Tennessee HOA Tries To Ban Security Cameras, but Residents Protest

Residents of a Tennessee community are up in arms over the decision by its homeowners association to ban the use of security cameras in the community.

Homeowners in the Bent Creek Townhomes community in Nolensville, TN, are pushing back against a newly announced homeowners association policy that strictly prohibits exterior-mounted security cameras, except for doorbell cameras.

Under rules approved by the Bent Creek Townhomes HOA board, residents have a one-month window to remove unauthorized cameras or face financial penalties

A letter from the HOA noted that “the intent of this policy is to allow homeowners the ability to use a doorbell camera for security purposes while maintaining consistent architectural standards and protecting the privacy of neighboring residents.

It clarifies that the doorbell camera “may not be directed or positioned primarily toward another homeowner's residence, private areas, or other areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.”

The board has argued that the restrictions are meant to maintain architectural uniformity across townhome exteriors, but some residents have raised concerns about how the camera ban will affect neighborhood safety.

The decree came just weeks after the Nolensville Police Department posted a request on Facebook asking them to review their security camera footage as a part of a stolen vehicle and aggravated assault investigation.

Homeowners have until Oct. 23 to take the cameras down, but at least one resident says he's planning to keep his camera up to see how the HOA responds.

Bobby Blevins has lived in Bent Creek for 12 years, and says that his garage-mounted camera is meant to monitor package deliveries.

“If anybody walked away with a package from Amazon, I would still have them on camera,” Blevins told WZTV. “So maybe the police could find them.”

Jonathan Gropper, the founder of verified governance and electronic voting platform TrueHOA, says he could see how this type of ordinance could lead to trouble down the road because homeowners weren't able to vote on it.

"You should make a decision that represents the wishes of the community," Gropper tells Realtor.com®. "You wanna have these cameras? Make a decision. It's a community."

Gropper says disputes between residents and HOAs cost homeowners millions each year, but clear HOA communication and governance can help prevent them.

"It always comes back to transparency and accountability," he says.

Ghertner, the company that manages the HOA, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The HOA's order comes as the public debates the use of security cameras and questions whether they promote safety or surveillance.

Flock cameras, in particular, have come under fire. The devices are automated license plate readers (ALPRs) meant to track and record the movement of cars and humans in particular areas. In recent years, the solar-powered cameras have become ubiquitous. They continuously log the movement of people and cars in their vicinity, and local police have been criticized for using—and misusing—captured footage. By its own measure, Flock operates in more than 6,000 communities across 49 states, with around 120,000 cameras placed nationwide.

They've become particularly popular among HOAs, because Flock markets itself as a low-cost way to deter crime and prevent illegal dumping, theft, and trespassing. Around 200 or so HOAs currently have contracts with the firm.

The ACLU criticized the company for a lack of transparency, oversight, and regulation around how it uses collected data. It's not simply that Flock cameras record neighborhood goings-on—it's that the information from these cameras is logged in a searchable database, and there are concerns that this data capture violates the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits illegal search and seizure.

A June 2026 Supreme Court case on the police use of cell phone data to track

In June, the Supreme Court ruled on Chatrie v. United States, which addressed whether police were entitled to access cell phone data and location history through a tech company without a warrant. The court ruled 6-3 that such searches violated the Fourth Amendment.

Privacy advocates believe this case sets a precedent for a similar ruling around ALPRs. But even without a legal challenge to their use, more than 200 cities and towns have already canceled their contracts with Flock, including Tempe, AZ; Pflugerville, TX; and Lansing, MI.