Four West Virginia legislators put their request in writing on Friday, asking Flock Safety to send a company representative who could answer their questions in person. That correspondence, now numbering seven pieces in total, traces back to an August appearance by Kevin Kane — the company's Director of Government Affairs — before the Legislature, with Friday's letter representing the most recent addition to the exchange.
Several lawmakers expressed dissatisfaction with Kane's responses, telling a broadcast outlet that the session left them with more questions than answers. One delegate noted that they had anticipated the Flock Safety representative would provide straightforward and open testimony so they could gather the information needed to develop appropriate legislation. Delegate Lucas told a broadcast outlet on Friday that Kane had not been forthcoming with the group of lawmakers.
Delegate Tristan Leavitt holds the Kanawha County seat as a Republican member of the House. Browning, a Republican delegate from Wayne, joined fellow legislators in the chamber. Phillips, a Republican representing Barbour, holds the chairmanship of the Government Organization Committee.
The lawmakers' letters posed 19 questions to Flock Safety — covering how often unauthorized users had accessed raw video footage, how many false "Hot List" matches license plate readers had produced each year since the company's founding, and how many employees had been found to have improperly accessed customer data over that same period. Flock provided written responses to those questions and concerns, though Leavitt and Lucas told a news outlet on Friday that the replies had not addressed their underlying concerns. Leavitt noted that the answers had remained too broad and general, while Lucas stated that accurate responses were needed before lawmakers could develop well-informed legislation.
The lawmakers' most recent correspondence requested a face-to-face meeting, on the record, with a Flock Safety representative during their next interim session — set for 2 p.m. on November 9 — and the company indicated it would welcome that kind of open discussion.
Leavitt indicated that the offer to testify under oath made a live question-and-answer session more practical than drafting an extended written letter. Flock, in a statement directed to a prominent news outlet, disputed the transparency characterisation by pointing to close to two hours of public testimony already delivered alongside 18 pages of written answers to delegates' questions, adding that the company remained open to addressing further enquiries.
Flock has disputed the characterisation that it withheld information, pointing to its written responses as evidence of transparency. The company has maintained a stated readiness to appear before the committee, field its questions, and supply whatever further documentation it requests.
Leavitt told a broadcaster that the debate centres on balancing resident safety with privacy protections, adding that safeguarding both the personal data and the wellbeing of West Virginians remains the priority. Safeguarding minors captured on camera feeds forms a stated priority of the policy. Safeguarding data feeds from unauthorised access by outside actors has also been outlined as a priority.
Leavitt conveyed that Flock's representatives would need to arrive at the November meeting fully equipped with technical knowledge and concrete answers to the committee's outstanding questions, noting that the previous session had drawn criticism from attendees in the gallery over what were characterised as inaccurate responses from the company's spokesperson. Lucas added that lawmakers require sufficient information from Flock to draft regulatory legislation ahead of the January session, and that the central question remaining is whether the company can be relied upon to honour its commitments.
Lucas told a broadcast outlet that his position at that point was no, linking it directly to what he described as a lack of openness from Flock Safety, while leaving open the possibility of a different outcome should that change. Lucas told a broadcast outlet that options under consideration range from tighter operational restrictions on Flock Safety to a complete prohibition, adding that if the company's standing with lawmakers remains unresolved by the next legislative session, the path forward in the Legislature has yet to be determined.
Browning, in a written statement to a news outlet, called on Flock Safety to appear under oath at the November 9 hearing and address the outstanding questions openly, rather than continuing to opt for closed-door briefings. A speaker separately noted that inaction was not an option and that residents' privacy would be protected.
Requests for on-the-record answers covering security breaches, unauthorised access, staff handling of customer data, false-positive rates, and related matters — including actions by non-U.S. personnel — went unanswered across a period of several months. The requests also encompassed questions relating to suppliers based in the United States. Leavitt stated that residents of West Virginia are entitled to clear, direct responses to the enumerated questions raised, so that legislators can reach well-grounded conclusions about the technology.
