Sixty-one cameras in Minnesota no longer have public locations

Sixty-one automated license plate reader cameras across Minnesota no longer list their physical locations in state records. These devices, known as Flock cameras, are installed at intersections to capture vehicle data. A review of state data revealed that entries which previously specified street corners now read "location withheld." This change has sparked criticism from groups monitoring police surveillance practices.

State law mandates that law enforcement agencies report the locations of these cameras to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. The rule includes a specific exception. Agencies may hide location data if officials determine that public disclosure creates a security risk. Several cities have cited damage to the equipment to justify using this exemption. The shift from public listing to withheld status has occurred over the past several months.

The Edina police department previously published the locations of all 34 of its Flock cameras. In August, city officials removed that information from the state website. A spokesperson confirmed the removal was intended to prevent further targeted damage to the units. The Crow Wing County Sheriff's Office took a similar step recently. Sheriff Eric Klang stated that vandals cut wires on some of the department's 11 cameras. Klang noted that each unit costs $3,000 and that taxpayers bear the repair costs.

Other agencies have also withheld location data, including police in Robbinsdale and the University of Minnesota. After media inquiries began, the university reversed its decision. It asked the BCA to make its camera locations public again. A university spokesperson attributed the initial omission to an outdated webpage. The spokesperson said the institution remains committed to transparency regarding public safety tools.

Anna Madision, a member of the grassroots group Eyes Off St. Paul, described the security exception as a generous loophole exploited by law enforcement. Her group formed after Operation Metro Surge, a federal initiative that intensified public scrutiny of plate readers. Madision argued that the public has not necessarily consented to the collection of this data. She called the hidden locations a breach of trust between the community and police departments.

Matt Ehling of Minnesotans for Open Government said agencies need more than a theoretical concern to justify withholding information. His organization helped draft the license plate reader law a decade ago, including the security exception now being cited. Ehling stated that departments must show a likelihood of damage to their specific cameras. He called the security clause the pivot point in these disputes.

Law enforcement officials continue to support the technology. In Shakopee, police credited a Flock camera with helping identify a murder suspect. Sheriff Klang said a camera in Crow Wing County recently aided in a drive-by shooting investigation. He emphasized that officers use the data to investigate crimes rather than track daily errands. State Rep. Brad Tabke, however, said federal agents looked up his license plate multiple times during his role as a constitutional observer.

Lawmakers discussed changes to license plate reader laws during the last legislative session but passed no reforms. Advocacy groups expect the issue to return as a priority in the next session. The debate centers on balancing public safety needs with public accountability regarding how license plate data is collected and shared.