The omission has become the focal point of a broader controversy in Massachusetts, where a WBUR review of state records found that nine communities have used casino mitigation grants over the past three fiscal years to purchase surveillance technology. This trend has drawn sharp criticism from civil liberties organizations, who argue that funds earmarked for community well-being are being redirected to expand a state-wide network of automated surveillance that logs every vehicle passing the cameras, often without a warrant or specific legal justification.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission established the Community Mitigation Fund to address the specific impacts of legalized casinos on neighboring towns. The rules allow grants to cover a variety of projects, provided they respond to casino-related effects. In their applications, local law enforcement officials frequently justified the purchase of Flock cameras by claiming they would capture casino traffic. Many communities placed the cameras near highways leading to gambling facilities or several miles away. Critics, however, note that the technology does not distinguish between casino traffic and general public movement. The data collected is stored in a database searchable by police in other communities and, in some cases, other states, effectively creating a state-wide surveillance net.
Agawam, which borders Springfield and its MGM casino, illustrates the disconnect between public perception and the deployment of these tools. When Agawam applied for mitigation money in 2025, Flock cameras were not part of the original request. They were added later through an amended application. The town’s justification cited increased traffic and a specific claim that parents were dropping children off at the nearby Six Flags New England amusement park before heading to the casino. Councilwoman Christine Rickmon, who joined the council in January, said she was unaware of the cameras until residents began posting about them on social media.
“People here feel betrayed by the police and town hall because there was no conversation about this until it was already here,” Rickmon said. During a contentious hearing in June, Rickmon questioned Police Chief Eric Gillis about the amended application. Gillis stated he was unaware the application had been changed to include the cameras. When pressed on the claim regarding parents leaving children at Six Flags to gamble, Gillis acknowledged that police had no recorded data linking parents’ movements to the casino, suggesting the claim likely stemmed from officers’ past encounters. “There’s no actual proof that people were dropping their children off at Six Flags and going to the casino,” Rickmon said. “That claim is wild. Why didn’t anybody look into it?”
The Agawam case is not an isolated incident. Most of the communities that purchased license plate readers with mitigation funds are located near MGM Springfield in western Massachusetts, including Chicopee, East Longmeadow, Ludlow, and Wilbraham. Others are near Plainridge Park Casino or the Encore Boston Harbor in Everett. Gideon Epstein, policy counsel at the ACLU of Massachusetts, described the situation as a systemic issue. “The broader problem that we’re seeing across the state is deployments of Flock cameras and license plate readers and other surveillance tools without thorough consideration of whether communities actually want these tools,” Epstein said.
The lack of transparency is partly structural. While police equipment purchases from a town’s regular budget usually require approval from local council members, money from outside sources like casino mitigation grants or civil forfeiture funds does not always follow the same procedural safeguards. Grant awards can be approved as a lump sum, allowing local officials to allocate funds for specific technologies without a detailed public debate on each line item. In Ludlow, for example, a five-year Flock contract was approved by voters in May 2024 for the town’s overall spending budget. This measure allowed the police department to pay for cameras through its budget or grants. Ludlow Police Chief Michael Brennan told WBUR that the cameras have become “a source of national controversy,” but he maintained that they are an effective investigative tool. According to the website Have I Been Flocked, which aggregates public records, law enforcement has conducted 30,000 searches of license plates on Ludlow’s cameras in recent years.
Critics point to documented instances of misuse, including police officers using the technology to track former romantic partners. The ACLU of Massachusetts found that nearly 90 police departments were contracting with Flock or other ALPR companies as of last summer. In response to growing scrutiny, more than 30 communities have since canceled or suspended their license plate reader contracts. Among them is North Attleborough, which had purchased Flock cameras through a mitigation grant.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has generally deferred questions about specific community choices to the towns themselves. However, at least one commissioner has registered concern. In June, the commission voted 4-1 to allow Ludlow to shift $35,000 from an earlier grant to pay for a Flock service contract. Commissioner Eileen O’Brien cast the lone dissenting vote, citing “issues with Flock.” As the state continues to expand its casino footprint, the tension between local policing priorities and civil liberties remains unresolved, with the next major political development likely to hinge on whether state legislators intervene to impose uniform oversight on grant-funded surveillance technologies.
