WV Lawmakers Question Flock Safety Representatives During Committee Hearing

Dan Haley, chief legal officer for Flock Safety, and Matt Fanto, director of product security and privacy for the company, appeared before the Joint Standing Committee on Government Organization via video conference on Monday, November 9, 2026. Lawmakers have been dissatisfied with previous responses from the company to 19 written questions on topics such as security incidents, unauthorized access, data governance, and infrastructure.

In a letter dated October 12, lawmakers requested that a Flock representative appear before the committee during November interim meetings. Haley stated that a rescheduled speaking commitment prevented him from traveling to West Virginia to appear in person. He defended Lane’s presentation, stating that all Flock employees are expected to speak “honestly and forthrightly, and with the intention of answering the questions posed.” Haley encouraged lawmakers to pass legislation addressing concerns about automatic license plate readers.

Haley said the company recognizes the concerns surrounding the technology and urged lawmakers to pass a bill establishing “commonsense privacy protections and usage guardrails,” while ensuring law enforcement agencies can use the technology to keep communities safe. Lawmakers asked Haley questions for about an hour and a half.

Del. Tristin Leavitt, R-Kanawha, raised concerns about an incident in Dunwoody, Georgia, where live feeds of a children’s gymnastic class were reportedly accessed by Flock employees during a sales pitch. Leavitt noted that the incident indicated the live feed was viewed for several hours. Haley stated that the city of Dunwoody was a development partner with the company and granted permission for the company to use its data for demonstrations. Haley speculated that if the incident occurred, the gym’s live feed was likely left in an open browser.

Liberty and accountability

Automated license-plate readers can compile records of the movements of people who are not accused of wrongdoing. Officials should publicly identify what data are collected, who may search them, how long they are retained, and whether access is logged and independently audited. Company assurances are not a replacement for written policies and enforceable limits.

Libertarian scrutiny of surveillance asks whether particular searches need warrants or judicial oversight, whether interagency sharing expands beyond the original purpose, and what remedies exist for misuse. The burden should be on government to justify persistent monitoring of ordinary travel, not on residents to prove that they deserve privacy.