A city can get rid of Flock Safety without getting rid of license plate readers. Caldwell, Idaho, just offered a striking example. Rather than scaling back the cameras, its City Council voted to change vendors and increase the planned number of readers from 45 to 65.
The decision came October 5, 2026, during a debate that included doubts from the city’s own mayor. Supporters said police need good investigative tools. Critics asked why the city was making a decade long technology commitment while it was still hiring a police chief, and without more public discussion of the expanded camera network.
The 4 to 1 vote approved a broader contract with Axon, not simply a purchase of 20 more roadside cameras. Understanding that distinction helps explain both the price and the disagreement.
How much is Caldwell spending on cameras?
The newly approved package totals about $6.7 million over ten years. That is a large number, but it includes body cameras, Tasers, drones and other police equipment and services. Sergeant Andrew Heitzman told the council that approximately $95,000 of the package was attributable to the license plate readers, according to BoiseDev’s October 6 report. The $6.7 million should not be described as the price of the plate readers alone.
The plan replaces the city’s Flock equipment with Axon technology and expands the camera count by 20. The council approved the deal, but that does not establish that every replacement and additional camera was already installed and operational. The timetable for completing the change is a separate matter.
A June 23 Caldwell budget meeting record shows city leaders had been discussing a vendor change months before the final vote. At that earlier stage, police leaders described a combined technology package and its possible savings. Those were procurement arguments being weighed, not an independent study proving every projected benefit.
What did supporters see in the expansion?
Police say license plate readers help them identify vehicles connected to stolen car reports, missing people and criminal investigations. Officers can receive an alert when a camera spots a plate associated with a wanted vehicle or search records for an investigative lead.
Council member Mike Dittenber expressed concern about potential misuse but said the technology was helping solve crimes. Former police chief and council member Chris Allgood argued that the information from roadside readers was modest compared with information already collected by private businesses. Those are their views on the tradeoff, not evidence that misuse is impossible.
Another council member, Geoff Williams, emphasized that Caldwell already had a license plate reader program. In his view, the vote concerned a proposed expansion, not the first decision to introduce readers to the city. Body cameras had also prompted privacy debate when first adopted, he said, before becoming a regular part of police work.
The practical argument is familiar: a police department doesn’t want to give up a system it believes helps investigations simply because the vendor changes or residents raise concerns. In Caldwell, council members chose to continue and expand that capability with a different company.
Why did the mayor want to slow down?
Mayor Eric Phillips opposed moving ahead with the contract before Caldwell hired a new police chief. The city’s former chief, Rex Ingram, retired in September. Phillips questioned whether a new chief should have a chance to shape the department’s longer term technology strategy.
Phillips also disputed a comparison between government cameras on public roads and data collected by a person’s cellphone. A person can choose to leave a phone at home, he argued, but driving along a public street may offer no way to avoid a government camera.
Council member Diana Register cast the only opposing vote. She preferred to consider the drone portion separately and give residents another chance to discuss the plate reader expansion. Council member Chuck Stadick was absent, while Phillips would have voted only to break a tie.
No one needs to accept the mayor’s or council’s interpretation wholesale to see the underlying question: should a city approve ten years of equipment while its police leadership is changing, particularly when one part of the agreement involves cameras that routinely observe vehicles not suspected of a crime?
Does Idaho law put limits on the system?
Yes. Idaho Code section 49-1432, enacted in 2025, allows agencies to use automated license plate readers for specified law enforcement and traffic flow purposes. For law enforcement, it limits uses to investigating felonies, misdemeanors and traffic accidents or searching for missing or endangered people. It generally excludes using the devices to enforce ordinary traffic infractions unrelated to an accident.
The law requires access to be limited to authorized personnel, logs that identify users and reasons for searches, training about appropriate use and audits of access records twice each year. It prohibits unrelated personal or political uses and provides for discipline or other consequences when someone misuses the data.
Those are statewide requirements. A vendor change from Flock to Axon doesn’t eliminate them, and a city policy cannot simply set them aside. At the same time, the law is not a blanket ban on police plate readers. Caldwell’s debate concerned how much technology to buy and how to manage it within the rules.
The discussion also touched on what might happen if lawmakers eventually restricted the technology further. According to BoiseDev, city legal counsel described contract provisions allowing Caldwell to return plate readers for credit toward other Axon equipment if future law made the readers unusable. That is an account of a proposed contractual safeguard, not a prediction that Idaho will ban the cameras.
Would changing the vendor answer the privacy questions?
A different manufacturer might bring different hardware, costs, search features and data controls. But an Axon logo instead of a Flock logo doesn’t, by itself, answer who can search a record, which outside agencies may have access, how long a plate observation is stored or how the public can verify compliance.
Those details must be evaluated in the city’s actual policies and configuration. Caldwell’s vote approved a contract package; it was not an audit certifying that every future search or vendor safeguard will work perfectly.
Other cities have made different choices with Axon. Our Denver report describes a vendor change combined with a smaller proposed camera network, while our Cleveland article examines another proposed move away from Flock. Caldwell shows that switching providers and reducing the number of cameras are two very different decisions.
The interesting next test is whether Caldwell publishes clear information about its expanded system after installation. Residents already know what the council voted to buy. They still have good reasons to ask how the cameras will be operated and how their use will be checked.
Sources
BoiseDev, October 6, 2026, Caldwell City Council vote and debate; Caldwell June 23, 2026 budget meeting record; Idaho Code 49-1432, automated license plate reader data access and control.
This is a report on an October 5 council decision, not a claim that installation was complete by November 11, 2026. Statements by officials about projected savings and policing results are attributed to them.
ALPRNews uses AI tools to assist with research, writing and editing. Read our editorial standards.