Buncombe County

Where it stands

expanding; no published audit. On Oct 6, 2026 commissioners removed a $290,000 forfeiture-fund request for the FY27 FUSUS/Axon contract and a camera project from their agenda, with no reason stated; next check the Oct 20 agenda, due Oct 14

The systems

• Fusus (Axon). The sheriff's network: about 2,000 cameras, about 1,500 of them in schools, and 20 or more plate readers; five-year retention; no published audit. The county released 28 months of the access log in May 2026. On Oct 6, 2026, on Commissioner Drew Ball's motion, commissioners removed from their agenda a $290,000 budget amendment from the forfeiture fund for the 'FY27 FUSUS/Axon Contract' and a 'Camera Project at IGrant'; the request can return.Buncombe County Sheriff's Office Fusus access log, 2024 to 2026

Next

• Tuesday, October 20, 5:00 PM: Buncombe County Board of Commissioners. Agenda not yet posted.

Asheville’s RTIC plugs into the county sheriff’s system. This page is built from the Sheriff’s Office’s published policy manual, federal forfeiture tables, county and housing-authority documents, and local reporting. The legal question underneath it, what the county commission can and cannot do about a sheriff’s cameras, has its own page: What the Law Lets the County Do.

Timeline

Who decides here

Sheriff Quentin Miller (on the ballot vs Gary Parris) · Amanda Edwards and the Board of Commissioners (fund it) · Avril Pinder and Melissa Moore (sign for it) · the Board of Education (controls the school cameras) · Ella Santos and the housing authority (the 500 housing cameras). Full roster: Buncombe County; the city’s deciders: Asheville.

Links of note

• BCSO Policy Manual on PowerDMS: 131 public policies, including the three that govern the cameras (archived copies below)
• BCSO RTIC page: “initially funded by Forfeiture-Dollars and not tax dollars”; free camera registry
• June 2022 RTIC presentation deck (PDF): the sheriff’s own “revenue opportunity” pitch
• DOJ equitable sharing payments by agency: the federal forfeiture money, year by year
• Citizen Times via Yahoo: the 2,000-camera network exposé (June 2022)
• WLOS: RTIC and commissioners coverage
• The 74 Million: ICE tapping school camera networks elsewhere
• SeeGov: machine transcripts of school-board meetings

The sheriff’s own rulebook

The Sheriff’s Office publishes its policy manual on PowerDMS, and three policies govern the cameras. Asheville’s Policy 1703 copies language from them.

Policy 217: Real Time Intelligence Center (effective April 9, 2025)

Public link · archived copy. Approved by Sheriff Miller on April 9, 2025, which means the center ran for roughly three years with no written policy at all.

• It is a monitoring center, in its own words. “The RTIC also conducts proactive monitoring of available resources to aid in the prevention of crime.” Technicians “will conduct proactive monitoring of available technological resources” and, “based on crime trends or active crime series,” “may monitor relevant cameras for suspicious or related activity.”
• Crowds are a stated use. Under “Public Events and Large Crowds” (sporting events, street festivals, outdoor concerts), the RTIC “will utilize available technological resources near relevant events to look for suspicious activity leading up to and during the event.” That is the exact language Asheville’s June 25 draft contained and APD deleted from the final version of Policy 1703. The county never deleted it.
• The data sources, listed. The platform “pulls together data and video from several other sources and systems,” which “include Video Management Systems, ALPR systems, CAD, offender monitoring, and criminal justice databases.” Fusus components named: fususOne, fususOPS, fususALERT, fususREGISTRY, fususTIPS, fususVAULT, and the fususCORE appliance.
• Cameras that move. The RTIC houses and deploys “rapid deployment cameras to assist in locations not otherwise discovered by static resources,” and technicians scout “opportune locations for potential placement.”
• The sharing limit is one sentence, and it is the sentence Asheville copied: information “shall not be disclosed to any unauthorized person or entity, except as permitted by law or with a compelling need to share such information for legitimate law enforcement purposes.” APD’s Policy 1703.3.C uses those words verbatim. Nothing in either policy mentions federal agencies, immigration enforcement, or out-of-state requests.
• What APD deleted, the county kept. Technicians “will manually review vehicle data entered in the BCSO ALPR system(s) at least once per shift and remove any information found to no longer be relevant.” APD removed its once-per-shift hot-list review between the June 29 and July 9 drafts.
• No retention period, no public reporting, no external review. Evidence is retained “per N.C.G.S. 132-1.4A, federal and state laws, and BCSO policy,” with no number. There is no audit clause in this policy at all; that lives in Policy 402.

Policy 402: License Plate Reader (effective March 22, 2023)

Public link · archived copy. This is the written policy G.S. 20-183.31 requires.

• Who gets the data. Plate data “may be shared with other Criminal Justice Agencies for the purposes of conducting ongoing or continuing criminal investigations and for the purposes of active criminal intelligence operations.” Any criminal justice agency, for intelligence, with no geographic or federal limit. The only condition is that the recipient “be informed of the privacy restrictions and retention schedules” in state law.
• What goes on the hot list. Beyond stolen cars and warrants: “Gang and terrorist watch lists,” and manual entries for “Authorized Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office intelligence projects or programs.” The policy does not define an intelligence project.
• The audit, and the committee. “An annual audit of equipment performance and all access to data … will be conducted by the FUSUS Coordinator or designee, along with sworn members of the FUSUS Advisory Committee.” In June 2022 Sheriff Miller told the Citizen Times, “We’re the only sheriff’s office in the state that has an advisory board … we want the community to be a part of this growth.” In his own policy, the committee’s auditing members are sworn deputies. No membership, charter, minutes, or audit result has ever been published. State law requires the audit report to exist (G.S. 20-183.31(a)(7)); request 16 asks for it.
• Ownership. “All data captured, stored, generated, or otherwise produced by a LPR system employed by the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office is the property of the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office, regardless of where the data is housed or stored.” Useful language if the county ever wants to argue the data is not Axon’s.
• Retention defers entirely to the statute’s 90-day ceiling; the policy sets no shorter number. APD’s is 30 days.
• Where the county’s deputies can look. Buncombe County SO, Asheville PD, UNC Asheville PD, Black Mountain PD, and Biltmore Forest PD all appear on Henderson County’s published list of 2,048 agencies granted access to Henderson’s plate reads (Aug 22, 2026). The reverse list, who can search Buncombe’s reads, is not published anywhere.
• What it does not mention: Flock. The Citizen Times reported 59 people at the Sheriff’s Office authorized to run Flock searches; this policy covers the Fusus-integrated readers and says nothing about third-party search platforms or national lookup.

Policy 403: Unmanned Aerial Systems (effective April 17, 2023; revised August 15, 2026)

Public link · archived copy. The August 2026 revision, made one week before this page was updated, adds a “Drone as a First Responder” (DFR) program: drones launched from “a central location” under an FAA beyond-visual-line-of-sight waiver, “including operating over persons and moving vehicles.” Livestreams from DFR flights “will be conducted through DFR partner software”; the partner is not named. The policy says drones “will not be used to conduct random surveillance activities,” requires a warrant to look into structures or use thermal imaging on them, and sets a privacy rule for DFR flights (camera “on the horizon and not pointed downward until arrival”). Oversight is “random audits” by the program coordinator; retention defers to “established records retention schedules” with no number. APD runs roughly two dozen drones of its own (What Is the RTIC); a county DFR program means a second fleet over the same city.

The ICE directive

The Sheriff’s Office also publishes its HB 10 directive (archived), the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association summary of the 2024 law requiring jails to honor ICE detainers for 48 hours. It governs jail holds only. Nothing in the published manual addresses whether camera or plate data can be shared with federal immigration agencies; the sharing clauses above would allow it. Who Gets Watched

Follow the forfeiture money

The sheriff’s website says the RTIC was “initially funded by Forfeiture-Dollars and not tax dollars.” North Carolina’s constitution sends state forfeiture proceeds to the schools, so “forfeiture dollars” in a sheriff’s hands means the federal equitable sharing program, where local agencies receive a cut of federal seizures. The Department of Justice publishes what it paid, by agency and federal fiscal year:

About $988,000 in eight reported years (FY2018’s table was not located), with the biggest payments in 2022 through 2024, the RTIC’s build-out years. First, “not tax dollars” is true only of this slice; the commission still voted $130,000 for the facility in 2022. Second, the money enters the county outside the annual budget debate: the FY2026 county budget summary lists the sheriff’s technology requests as courthouse and detention cameras and contains no RTIC line at all (FY2026 budget in brief). It reaches the board instead as mid-year budget amendments to the forfeiture fund, voted on as agenda items (April 2, 2024 and Oct 6, 2026; below). Third, the federal program has its own paper trail: every participating agency files an annual Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification, signed by the agency head and by the head of the governing body that controls its budget, certifying how the money was spent (DOJ Guide to Equitable Sharing). That certification is a public record nobody has asked for. Request 16 does. The legal leverage in that signature: What the Law Lets the County Do.

The Oct 6, 2026 forfeiture request

The county posted the request on Sept 30, 2026, in the Oct 6 agenda packet: a budget amendment to appropriate $290,000 of the Sheriff’s Office forfeiture fund balance (Fund 270) for “FY27 spending needs,” covering the “FY27 FUSUS/Axon Contract” and a “Camera Project at IGrant.” The county’s budget director was listed as presenter (agenda and packet). The packet does not say how the $290,000 divides between the two, what or where IGrant is, or which agreement the FUSUS/Axon payment covers.

At the start of the Oct 6 meeting, Commissioner Drew Ball moved “that we remove agenda item number five under new business,” Vice-Chair Martin Moore seconded, and the board agreed by voice vote with no opposition heard (county video, 0:02:53). Commissioner Terri Wells was away. No reason was stated. A resident who had signed up to speak on the item was allowed to speak after it was removed (0:19:47).

The same fund has paid for surveillance equipment before. On April 2, 2024, the board approved $250,000 from it “to purchase surveillance equipment,” money from a 2010 equitable sharing case, 5 to 0, with no discussion recorded in the minutes (request, minutes). What the equipment was is not stated.

As of Oct 7, 2026 the request has not been placed on another agenda. Next check: the Oct 20 agenda, due by 5 PM Oct 14.

How the sheriff pitched it: “a revenue opportunity”

That’s how the Sheriff’s Office pitched the Real-Time Intelligence Center to county commissioners in its June 2022 presentation deck (the PDF): an enterprise fund, businesses paying $60/camera/year to join, partner organizations giving deputies camera access “only in the event of an emergency situation,” surveillance as a self-funding product line that “allows for future expansion without any cost to the tax payers.” The deck’s benefits slide promises “Artificial Intelligence Capabilities” that “enable smaller teams of law enforcement & security personnel to cover more ground.” Two commissioners pushed back at the time: Jasmine Beach-Ferrara raised “constitutional issues… regarding public resources being used essentially for surveillance,” and then-Chair Brownie Newman said the sheriff had described it to him as a schools program. Both are gone from the board; no commissioner since has questioned it on the record. The commission approved $130,000 for the RTIC facility (July 2022) and the Sheriff signed the five-year, $2.4M Axon contract (2023); whether that contract ever received its own commission vote is unestablished, and a payment labeled “FY27 FUSUS/Axon Contract” came to the board as a forfeiture-fund amendment on Oct 6, 2026 and was removed from the agenda; the enterprise fund’s financials have never been reported anywhere. (Citizen Times via Yahoo · WLOS)

The 2022 pitch and the 2025 policy differ. The “emergency only” pitch of 2022 became, in the 2025 policy, “proactive monitoring” and crowd-watching at festivals. And the paying-business base never materialized: in September 2023 the network had “fewer than 15” cameras in private downtown businesses (Citizen Times via Yahoo). The cameras that make up the network are the ones that were already there, in schools and public housing, as the sheriff’s investigations administrator said in 2022: “99.9% of cameras that come on the system, they’re already there.”

The 1,500 school cameras

Buncombe County Schools became the first WNC district on Fusus in late 2021, via a memorandum of understanding with the Sheriff’s Office. Roughly 1,500 cameras across 43 schools feed the network; the district says it controls when deputies get access, and the Sheriff’s Office says the program has “an audit trail.” (WLOS) What we cannot find: any public school-board vote on the MOU, the MOU’s text, any parent-notification record, or any board policy governing it, and no board agenda has revisited camera access since national reporting showed ICE tapping school camera networks elsewhere. (Sheriff Miller has publicly barred ICE from schools without a court order, a personal commitment, not a policy that survives him; he’s on the November ballot, and so are three school-board seats.) These are the region’s premier records-request targets.

Asheville City Schools is in the same position on the city side: WLOS reports APD’s RTIC “already uses camera footage from systems operated by partners such as Asheville City Schools” (WLOS); we have found no ACS board vote or agreement either.

The sheriff’s log, released in May 2026, shows deputies viewed school cameras live 65,678 times across 51 sites in 28 months, against 942 recorded views (Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office Fusus access log, 2024 to 2026).

The towns

Black Mountain approved 5 Flock cameras in 2022 and, per its police department, “has not added any since” (828newsnow); Biltmore Forest runs plate readers documented only in town minutes and records: the town’s minutes reference 13 cameras, while EFF records released in September 2025 list 2 Flock readers for the Biltmore Forest Police Department (Are You Flocked?). The two figures may count different things; the town publishes no video and has had zero press coverage. Woodfin, Weaverville, and Montreat show no camera programs (unconfirmed negatives). DeFlock’s running count puts 77 plate readers in Buncombe County across all agencies.

Video for the pipeline: county commissioners and school board are on YouTube (the school board is even machine-transcribed by SeeGov); Biltmore Forest publishes no video at all.

What the sheriff’s own audit log shows (2024 to 2026)

A public records request produced 28 months of the Sheriff’s Office’s Fusus access log in May 2026: 337,838 entries, 318 accounts. Fifty-eight percent of camera viewing was on public housing cameras, 30 percent on school cameras, and 95 to 99 percent of it was live watching rather than recorded playback; three accounts did half of all viewing; plate searches numbered 309 in the whole period. Policy 217’s “proactive monitoring” is, by the numbers, what the center does. The county withheld the date and time of every entry under G.S. 132-1.4. The full analysis: Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office Fusus access log, 2024 to 2026.

What the city’s chief said about the county (August 2026)

Jackie Stepp’s August 14, 2026 memo to city council, public since August 21, answers two questions this page had left open and raises a third (memo). It counts 86 Flock cameras deployed throughout Buncombe County, including 11 owned by the City of Asheville, which puts roughly 75 Flock readers in the county outside APD’s control (the sheriff’s, the towns’, the university’s, and private ones). It says plainly that “BCSO currently uses Flock ALPR cameras,” which the sheriff’s own Policy 402 never names. And it says APD is “evaluating consolidating the BCSO RTIC into the APD RTIC”: one center, two agencies, and no public body has discussed it.

What we still cannot find

The executed Axon and Fusus contracts and whether commissioners voted on them; the enterprise fund’s revenue and the number of paying cameras; the FUSUS Advisory Committee’s membership and any audit it has produced; the schools MOU; the DFR drone partner; the 2022 MOU with Asheville; any current-year count of cameras by category; what the “Camera Project at IGrant” is; the size of the FY27 FUSUS/Axon payment and which agreement it pays; and what the $250,000 of “surveillance equipment” approved April 2, 2024 bought. Every one of these is a records request: Records Center.

Related: What the Law Lets the County Do · Western North Carolina and the state · Quentin Miller · Follow the Money · Documents

Last verified: September 8, 2026