police but objected to the controls. “The company allows people across the country to access our local cameras without approval, or vetting within our jurisdiction,” he wrote.

Luis Jaime asked the board for specific policy if it would not ban the technology: prohibit any government entity from sharing, purchasing, receiving or using automated license plate reader data without a warrant and only for felony crimes recognized under both federal and state law; require data deletion “within hours at most”; and include reporting requirements and strict limits on data access.

Gretchen Shelby-Dormer, who identified herself as a cybersecurity-focused DevOps engineer, wrote that the objection is structural. “Today, this is an ‘automated license plate reader system’ but tomorrow, once the camera network has been rolled out, new features can and will be added,” she wrote. “It’s not possible to opt out of Flock data collection and that is not okay.”

Logan Molitor wrote that he had lived in Will County for 25 years and had never before submitted a comment. “Up until recently their deployment has gone relatively unnoticed. However, over the last year the number of cameras has increased seemingly exponentially,” he wrote, closing with a Benjamin Franklin quotation about trading liberty for safety.

Clara Morgan tied the issue to Joliet’s sanctuary city status, writing that even where federal immigration agencies lack direct contractual access, “the risk of security breaches, or side and back door searches, are bound to happen.” Several other writers raised the same concern about federal immigration enforcement.

Deanna Moore cited what she described as a 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on warrantless access to phone location data and asked, “If tracking a phone requires a warrant, does sweeping up millions of vehicle locations every single day hold up under the same constitutional standard?” The characterization is hers; the ruling was not discussed by the board.

Bert Newsom framed his objection as a failure of process. “This is a failure to obtain buy-in. There’s no data to represent the cost and necessity for flock cameras,” he wrote, suggesting the county make data easily available, “like a QR code on the base of the machine.”

Elizabeth Winters asked the board to use the authority it has: “Although municipal police departments purchase this technology, the Will County Board should do its part to prevent its installation by voting No on placing them on county roads.”

Several writers raised cost rather than privacy. “I just don’t see the justification of the cost,” wrote Sara Martin. “Especially with how high taxes have become and making it hard to stay in Will County.” Others were brief and categorical: “No more Flock cameras!!!” wrote Valentin Juvet. “We do not want these camera in our community,” wrote Crystal Jordan. “Please vote NO on the flock camera agreements,” wrote Angeline DiPasquale. “I oppose these data tracking cameras,” wrote Andrew Englebrecht. “Just say no!” wrote a commenter listed as C Book. “NO FLOCK CAMERAS,” wrote julisa cantu.

Two writers referenced specific legislation by number: Rita Moore wrote in opposition to “RES 26-265 / 26-5205,” and Daniel Biesterfeld wrote in opposition to “RES 26-263 / 26-4755-01.”

One commenter, Linda Paulson, selected “undecided” on the portal form. “If it’s being used to track children and not adults I am for it,” she wrote. One commenter, writing as a victim of stalking and domestic abuse, told the board that hearing of abusers and strangers tracking people through such cameras “terrifies me.” This publication is withholding that writer’s name.

The Floor Exchange

Ortiz, in a three-part closing comment, said the board was misreading the volume of input. She said that at the public works committee meeting, Member Kelly Hickey suggested the committee “should consider all the good ideas that residents brought up at the August 20th meeting.”

“But residents weren’t trying to tweak the ordinance,” Ortiz said. “They were saying loud and clear that they don’t want these cameras, period. The takeaway was pretty simple. No rule or safeguard is going to make this kind of surveillance okay. People want the county to end its Flock contract and pull these cameras off of our streets.”

She then criticized the committee’s timeline. “That’s why Chair Traynere’s idea of kicking the can down the road until January — five months later and until after the election — is even more insulting,” she said.

Traynere answered directly. “I think we took some really responsible action in regards to the flock cameras,” she said. She described her own family circumstances, including a father who once became lost and was brought home by a police officer: “I don’t have children at home that might be kidnapped. Both of my parents were senior citizens at one time, and in fact my father did get lost one time and was brought home by a police officer. Should I have needed a Flock camera to help find him, I would have wanted the police to have those cameras at their disposal to help with a silver alert.”

“This is a tool that law enforcement has expressed a need and a desire to have,” Traynere said. “We have heard from residents. We have been working with law enforcement. We will be bringing forward an ordinance sooner rather than later to help make sure that no stalking of any resident takes place.”

She preempted a charge of police influence: “If you’re concerned that, hey, she’s only saying that because she’s supported by the FOP or some other police group, I have never received an endorsement from any police organization. In fact, just the opposite.”

No resolution concerning Flock cameras or an ordinance governing their use appeared on the Sept. 17 agenda.