SAFFORD — The debate over law enforcement’s use of license plate-reading cameras in Safford continues, between residents and the City Council, and among council members themselves.
At the Monday, July 27, City Council meeting, 16 members of the public spoke on the use of more than 30 Flock cameras in the city, with 13 of the speakers against the cameras.
Later in the meeting, members of the City Council discussed the cameras, joined by Police Chief Brian Avila and Police Captain Tyler Cluff, as well as a representative of the Flock Safety company. The council did not change its policy regarding use of the cameras, but did hear that the city attorney is working on “tightening up” some of the language in the contract between the city and Flock for the cameras’ usage.
In an e-mail to Gila Valley Central, Safford Council member Brad Hemphill said the public had ample opportunities to hear about the cameras and communicate with the decision makers. He cited four City Council meetings, starting in April 2025, where the issue was discussed, with two of those involving unanimous votes by the council to move forward with the cameras.
“In short, the process was not near as flawed as some would want the public to believe. We can be disappointed in the end result. We can regret not putting out a clearer call to the public. We can even reverse course. But, simply put, staff did not go rogue, and the issue went through the same process that they all do,” Hemphill wrote, adding, “I’m troubled . . . by the behavior of some on our council to push blame onto others.”
During an appearance on the Voice of the Valley radio show, Council member Dusti Brantner said the city did not do a good job of involving the public in its decision to install and use the cameras.
“Unless you’re literally putting it out there — not just an agenda, that’s not enough public notice — unless you’re putting it out there and catching their attention, and saying, ‘Hey, pay attention,’ I don’t consider that enough public notice,” Brantner said.
Members of the public have stated the cameras pose a violation of the Fourth Amendment to Constitution, that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, while law enforcement has countered that there is no expectation of privacy while driving a vehicle on a public thoroughfare.
Other opponents have also cited cases of abuse of the system in other communities across the country, where law enforcement officers have used the data from the cameras to monitor the movements of current and former significant others.
Since December 2025, three Arizona cities have canceled contracts for the cameras with Flock Safety — South Tucson, Sedona and Flagstaff.
There is currently no timeline on when the issue will be brought back before the City Council. However, City Manager Eric Bejarano has suggested the cameras be the subject of a future City Conversation, where the public, city staff and elected officials can engage in a dialog.
