Was South Windsor right to remove its Flock cameras?
South Windsor voted to end its Flock camera program over privacy concerns. Mayor Craig Zimmerman backed removal, while the police chief and Republican councilors favored retaining the technology.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
The October 5 public-hearing minutes (opens in a new tab) record concerns about surveillance, stalking and access to vehicle-location data. CT Mirror (opens in a new tab) reports that Zimmerman abandoned his earlier preference for stricter rules, while Republican councilor Michael Ouellette wanted more time to assess local use.
CT Insider (opens in a new tab) reports that the contract had ended and cameras were deactivated by October 7. Physical removal and data deletion were required, but their completion has not been confirmed.
Timeline
2 timeline entries on this page. Dates: October 5, 2026 to October 7, 2026
October 2026
2 events
Council votes to end Flock program after public hearing
Incident
South Windsor's council voted 6-3 to terminate its Flock program after residents testified at a public hearing.
[01]South Windsor public hearing minutes on removal of Flock cameras, October 5, 2026
The town's signed minutes summarize public testimony. They are not a verbatim transcript or the council's final roll-call record.
South Windsor public hearing minutes on removal of Flock cameras, October 5, 2026Pages 1-2: October 5 hearing, public testimony and closing time[02]How opposition to Flock cameras took flight in CT
Original reporting describes the council's vote and competing local views on retaining the cameras.
How opposition to Flock cameras took flight in CTSouth Windsor and More regulation sections; October 5 vote and local positionsPolice confirm contract termination and camera deactivation
Incident
Lindstrom confirmed the contract had ended and the readers were decommissioned. Completed physical removal and data deletion were not established.
[03]South Windsor deactivates Flock cameras after vote to end license plate reader program
Police confirm contract termination and deactivation. The report also includes Flock's response through Courtney Terlecki.
South Windsor deactivates Flock cameras after vote to end license plate reader programOpening paragraphs and Kristian Lindstrom's October 7 statement
Response record
Responses
Latest recorded positions: 3. Dates: October 5, 2026 to October 8, 2026
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
3 responses on this page
Flock SafetyCompany spokeswoman Courtney TerleckiDirectly involved"We know that (license plate readers) have made a real impact on Connecticut agencies’ ability to solve crimes, especially involving violent crime, missing people, or fleeing suspects ... We respect Connecticut communities’ authority to make decisions about public safety technology, and we will continue listening to the community, answering questions, and working with lawmakers"
Mixed or conditionalCase context: Was South Windsor right to remove its Flock cameras?
Read more
Flock spokeswoman Courtney Terlecki said license plate readers have made a real impact on Connecticut agencies' ability to solve crimes, and that the company respects Connecticut communities' authority to make decisions about public safety technology and will continue listening to the community, answering questions and working with lawmakers.
Before the statement
CT Insider reported that South Windsor terminated its contract with Flock and deactivated the company's stationary license plate readers after the Town Council voted to remove them.
After the statement
CT Insider then described the council's Monday meeting, where members expressed support for the police department but those opposed to the cameras cited concerns about mass surveillance.
South Windsor deactivates Flock cameras after vote to end license plate reader programOpening paragraphs and Kristian Lindstrom's October 7 statementWhy this label?
The reference point is whether South Windsor was right to remove its Flock cameras, so support for the removal counts as Defended or excused. Terlecki defends the cameras' value in solving crimes while saying Flock respects communities' authority to decide, which pairs a defense of the technology with acceptance of the town's choice, so we labeled it Mixed or conditional. The closest competing label is Defended or excused, because she stresses the cameras' benefits; she also accepts the community's authority, so it loses.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Craig ZimmermanSouth Windsor mayorDirectly involved "We really can’t control what happens with this data"
Defended or excusedCase context: Was South Windsor right to remove its Flock cameras?
Read more
South Windsor Mayor Craig Zimmerman told CT Insider that he was initially supportive of the license plate reader program but voted to remove the cameras after many meetings with officials in and out of town. He said there are benefits to law enforcement but also privacy concerns, and that the town cannot control what happens with the data.
Before the statement
According to the hearing minutes, Mayor Craig Zimmerman called the South Windsor Town Council's public hearing on removing Flock cameras to order on October 5, 2026. CT Insider reported that Zimmerman said he was initially supportive of the program and that the council voted 6-3 to remove the technology.
After the statement
He added that the language in the town's contract with Flock did not give him confidence, particularly on holding Flock accountable if data were improperly shared.
South Windsor deactivates Flock cameras after vote to end license plate reader programOpening paragraphs and Kristian Lindstrom's October 7 statementSouth Windsor public hearing minutes on removal of Flock cameras, October 5, 2026Pages 1-2: October 5 hearing, public testimony and closing timeWhy this label?
The reference point is whether South Windsor was right to remove its Flock cameras, so support for the removal counts as Defended or excused. Zimmerman says he voted for removal because the town cannot control what happens with the data, while acknowledging benefits to law enforcement, which supports removal as right, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he credits the program's law-enforcement benefits; he voted to remove the cameras anyway, so it loses.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Andrew PaternaSouth Windsor deputy mayor "This is not about not trusting our police department, but it is about a system that is becoming more and more invasive"
Defended or excusedCase context: Was South Windsor right to remove its Flock cameras?
Read more
South Windsor Deputy Mayor Andrew Paterna said the move to remove the cameras is not about distrusting the town's police department but about a system that is becoming more and more invasive. CT Insider reported that most council members expressed support for the police department but said they were more concerned about mass surveillance.
Before the statement
CT Insider reported that, after a public hearing at which no member of the public spoke in favor of the cameras, most council members said they supported the police department but were more concerned about mass surveillance.
After the statement
Paterna added that the most dangerous thing about Flock is not what it does today but that the country is building security infrastructure first and arguing about the rules afterwards.
South Windsor deactivates Flock cameras after vote to end license plate reader programOpening paragraphs and Kristian Lindstrom's October 7 statementSouth Windsor public hearing minutes on removal of Flock cameras, October 5, 2026Pages 1-2: October 5 hearing, public testimony and closing timeWhy this label?
The reference point is whether South Windsor was right to remove its Flock cameras, so support for the removal counts as Defended or excused. Paterna says the decision is not about distrust of police but about a system that is becoming more and more invasive, which supports removal as right, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, because he first rejects the idea that the vote reflects distrust of police; he goes on to defend removal on surveillance grounds, so it loses.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(4)
Original text
South Windsor public hearing minutes on removal of Flock cameras, October 5, 2026
Relevant passage: Pages 1-2: October 5 hearing, public testimony and closing time
About this source
The town's signed minutes summarize public testimony. They are not a verbatim transcript or the council's final roll-call record.
- Accessed
Reporting
South Windsor deactivates Flock cameras after vote to end license plate reader program
Relevant passage: Opening paragraphs and Kristian Lindstrom's October 7 statement
About this source
Police confirm contract termination and deactivation. The report also includes Flock's response through Courtney Terlecki.
- Author
- Eric Bedner
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
How opposition to Flock cameras took flight in CT
Relevant passage: South Windsor and More regulation sections; October 5 vote and local positions
About this source
Original reporting describes the council's vote and competing local views on retaining the cameras.
- Author
- Mark Pazniokas
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
South Windsor votes to end Flock contract, remove license plate readers
About this source
Reports the October 5 council vote and quotes officials explaining their votes.
- Author
- Eric Bedner
- Published
- Accessed
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Was South Windsor right to remove its Flock cameras?
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/south-windsor-flock-camera-removal-privacy-public-safety
The Dispute Index. "Was South Windsor right to remove its Flock cameras?". First published: 2026-10-11. Last updated: 2026-10-11. https://disputeindex.com/cases/south-windsor-flock-camera-removal-privacy-public-safety