Residents asked for the police drone policy in August. On October 13 a council member asked for it again. Council approved five more years of Axon drone software 4 to 1 without it. Here is what happened, who stood where, how the concerns got talked down, and what the record actually shows.
The Axon agreement came back. This is the item residents pulled off the consent agenda in August: DroneSense software for the drones APD already flies, plus an interview room camera system, all in one contract. The Public Safety Committee, which is two people, Mayor Gilbert and Council Member Ed Gray, recommended approval.
The term got longer, not shorter. In August the agreement ran to June 30, 2030. On the night of the vote the town attorney said Axon had sent a new quote that same day, starting November 1, for five years. Nobody objected to the extra year and a half.
Arno Zegerman made the motion. He also asked for a termination for convenience clause so the town is not locked into five years, but only “if it is at all possible.” That is not a requirement. Nobody has said whether it is in the signed contract.
On ALPR, the committee report gave us a date. Mayor Gilbert said “no recommendation was made regarding the continuation or discontinuation of the program.” Staff will report on effectiveness, data access, retention and safeguards. The discussion returns December 3.
In August residents asked for the drone use policy before any vote. Sue Mu pulled the contract so Council could hear about “the technology and its safeguards before the town moves forward.” The Chief told the News & Observer the program runs under a “robust policy.” The N&O asked for a copy and did not get one.
Two months later the contract came back from committee. The policy did not.
On October 13 Mahaffey asked again. Nobody could produce it. Reese said the urgency “should be matched with comprehensive reporting.” Gray’s answer was to send the policy question back to the Public Safety Committee, his committee, and vote on the contract that night. Council did exactly that.
“The urgency should be matched with comprehensive reporting.” Said anything going to the public “should be airtight” and that was what he sought “before I vote to approve anything.” Asked twice when the current contract ends. Said Axon has “woven their tentacles” through town systems. The only no vote.
Called the concerns a proxy for “larger issues, privacy issues.” Asked whether APD has a policy on when and where drones fly, and said that without being able to read it, “imaginations run wild.” Then voted for the contract without the policy.
Asked whether Council was “fully aware” the drones are not used for surveillance. Gray answered with a question, “what do you mean by surveillance?”, and moved on. She pulled this same contract in August to hear about safeguards. Those safeguards were never presented.
Called the software “an efficiency tool, not a new drone or surveillance program” and said “we are not here tonight to debate the use of the drone program.” Also the only member to ask for a way out of the five years. His seat is on the November 2027 ballot.
Led the case for the contract. Claimed a “critical gap” if it did not pass that night. Said residents could look up whether a drone is APD’s. Proposed sending the policy question to his own committee after the vote. Says he has not made up his mind on ALPR.
Co-signed the Axon recommendation and told Council it “had no relationship with the ALPR discussion.” Said the ALPR goal is balancing public safety with “privacy, transparency, and public trust.” Asked staff to look at livestreaming or recording Council committee meetings, which would close the biggest transparency gap in this process.
Gray has spoken in support of ALPR technology. On the drone contract he did more than disagree. He minimized the concerns by arguing against positions nobody in the room took.
That is the method. Take the real concern, swap in a weaker one, knock it down, and call the vote routine. We do not claim to know why. The transcript shows that he did.
DroneSense is pilot and fleet management software for the department: live streaming, flight logging, evidence storage. We found no resident-facing portal in its product material. Cities that offer public drone lookups, like Chula Vista, Wichita and Overland Park, bought or built them separately and announced them. The Chief described DroneSense to the N&O as live footage for officers and better tracking of flight data “police otherwise record manually.”
It lets APD know, if APD looks. A flight log inside Axon’s system is an internal record. Residents see it only if the town publishes it or someone files a records request.
The aircraft are not new. The capability is. The Chief told the N&O DroneSense lets officers at a scene receive live drone footage. Per the N&O, the town also budgeted $147,500 in fiscal 2025 to 2026 to start a “Drone as First Responder” program, and DroneSense is the software that kind of program runs on. Axon’s product guide says it plugs into Axon Fusus, its real time crime center platform, and Skydio has demonstrated a plate reader hit automatically sending a drone through that integration.
The contract has no plate readers in it. But in June the Chief told Council Axon is entering the plate reader market, as officials discussed alternatives to Flock. The platform this software feeds can combine plate reader hits with live drone video.
G.S. 15A-211 requires recording custodial interrogations of juveniles, and of anyone in a felony investigation, at a place of detention. That is real, and nobody opposes it. But the law requires recording, not this vendor, and APD must be meeting it today. The interview room system was priced at about $73,758 and DroneSense at $42,740, per town documents reported by the N&O.
Maybe so. Zegerman said flight paths are recorded manually today. Manual flight logs are public records. We are requesting them, and you can too.
North Carolina’s drone law, G.S. 15A-300.1, limits police drone surveillance of homes. But its exceptions include plain view, “reasonable suspicion” of urgent need, and photographing public gatherings. Those are wide. A local policy is what decides how wide in practice, and nobody voting on October 13 had read Apex’s.
Council has five votes. The mayor votes only to break a tie. Three votes end the Flock contract. Mahaffey and Reese are on record for removal. We count Gray as a likely vote to keep ALPR until he says otherwise. That leaves Sue Mu and Arno Zegerman, and either one makes three.
Sue Mu pulled this contract in August and said Apex may need guidance for “consistency and transparency” on police technology. Ask her to request the drone policy and the signed contract, to bring forward the transparency rule she floated, and to end Flock in December with no replacement vendor. Write to her like a neighbor. She earned that in August.
Arno Zegerman was the only member who asked for a way out of the five years. Ask him whether his termination clause made it into the signed contract, and to apply the same standard to Flock: no renewal and no replacement vendor while the review is open. His seat is on the November 2027 ballot.
Gray says he has not made up his mind and wants a dialogue. Show up calm, prepared and specific. Ask him to publish the drone policy before December 3, show where the public drone lookup is, and commit to a recorded Council vote on ALPR.