Last night the Jerome City Council voted 5 to 1 against installing Flock cameras in the city.
A Mix of Pragmatic and Principled Opposition
Opposition on the council came from more than one direction. Some of it was pragmatic. Some of it was grounded in principle.
Mayor Barber later explained his position in depth. Like other council members, he raised concerns about data security and mass surveillance.
City legal counsel framed the issue in terms of unsettled law, noting that the federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court have not yet made serious entry into the constitutional questions surrounding this technology. That is a fair characterization of where the case law sits today — and it cuts both ways. The absence of a controlling holding is not a green light. It means a city adopting this technology is doing so without knowing where the constitutional line will eventually be drawn, and is betting that it will land on the safe side of it.
The Vote in Favor
For locals, the least surprising vote was Bryan Craig’s vote in support of Flock.
What This Does — and Doesn’t — Settle
In June 2025, the city entered into a contract but essentially chose not to execute it for the full amount. Later, it executed a $14,000 contract option that gave the city access to the data system and four cameras. The cameras were never installed.
As things stand, Jerome will likely still end up with access to the Flock data system — just no cameras funded in this year’s budget.
Disclosure: We are still seeking clarification on the exact scope of that data access and the associated ongoing costs.
Why This Matters
Jerome just drew a clearer line than Twin Falls has so far. The question of mass surveillance through automated license plate readers is no longer theoretical in the Magic Valley. Cities are actively deciding whether to expand it, limit it, or reject it.
We’ll keep tracking both.
READ: Twin Falls City Council: Flock Cameras Dominate the Room
