By OBBM Network Editorial Staff

Derived from an episode of Rightside Media.

What if the streetlights that guide you home are also quietly recording every device in your car?

Background on the Sheriff Candidate and His Law‑Enforcement Career

JJ Reach grew up in Midfield, a small city just outside Birmingham, where his grandfather served as police chief for 34 years. Inspired by his family legacy, Reach entered the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office in 1994 and spent decades handling complex felony investigations. His deep‑rooted experience in law enforcement frames his current campaign for sheriff and informs his perspective on emerging surveillance technologies.

During the conversation with hosts Allison Sinclair, Amie Beth Shaver, and JP Plott, Reach recounted his early career and explained how his investigative work relied on traditional methods before the rapid rollout of new camera systems during the COVID‑19 pandemic.

Understanding Flock and Other Surveillance Systems

Flock cameras, along with competitors such as Vigilant and Verkata, are being installed on public infrastructure, often using utility poles owned by Alabama Power. The arrangement typically costs jurisdictions $270 per camera per month, with some intersections reportedly reaching $10,000 in monthly expenses. Reach highlighted the opaque nature of these contracts, noting that “you can’t find the numbers because you don’t know which agency is using this company.”

Beyond license‑plate readers (LPRs), the technology can capture a “digital fingerprint” of every device nearby. As Sinclair explained, “SignalTrace… creates a digital fingerprint of all of your devices… it will pick up every AirPod, every smartwatch, every iPhone and start creating a profile for people that travel in that car.” This raises concerns about the depth of data collected and its potential misuse.

Privacy Concerns and Legal Safeguards

Reach emphasized that current statutes consider surveillance non‑constant and therefore not a Fourth Amendment violation, yet he argued that the lack of clear limits invites abuse. He stated, “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you should just not worry about this,” only to counter that the pervasive tracking of devices makes that reassurance unrealistic.

He drew parallels to law‑enforcement databases, noting that officers must document searches of the NCIC or driver’s license records. “All of this data is recorded. It should be the same with flock,” Reach asserted, advocating that only investigators should access LPR data and that a search warrant should be required for deeper analysis.

Financial Implications for Taxpayers

The cost structure of these camera systems places a significant burden on local budgets. Reach questioned whether spending $10,000 for a single intersection delivers value to taxpayers, asking, “Is that getting the return that the tax person should receive?” He pointed out that while the camera vendor may retain data for only seven days, the sheriff’s office and other agencies can store footage for up to five years, a duration set by an executive order from Governor Kay Ivey after a failed legislative effort in 2021.

These financial and data‑retention practices have sparked debate over whether public funds should support what Reach describes as “mass surveillance in every subdivision, city, county.” He suggested that legislative action, such as limiting data retention to 30 months like Georgia, could curb both costs and privacy risks.

Community Impact and the Role of Homeowners’ Associations

Reach shared a troubling anecdote about a homeowners’ association (HOA) that installed a camera paid for by the HOA itself, granting the HOA president and members direct access to the footage. He remarked, “The HOA president has said he has access to all the data. The HOA people that sit on the HOA have access to it. Flock has access to the data. And the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office has access to the data. That’s concerning.” This example illustrates how surveillance can extend beyond public safety into private community oversight.

Balancing safety benefits—such as solving vehicle break‑ins and tracking sex offenders—with privacy concerns remains a central challenge. Reach cited a successful use case: “We had several cars that were broken into within a subdivision early morning hour. We were able to go pull up the flock system and look for cars that came through at 4 a.m. and there was only two so we were able to get the tag number off of one…” He argued that these tools can protect vulnerable populations, yet he urged stricter controls to prevent overreach.

In summary, the discussion highlighted a tension between leveraging technology for public safety and safeguarding civil liberties. Reach’s candid remarks underscore the need for transparent contracts, robust oversight, and possibly new legislation to ensure that surveillance serves the community without eroding privacy.

The full episode of Rightside Media is available on OBBM Network TV.