Police have held innocent drivers at gunpoint, handcuffed a 12-year-old, and tracked ex-partners with automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems.[1][2] In three Colorado cases documented below, the flag came from the state crime database that feeds the alert list, where a court clerk and two police departments had entered plate data that pointed at the wrong vehicle; one of those entries sat uncorrected for nearly two years.[3][4] The documented incidents fall into false positives and system failures, where the system flagged the wrong vehicle or the wrong person, and misuse by officers with account access; the sections after those answer the arguments most often raised in favor of these deployments.
False positives and system failures
Automated surveillance systems generate false positives in which innocent individuals are subjected to armed police responses based on system errors.
Baltimore County gun detection false alarm
In October 2025, an AI-powered gun detection system at Kenwood High School in Baltimore County misidentified a student's snack food as a firearm, triggering an armed police response. Taki Allen was sitting outside the school with friends eating Doritos when officers with drawn weapons approached him.
They made me get on my knees, put my hands behind my back, and cuffed me[5]
Allen was forced to his knees, handcuffed, and searched before officers realized he was unarmed. Allen described watching about eight police cars arrive, with officers pointing guns at him.
The first thing I was wondering was, was I about to die? Because they had a gun pointed at me.[5]
When shown the image that triggered the alert, Allen explained:
I was just holding a Doritos bag, it was two hands and one finger out, and they said it looked like a gun.[5]
High schools in Baltimore County have used the AI gun detection system since 2023, using existing school cameras to scan for potential weapons. The system is operated by Omnilert, which uses existing school cameras to scan for potential weapons. The principal said the school district's security department reviewed & canceled the gun detection alert after confirming there was no weapon. A school official acknowledged "how upsetting this was for the individual that was searched as well as the other students who witnessed the incident."[5]
Baltimore County Councilman Izzy Patoka called for a review of the system, stating: No child in our school system should be accosted by police for eating a bag of Doritos.[5] Omnilert defended its system, claiming it functioned as intended: to prioritize safety and awareness through rapid human verification, though the incident demonstrated the system escalated to armed police response before adequate human review occurred.[5]
Wrongful stops and detentions from ALPR alerts
ALPR systems generate false alerts that result in innocent individuals being held at gunpoint during high-risk traffic stops.
Brian Hofer Thanksgiving incident
In 2018, privacy advocate Brian Hofer and his younger brother were driving to visit their parents for Thanksgiving when they were held at gunpoint by law enforcement officers. Hofer's vehicle had been incorrectly flagged as stolen by an ALPR system, triggering an armed police response.
Your life definitely is different after you have guns pointed at you.[1]
Hofer, now executive director of Secure Justice, an organization that aims to reduce government and corporate overreach, advocates for manual verification of ALPR "hits" before armed responses. He notes that even with verification procedures, data errors in databases can cause plates to match incorrect entries.[1]
CBS News verified over a dozen similar cases during a six-month investigation into incidents of wrongful stops and ALPR technology abuse, finding that consequences range from erroneous toll charges to armed detentions of innocent people.[1]
Española, New Mexico child detentions
In Española, New Mexico, ALPR misreads resulted in two separate armed detentions of minors within one month. In one incident, a 12-year-old was handcuffed after an ALPR camera misread the last digit of a license plate on a vehicle driven by her older sister, interpreting a "2" as a "7," according to a lawsuit filed against the city.[1]
One month later in a separate incident, a 17-year-old honors student was held at gunpoint on his way home from school after officers mistook his vehicle for one associated with an individual sought in connection with a string of armed robberies.[1]
Aurora, Colorado family detained on hot pavement
In Aurora, Colorado in 2020, a mother and her family, including her 6-year-old daughter, were pulled over at gunpoint and forced to lie face down on hot pavement due to an ALPR error. Police mistakenly flagged their Colorado license plate as matching a completely different vehicle from a different state, a stolen motorcycle registered in Montana.[1]
The incident, captured on video and widely condemned, led to a $1.9 million settlement from the city in 2024.[1]
Cherry Hills Village, Colorado: repeat stops from hotlist data entry error
According to 9News reporter Spencer Soicher, Kyle Dausman, who was driving through Cherry Hills Village, was pulled over twice by the Cherry Hills Village Police Department after a Flock Safety camera generated a wanted-person alert tied to a Colorado Crime Information Center hotlist entry. Dausman told 9News, I continually get pulled over. Cherry Hills Village Police Chief Jason Lyons attributed the underlying error to a Gilpin County court data-entry mistake, with Colorado license plates using both the letter "O" and the numeral "0".[3]
Lyons said the cameras themselves alerted as designed, telling 9News that The Flock cameras did alert to his license plate being associated to a warrant. The Colorado State Patrol told the station that a court clerk had provided the incorrect plate information to the Colorado Crime Information Center, which supplied the information used on the Flock hotlist, and that because Gilpin County issued the underlying failure-to-appear warrant, only Gilpin County can fix it.[3]
During the first stop, Dausman told 9News that officers "zipped out of nowhere and immediately got behind me with the lights flashing," and he described feeling his safety was at risk. He was released at the scene once officers determined he was not the wanted suspect. A few days later the same department stopped him again on the same alert before recognizing him and releasing him. Chief Lyons said the department then suppressed the alert in its local Flock system, but stated that the agency cannot remove the underlying entry from the wider hotlist. Dausman summarized the burden this left him with: Once you're in the Flock system, it's on you to get out.[3][6]
Superior and Evergreen, Colorado: two more drivers wrongly listed
Two more Coloradans came forward after the Dausman story aired, and 9News reported both cases on April 30, 2026.[4]
Sarah Judson, 76, who was driving to Superior to see her grandchildren at her daughter's house, was flagged in December 2025 as matching a stolen vehicle out of Colorado Springs, and two Boulder County Sheriff's Office deputies stopped her near a roundabout; about two weeks later a deputy waited behind her car in a restaurant parking lot. The Boulder County Sheriff's Office confirmed that Colorado Springs Police had entered two versions of her plate into the statewide stolen vehicle database, one with the letter "O" and one with the numeral "0", and that her plate matched one of them. After 9News contacted Colorado Springs Police, the department fixed the entry the same day. A department spokesperson said the mistake was 100% human error, on our part.[4]
Katie Rothman's 2019 Subaru Forester was blocked in a parking lot by Jefferson County Sheriff's Office deputies on August 31, 2025 after a Flock alert tied to a stolen vehicle report from Aurora Police. Aurora Police confirmed that in 2023 her plate had been entered into the Colorado Crime Information Center database instead of the actual stolen vehicle's plate, a numeral "1" typed where the letter "I" belonged, and that the entry sat in the system for nearly two years. The department told 9News, The license plate was similar and was entered into the system with a typographical error. Rothman called Aurora Police herself in September 2025 and the entry was corrected the same day.[4]
By April 30, 2026, all three drivers had been removed from the hotlist. 9News reported that in each of the three cases the wrongful flag was placed into the statewide database by a law enforcement agency that either entered both versions of an ambiguous plate character or made a typographical error, that the fix came only after the driver or the newsroom pushed the originating agency directly, and that no internal process caught the error.[4]
Columbine Valley, Colorado: sergeant refused to examine exculpatory dashcam footage
On September 27, 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sergeant Jamie Milliman went to the Denver home of Chrisanna Elser to serve a court summons accusing her of stealing a package valued at $25 or less from a porch in neighboring Bow Mar on September 22, 2025. Milliman cited Bow Mar's Flock Safety ALPR network, which had logged Elser's green Rivian truck passing through the town between 11:52 a.m. and 12:09 p.m. on the day of the theft.[7]
Ring doorbell footage of the encounter, reviewed by The Colorado Sun, recorded Milliman refusing to view Elser's Rivian dashboard camera footage, which she offered as proof that her vehicle never stopped in Bow Mar. Milliman told her, "If you are going to deny it to me, I am not going to help you with any courtesy."[7][8]
Elser then assembled a digital alibi using her Rivian's onboard cameras, the vehicle's GPS log, and surveillance footage from a tailor shop she was visiting at the time of the theft. She located the actual theft video on NextDoor, which showed a different person who never entered a truck. After she submitted the evidence, the summons was voided.[7][8]
On November 11, 2025, Columbine Valley Town Administrator J.D. McCrumb told Denverite that "appropriate disciplinary action will be applied to the officer involved" after the department's review of the encounter. Elser said the department never issued her a formal apology.[9] Elser later testified before the Colorado General Assembly in support of Senate Bill 70, which would require a warrant for police access to historical ALPR data.[10] On April 30, 2026, 9News reported that an effort to require a warrant to search a location tracking database like Flock had failed in the Colorado legislature this week.[4]
Colwich, Kansas: duplicate plate numbers across plate designs
Matthew and Leah Spurlock's minivan carried a University of Kansas alumni plate numbered 7007. A stolen GMC pickup carried a temporary tag reading Kansas 7007, the same number on a different plate background. KAKE reported that the problem for Kansas drivers is that the state duplicates numbers across its plate designs, so one alphanumeric combination can appear on more than one plate.[11]
Colwich police and a Sedgwick County sheriff's car made the first stop, and Colwich police said the wrong plate type had been entered into the system. About a month later officers stopped the couple again outside a casino in Catoosa, Oklahoma. KAKE wrote that the Spurlocks described a pullover like none other in their lives with officers pointing drawn guns at them.[11]
Wichita Police Captain Casey Slaughter told KAKE that the reader cannot distinguish one plate design from another, saying of a disabled tag and a veteran's tag that it doesn't know the difference between those two. On what an alert is worth on its own, Slaughter said:
We can stop a car with reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Flock is more like the hunch.[11]
Once a plate has been listed as stolen, he said, There's really no other recourse, at this point, for anybody.[11]
Facial recognition false identification
Peppermill Casino facial recognition wrongful arrest
On September 17, 2023, Jason Killinger, a long-haul UPS truck driver, was wrongfully arrested at the Peppermill Casino in Reno, Nevada. Killinger entered the Peppermill Casino during a work trip. Casino security detained him based on a facial recognition alert identifying him as Michael Ellis, who had been issued a six-month trespass ban in March 2023 for sleeping on the premises.[12][13] Ellis's ban was set to expire on September 26, 2023, nine days after the arrest.[12] The AI system reportedly indicated a "100% match" in spite of large physical differences between the two men.[14]
Killinger showed the casino several forms of identification to prove his identity. This included his Nevada driver's license, a UPS payslip from his employer, and his vehicle registration.[12] All of these documents matched his true identity. According to his subsequent lawsuit, Killinger protested that he was not Ellis, but casino security did not believe him and called the police.[13]
Released police records and driver's license images showed the two men differed in height by four inches and had different eye colors (blue vs. hazel), differences the facial recognition system failed to account for:[12]
| Characteristic | Jason Killinger | Michael Ellis |
|---|---|---|
| Height | Four inches taller than Ellis[15] | |
| Eye color | Blue | Hazel |
In his police report, Officer Richard Jager dismissed the eye color discrepancy, writing that blue and hazel eyes are by their very nature similar eye colors and are dependent upon lighting.[12] The report also noted that Ellis had larger ears than Killinger.[12]
Officer Jager arrived at the casino. According to Killinger's lawsuit, he rejected the valid ID documents. Killinger alleges in court filings that Jager accused him of having a DMV hook-up to fabricate the documents.[12] In his police report, Jager wrote that Killinger had conflicting identification and that he lacked satisfactory evidence to reasonably assure me that he was who he claimed to be, despite all identification documents matching the name Jason Killinger.[12]
Bodycam footage released in late 2025 captured Jager stating:
"I have a feeling he's somehow making some fake identification or something."[16]
Jager handcuffed Killinger and transported him to the police station. Killinger was detained for about 11 hours before fingerprint analysis proved he was not Michael Ellis.[12]
Killinger has since settled a claim with the Peppermill Casino for an undisclosed amount.[17] His federal lawsuit against Officer Jager, Killinger v. Jager, Case No. 3:25-cv-00388-MMD-CSD, remains active in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.[18]
In a deposition reported in January 2026, Officer Jager acknowledged that the arrest never should have happened and stated that post-lawsuit training had clarified that facial recognition technology cannot serve as the sole basis for probable cause, but should instead be treated as an investigative lead only requiring further corroboration.[15] Following the deposition, Killinger's attorney moved to add the City of Reno as a defendant, arguing that Jager's testimony demonstrated systemic failure to train officers on the limitations of AI facial recognition technology.[15]
The lawsuit alleges that Jager's actions violated Killinger's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.[12] Killinger alleges that Jager failed to use the police department's own fingerprint technology in a timely manner and omitted the fingerprint exoneration from his official report.[12] He is seeking compensatory, special, and punitive damages; the lawsuit does not specify the amounts sought.[12] Discovery in the case has been extended to July 2026, with motions due by August 2026.[19]
Common ALPR error mechanisms
These incidents illustrate how ALPR systems generate misidentifications through multiple mechanisms:
- Plate misreads: OCR (optical character recognition) errors confuse similar characters (O/0, I/1, B/8, 2/7), causing the system to flag vehicles that match stolen vehicle databases or warrant lists.
- Cross-state confusion: Systems incorrectly match vehicles from different states or confuse vehicle types (such as matching car plates to motorcycle registrations).
- Cloned plates: Criminals using stolen or duplicated license plates create false associations between innocent vehicles and criminal activity.
- Stale data: Vehicles recovered from theft or resolved warrant cases remain in hot lists, triggering alerts on lawful owners.
Law enforcement misuse and stalking incidents
Documented cases show that law enforcement officers have misused ALPR systems, including Flock Safety cameras, to track individuals for personal, non-investigative purposes such as stalking romantic partners or civilians. These incidents have raised concerns about lack of internal oversight, auditing practices, and the concentration of surveillance power in individual user accounts.
In Menasha, Wisconsin, police officer Cristian Morales was charged in January 2026 with misconduct in office after prosecutors alleged he used the department's Flock ALPR system to track his ex-girlfriend. According to the criminal complaint, Morales tried to use the system five different times to search for his ex-partner's vehicle in October 2025. Court filings state that Morales acknowledged knowing the searches were improper and attributed them to desperation & a lack of judgment. He was placed on administrative leave, barred from accessing Flock systems, and released on a $10,000 cash bond pending further proceedings. A parallel civil filing seeking a temporary restraining order in a domestic abuse case was also lodged against Morales.[2]
The Menasha case is one in what has become a national pattern. In Kansas, Kechi Police Lieutenant Victor Heiar was arrested in October 2022 on charges of stalking and unlawful acts concerning computers after using Flock cameras to monitor his estranged wife's movements.[20] In a separate Kansas case, Sedgwick Police Chief Lee Nygaard admitted in 2024 to using Flock ALPR data 164 times to track his ex-girlfriend and her new partner, leading to his resignation and surrender of his law enforcement certification.[21]
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police officer Christopher Young was arrested in December 2023 for stalking his ex-fiancée using police databases.[22] Investigations by the Associated Press and others have found that such misuse often remains undetected until a victim files a complaint or an external audit occurs.[23]
CNN reported in July 2026 that Milwaukee officer Josue Ayala was found by internal affairs detectives to have secretly used Flock to learn the location of his romantic partner 124 times and that partner's ex 55 times, according to a February criminal complaint.[24] The detective who investigated him, Tehrangi Chapman, was later charged with felony misconduct in public office & misdemeanor misuse of a GPS device, after admitting to using Flock to track two people & to installing a GPS device on one person's vehicle.[24] CNN reported that officers using Flock had to write a brief explanation of the reason for conducting a search, but these explanations were vague, & that Ayala gave his reason as investigation while Chapman listed training & test.[24] CNN reported the incidents sit among at least two dozen cases in which officers resigned or were arrested for allegedly abusing Flock's automated license-plate reader system to stalk romantic interests, according to a tally from the Institute for Justice.[24] Flock chief executive Garrett Langley told CNN, This is such a powerful tool, we don't want to reduce the efficacy of the 99.99% of officers who go to work every single day and want to do good for their community.[24]
Atlanta News First reported in July 2026 that it identified at least 20 cases in Georgia in the past year in which officers faced discipline and/or criminal allegations tied to improper use of the Flock system.[25] One of them was Paige Forte, a supervisor at the Conyers Police Department real-time crime center, whom the Georgia Bureau of Investigation alleged had accessed the system for non-law enforcement purposes more than thirty times between April & July 2026.[26]
Flock has pointed to those same audit logs as the mechanism that catches misuse. Company spokesperson Paris Lewbel told Atlanta News First that Flock's audit tools have proven effective at enabling accountability, in many of the rare documented cases of misuse of our platform, it was our own audit logs that surfaced the issue.[25] The same reporting found that the logs had become less informative: Atlanta News First Investigates found that Flock has removed officer names from audit logs where outside agencies search a department's data, replacing the officer names with anonymized Flock ID numbers.[25] Lewbel attributed the change to activists using publicly released audit data to identify undercover officers, saying nearly 200 law enforcement leaders had raised the concern.[25]
Two Kansas prosecutions are documented by case number in a petition filed in Sedgwick County. Former Kechi police lieutenant Victor Heiar was found guilty of unlawful use of computers & stalking in State v. Heiar, Case No. 2022-CR-001620.[27] The Kansas Reflector reported he was sentenced to eighteen months on probation.[28] Former Bonner Springs detective Kyle Rector was charged with eighteen counts including stalking, unlawful use of computers, breach of privacy & official misconduct, in State v. Rector, Case No. WY-2026-CR-000309.[27]
Researchers and civil liberties organizations have documented audit findings and policy gaps in agency oversight of ALPR access. While vendors and agencies rely on access logs and written policies, audits have found that these safeguards have not consistently prevented or detected misuse.[29][30]
The Virginia State Crime Commission's 2025 survey found that despite statutory restrictions on sharing, twenty Virginia law enforcement agencies were still providing continuous access to out-of-state agencies and nine were providing continuous access to federal agencies. Town police departments and primary sheriff's offices accounted for the majority of non-compliant sharing.[31]
"No expectation of privacy in public"
A common objection to constitutional challenges of automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems is the argument that individuals have no expectation of privacy when in a public place. The Supreme Court of the United States has instead applied a reasonable expectation of privacy standard under the Fourth Amendment, set out in the decisions quoted below.
The "reasonable" standard in Fourth Amendment law
The Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," not all searches. The constitutional analysis turns on whether surveillance violates a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy." This considers the nature, scope, and how intrusive the government monitoring is.
In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the argument that venturing into public eliminates Fourth Amendment protection. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the government's access to 127 days of cell-site location data, tracking movements on public roads, achieved near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone's user.[32] The Court said,
A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere.[32]
Distinction between isolated observation and citywide surveillance systems
Opinions in the cases below draw a line between isolated police observation & large-scale automated tracking. In United States v. Jones (2012), Justice Sonia Sotomayor's influential concurrence explained that GPS tracking:
generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person's public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.[33]
She noted that automated surveillance:
evades the ordinary checks that constrain abusive law enforcement practices: limited police resources and community hostility.[33]
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court applied this reasoning to ALPR technology in Commonwealth v. McCarthy (2020), holding:
With enough cameras in enough locations, the historic location data from an ALPR system in Massachusetts would invade a reasonable expectation of privacy and would constitute a search for constitutional purposes.[34]
The court distinguished limited camera deployment from citywide networks, noting that widespread ALPR use would bring into question constitutional protections even though individual license plate observations would not.[34]
Mosaic theory
Commentators use the term mosaic theory for the idea that aggregating many individually innocuous observations can amount to a search. Justice Samuel Alito noted in his Jones concurrence that:
society's expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not; and indeed, in the main, simply could not; secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual's car for a very long period.[33]
In United States v. Knotts (1983), while holding that limited beeper (a radio-emitting surveillance device) tracking did not constitute a search, the Supreme Court wrote that if such dragnet type law enforcement practices as respondent envisions should eventually occur, there will be time enough then to determine whether different constitutional principles may be applicable.[35]
Litigation on citywide ALPR networks
Privacy advocates Lee Schmidt and Crystal Arrington challenged Norfolk's 176-camera Flock Safety ALPR network as unconstitutional. Federal judge Mark S. Davis initially denied a motion to dismiss the case in February 2025, finding that plaintiffs had stated a plausible Fourth Amendment claim. During discovery, it emerged that Schmidt's location was logged 526 times and Arrington's was logged 849 times between February and July 2025.[36]
However, on January 27, 2026, Judge Davis granted summary judgment in favor of the City, ruling that Norfolk's ALPR system did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In a 51-page opinion, Davis concluded that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the system was capable of tracking the entirety of a person's movements. The court found that although the cameras captured snapshots of daily life, they did not continuously track individuals or capture sufficient data to reconstruct whole routines, noting "sizable gaps" between photographs.[37][38]
Notably, Judge Davis cautioned that the constitutional analysis could change as ALPR technology expands. He wrote that ALPR surveillance could become too intrusive and run afoul of [constitutional privacy standards] at some point, but concluded that at least in Norfolk, Virginia, the answer is: not today.[37] The plaintiffs, represented by the Institute for Justice, announced their intention to appeal, with Schmidt stating he remained committed to fighting against what he described as "dragnet warrantless surveillance."[37][38]
Flock Safety's chief legal officer responded that the decision aligned with rulings by over 30 state and federal courts concluding that fixed-location ALPRs do not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.[38]
Legal scholars note that U.S. law enforcement scanned 2.5 billion license plates between 2016 and 2017, with 99.5% belonging to vehicles unassociated with criminal activity,[39] illustrating the dragnet nature of modern ALPR deployment that distinguishes it from traditional targeted surveillance methods.
Scale and the reasonableness analysis
Real-world deployments show the scale: Denver operates 111 cameras scanning approximately 2 million license plates monthly;[40] Norfolk's 176 cameras provide citywide coverage;[36] and Austin's system scanned approximately 75 million plates from March through December 2024.[41]
"It only reads license plates, not people"
A frequent defense of ALPR deployments is that the cameras photograph license plates, which are public and registered to vehicles rather than to people, so the systems track cars and not individuals.
Automatic license plate reader vendors have begun marketing sensors that tie the wireless devices a person carries to the vehicle's plate. Leonardo's ELSAG SignalTrace, a sensor add-on patented in 2024 and marketed from 2025, captures the identifiers that phones, earbuds, smartwatches, and other devices broadcast and correlates the devices that repeatedly travel with a vehicle into an "electronic fingerprint" tied to its plate.[42] Reporting on the product for 404 Media, Joseph Cox wrote that it:
would turn ALPR cameras from devices focused on tracking cars to ones that can more readily track the location of particular people.
Leonardo's own announcement framed the capability the same way. Jason Laquatra, general manager of Leonardo US Cyber and Security Solutions, said:
The future of LPR advancements is reliant on enhancing LPR data sets with additional information from various electronic devices to find the individuals police are looking for.
[44] The company says the system reads only publicly broadcast signals and "does not decrypt or capture the contents of the devices or their communications."[44] SignalTrace is made by Leonardo, not Flock. The June 2026 reporting described it as a capability cameras would soon carry rather than one any agency had yet deployed.[43][45]
"Cameras reduce crime"
A common argument for ALPR deployments is that the cameras reduce or deter crime, a rationale officials invoke to justify keeping them in service. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston extended the city's Flock Safety contract a second time in October 2025 through an administrative move that bypassed a City Council vote, an extension the city characterized as no-cost and running through March 31, 2026.[46]
Denver's city-run network went dark soon afterward. The Flock contract expired on March 31, 2026, and on a 7-6 vote that day the City Council approved a $150,000 yearlong contract with Axon to replace it; Council President Amanda Sandoval voted in favor.[47] The city decommissioned and removed all 110 Flock license plate reader cameras.[48] The 50 Axon cameras were to be installed over the following weeks, so the city-run ALPR network was dark during that gap, though private Flock cameras stayed in operation across Denver.[47]
Denver Open Data's police crime feature service shows motor vehicle theft in the city falling from about 430 in April 2025 to about 301 in April 2026, roughly a 30% decrease, during the month the city's network was offline (Denver Open Data, pulled June 14, 2026).[49] 9NEWS, which obtained the data through a public-records request, reported 439 vehicles stolen in April 2025 (cameras on) versus 313 in April 2026 (cameras off), a 29% decrease, and a drop in auto-theft cases cleared by arrest from 13% to 3%.[50]
The comparison is not conclusive on its own. The clearance figures move the other way, and the Denver figures cover a single month. The Colorado Auto Theft Prevention Authority's Cale Gould attributed the statewide auto-theft decline to a combination of factors rather than cameras alone, telling the Denver Gazette, It wasn't one thing that changed, but collectively everything. The same reporting credited 2023 changes to Colorado law, including Senate Bill 23-097, which made motor vehicle theft a felony regardless of the vehicle's value.[51][52]
State legislative responses: Virginia
Virginia became one of the first states to enact statewide ALPR regulation when legislation establishing statewide standards for law enforcement use of ALPR took effect on July 1, 2025. Before this date, Virginia had no statewide statutory or regulatory framework governing law enforcement use of ALPR, meaning agencies could operate the technology without any statewide limitations on use, data retention, or data sharing.[31]
Overview of Virginia's 2025 ALPR law
Under the new statute (Virginia House Bill 2724, codified at Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-5517), law enforcement agencies in Virginia may only use ALPR for criminal investigations, active investigations into missing or endangered persons or human trafficking, and notifications related to missing or endangered persons, outstanding warrants, human trafficking, stolen vehicles, or stolen license plates.[31]
The law requires ALPR data to be purged after 21 days unless needed for an ongoing investigation, prosecution, or civil action. It also restricts data sharing to other Virginia law enforcement agencies, Commonwealth's Attorneys, criminal defendants or their counsel, ALPR vendors, or pursuant to a court order. The statute does not permit data sharing with out-of-state or federal law enforcement agencies.[31]
Compliance findings from the Virginia State Crime Commission
In January 2026, the Virginia State Crime Commission published the findings of a statewide survey of all 361 Virginia law enforcement agencies on their use of ALPR. The survey, conducted in November 2025 to capture practices after the new legislation took effect, received responses from 251 agencies (70%). Of responding agencies, 63% (159 of 251) reported using ALPR. A large majority, 86% (137 of 159), reported Flock Safety as their ALPR vendor.[31]
The Crime Commission found that some agencies were not complying with the new statutory requirements:
- Data retention violations: 21% (33 of 159) of agencies using ALPR reported retaining data beyond the statutory 21-day limit. Reported retention periods for fixed cameras ranged from 22 to 60 days; for mobile cameras, 30 to 180 days.[31]
- Unauthorized data sharing with federal and out-of-state agencies: Despite the statute prohibiting such sharing, 13% (20 of 159) of agencies reported providing continuous access to out-of-state law enforcement agencies, and 6% (9 of 159) reported providing continuous access to federal law enforcement agencies.[31]
- No written ALPR policy: 16% (26 of 159) of agencies using ALPR reported having no policy on ALPR use, despite the statutory requirement to maintain one. An additional 9% (14 of 159) reported being in the process of implementing a policy.[31]
- No public awareness measures: 35% (55 of 159) of agencies reported taking no public awareness measures regarding their ALPR use, despite statutory requirements to promote public awareness.[31]
- Non-response: Almost one-third of law enforcement agencies did not respond to the survey at all, meaning their ALPR use and compliance status remain unknown.[31]
The Crime Commission's report stated that the Chair, Delegate Charniele Herring, planned to send letters to agencies whose survey responses indicated non-compliance with the new law, as well as to non-responding agencies.[31]
Data sharing concerns
Virginia's experience reflects a national pattern of concerns over ALPR data sharing. A September 2025 investigation by the Virginia Center for Investigative Journalism found that before the new law took effect, federal agencies had attempted to access local Virginia ALPR data thousands of times for immigration enforcement purposes, and one small town's Flock network data had been searched nearly 7 million times by outside agencies in a single year.[53] At least two Virginia localities, Charlottesville and Staunton, subsequently ended their use of Flock Safety cameras, citing concerns about federal data sharing.[31]
As of early 2026, at least 30 localities across the United States have either deactivated Flock cameras or canceled their contracts, driven in part by concerns over privacy and federal agency access to locally collected ALPR data.[54]
Revolving door: surveillance vendor hiring of public officials
Multiple documented cases have raised concerns about Flock Safety's practice of hiring current or recently departed public officials who hold or held influence over the procurement of the company's products.
Cleveland, Ohio: former council majority leader joins Flock
Kerry McCormack, the Ward 3 council member and Majority Leader of the Cleveland City Council, announced his resignation on September 11, 2025. He left office in early October 2025. He joined Flock Safety immediately afterward as public affairs lead for the eastern United States. No reporting has identified a gap between his departure from office and his start date at Flock.[55][56]
In late October 2025, the Bibb administration introduced Ordinance 1367-2025 to Cleveland City Council: an emergency ordinance authorizing a contract with Flock Group, Inc. dba Flock Safety for a period up to three years.[57]
The administration justified the sole-source designation on two grounds: that Flock was the only vendor offering the specific integrated bundle of services, and that the contract piggybacked on a pre-negotiated Ohio state term purchasing agreement. At the November 14, 2025 Safety Committee hearing, ShotSpotter representatives attended and stated on the record that they offer competing products capable of fulfilling the same requirements & wanted an opportunity to bid.[58][59]
How the emergency and bidding bypass works
Cleveland Charter § 36 defines an emergency measure as an ordinance or resolution for the "immediate preservation of the public peace, property, health, or safety" or for the "usual daily operation of a Municipal department." Combined with the § 33 rule suspension mechanism, an emergency designation bypasses the normal three-reading requirement and the 30-day waiting period before a measure takes effect. Emergency passage requires a two-thirds supermajority of all elected council members.[60]
Charter § 108 requires competitive bidding for contracts exceeding $50,000, with an exception for cooperative purchasing arrangements with other governmental agencies. Professional services contracts are exempt from sealed bidding but are still expected to go through a Request for Proposals process per the Division of Purchases and Supplies. The Bibb administration issued neither a formal bid nor an RFP for the Flock expansion.[61][62]
Ohio revolving door law and its limitations
Ohio Revised Code § 102.03(A)(1) bars former public officials for twelve months from representing any person or entity before any public agency on any "matter" in which the official personally participated during their public service.[63]
However, R.C. 102.03(A)(5) excludes from the definition of matter the proposal, consideration, or enactment of statutes, rules, ordinances, resolutions, or charter or constitutional amendments. Ordinance 1367-2025 was legislation requiring formal consideration by City Council, & the statute excludes legislative matters from the definition of matter that the twelve-month ban uses.[63]
Cleveland has no local revolving-door ordinance, no lobbying registration requirement, and no cooling-off period of its own. Chapter 171 of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances covers employment provisions such as hours of work and overtime, not ethics or lobbying.[64]
McCormack told Signal Cleveland that he "did not seek an opinion from the Ohio Ethics Commission" and was voluntarily observing the one-year rule as a best practice. However, News 5 Cleveland's investigators obtained McCormack's emails through a public records request and reported that he did contact the Ohio Ethics Commission about restrictions approximately one month before leaving office.[65][66]
McCormack's one-year recusal from Cleveland matters is voluntary and self-enforced. It is not a Flock corporate policy. McCormack stated: Whether I have a defined legal conflict or not, regardless, it's best practice I think to sit out [for] a year from engaging the city of Cleveland.[65]
Council member Rebecca Maurer stated at a Safety Committee hearing: "I hope you understand the hesitancy I have given a member of this body just departed to take a job at Flock that we now have a sole source contract without an RFP process."[66]
Status of the Cleveland contract
Cleveland's ShotSpotter contract expires in April 2026 and the existing Flock automated license plate reader contract expires in June 2026. The Bibb administration proposed bundling both into a single expanded Flock contract covering cameras, license plate readers, gunshot detection, and audio monitoring, all through one vendor on a sole-source basis.[67]
Council refused to advance the legislation. Fox 8 reported that council will not move forward until a full review is conducted and a request for proposals has been issued.
The Bibb administration then asked Safety Committee Chair Michael Polensek to shelve the expansion before year-end 2025. No public explanation was given. Polensek counter-proposed issuing a request for qualification.[68]
As of March 2026, Ordinance 1367-2025 sits on indefinite hold in the Safety Committee. No vote has been scheduled, no RFP has been issued, and no RFQ has been completed. Approximately 100 Flock license plate reader cameras remain active across Cleveland.[68][69]
A grassroots group called Flockno delivered a letter with 275 signatures to City Hall demanding the city cut ties with Flock entirely and remove existing cameras when the June contract expires. News 5 reported the petition had gathered nearly 300 signatures total. Organizer Bryn Adams stated: "We want to ask the city to remove, not renew."[69][68]
Moreno Valley, California: Flock hired a sitting mayor
In February 2024, Flock Safety hired Ulises Cabrera, the sitting mayor of Moreno Valley, California (population 200,000+), as a Community Engagement Manager. A Flock job posting for the position listed a salary of $100,000 to $140,000 plus stock options. The role was intended to guide law enforcement customers through the public procurement process in collaboration with Flock's sales team. Cabrera had previously voted as mayor to fund a citywide Flock camera system in Moreno Valley.[70]
During his time at Flock, Cabrera gave presentations promoting the company's technology at city council meetings in at least two other jurisdictions: Whitewater, Kansas and Mammoth Lakes, California.[70]
Cabrera v. Flock Safety
In November 2024, Cabrera filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against Flock Safety.[71] According to the complaint, approximately two weeks after Cabrera started working at Flock, an employee requested that he use his position as mayor of Moreno Valley to benefit the company. Cabrera alleges he refused, forwarded the request to his legal counsel while copying the Flock employee, and that the employee immediately began exhibiting retaliatory behavior. Flock terminated Cabrera in June 2024. He worked at Flock from February to June 2024.[70]
Cabrera also alleges he raised concerns that Flock was underreporting the number of surveillance cameras installed in Carmel-by-the-Sea. A separate Forbes investigation published in February 2024 found that Flock camera installations broke laws in at least five states, including by installing cameras without proper permits.[70]
Flock categorically denies all of Cabrera's allegations and says its hire of a sitting mayor complied with California conflict-of-interest regulations.[70]
California conflict-of-interest law
California Government Code § 1090 prohibits public officers from being financially interested in any contract made by the body or board of which they are members.[72] The complaint in Cabrera v. Flock Safety describes a sitting mayor receiving a salary & stock options from the vendor during a period when his city council approved that vendor's contracts.[70]
While campaigning for reelection in November 2024, Cabrera's campaign website cited his earlier vote to fund Moreno Valley's Flock system, but did not disclose that he had subsequently worked for Flock while serving as mayor.[70]
Comparison of Cleveland and Moreno Valley ethics gaps
Albert Fox Cahn, founder of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, stated that the allegations in the Moreno Valley case "add to the growing body of evidence that American surveillance is fueled by a broken revolving door between industry and government."[70]
The Cleveland and Moreno Valley cases illustrate different but related gaps in ethics law. In Ohio, the state revolving-door statute excludes legislative matters from the cooling-off period.[63] California Government Code § 1090 bars public officers from being financially interested in contracts made by the body they serve.[72] Cleveland has no local lobbying registration or cooling-off ordinance.[64] On the California statute, The Desert Sun reported that the law bars public officials from making decisions based on their own financial interests, including as employees in private companies. But it doesn't prohibit them from taking private sector jobs.[70]
Do Flock cameras get installed in a manner that breaks the law in jurisdictions?
Public records and news reports document police departments, sheriffs, and city executives in at least 25 U.S. jurisdictions acquiring Flock Safety cameras without the council, commission, or board vote, or the competitive bidding, that local procurement rules require above set dollar amounts.[73][74][75] In Prescott, Arizona, a police lieutenant wrote to Flock in February 2023 that he was waiting for a procurement rule change so the department would "not have to go to council for approval".[76] Other agencies priced contracts just below approval thresholds, such as Denver's $498,500 extension under a $500,000 limit and Fort Lauderdale's $99,999.20 annual payments under $100,000, split purchases into smaller orders, or relied on sole-source letters supplied by Flock.[77][78][79][80][81][82][83]
| # | Jurisdiction | Under the limit by | Contract | Approval limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Prescott, AZ | $670 (1.34%) | $49,330[84][76][85] | $50,000 (City Council)[76][85][84][86] |
| 2 | Denver, CO | $1,500 (0.30%) | $498,500[87][78][88][89][90][91][92] | $500,000 (City Council)[77][93][94][95] |
| 3 | Fort Lauderdale, FL | $0.80 (0.0008%) | $99,999.20 a year[79][80] | $100,000 (City Commission)[79][80][96] |
| 4 | Knox County, TN | $10 (0.04%) | $24,990 per 10 cameras[81][74] | $25,000 (county review and bidding)[81][74][97] |
| 5 | Anoka County, MN | $1 (0.0006%); $500 (0.29%) at $174,500 | $174,999 ($174,500 in another report)[98][99] | $175,000 (County Board)[98][100][101][102][99] |
| 6 | Kalamazoo, MI | $100 (0.10%) | $99,900[103][104][105] | $100,000 (City Commission)[106][105][107] |
| 7 | Rowan County, NC | $10,000 (11.11%) | $80,000 total ($50,000 plus a $30,000 change order)[108][109] | $90,000 (Board of Commissioners)[108][110][111] |
| 8 | Redondo Beach, CA | $700 (2.00%) | $34,300[112][113][114] | $35,000 (City Council)[113][114][115] |
| 9 | North Riverside, IL | $50 (0.20%) | $24,950[116] | $25,000 (competitive bidding)[116][117][118] |
| 10 | McKinney, TX | $350 (0.70%) | $49,650[119] | $50,000 (competitive bidding in 2024)[120][119][121][122] |
| 11 | Park Ridge, IL | $1,000 (4.00%) | $24,000 a year[123] | $25,000 (competitive bidding)[123][118] |
| # | Jurisdiction | Amount | Approval required | How it got through |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Columbia County, NY | $97,129.58[124] | $20,000 bid threshold and Board of Supervisors[125][124] | $77,129.58 over (385.65%). Purchase order issued after the Board tabled the request[125][124] |
| 13 | Waltham, MA | $96,000 over two years[126][127] | $50,000 threshold and City Council budget vote[128][127][129][126] | $46,000 over (92.00%). Paid from police forfeiture funds outside the budget vote[126][128][127][129] |
| 14 | Cullman, AL | $124,900 over three years[130][131] | $30,000 bidding limit and City Council[132][130][131] | $94,900 over (316.33%). Signed by the police chief, with no council vote documented[132][130][131] |
| 15 | Monterey County, CA | $402,750 for 60 cameras[133] | Board cap of $19,950[133] | $382,800 over the cap (1,918.80%). Ordered with no Board file after a $19,950 consent item[133] |
| 16 | Coachella, CA | $178,750 first year[134][135][136] | City Council[134][135][136] | Order form for the same package after the council voted to continue the item[134][135][136] |
| 17 | Milwaukee, WI | $100,400 ($182,900 proposed)[75] | $50,000 (Finance and Personnel Committee)[137][75] | $50,400 over in total. Sole-source waivers instead of committee votes[137][75] |
| 18 | New Bedford, MA | Annual subscription under Insight Public Sector[138][139] | City Council budget approval[138][139] | Budget line names the reseller, not Flock[138][139] |
| 19 | Sussex County, VA | Unbid sheriff subscription[82][140] | Written sole-source determination[82][140] | Vendor's own letter posted as the sole-source determination[82][140] |
| 20 | Benicia, CA | $236,250 over two years[83][141] | $50,000 bidding limit[142][83][141] | $186,250 over (372.50%), with no competitive bids[142][83][141] |
| 21 | Las Vegas, NV | $6.3 million in donated equipment[143] | City Council[143] | Donated through a police foundation[143] |
| 22 | Northern Kentucky (four cities) | Free trials, then paid cameras[144] | City Council[74][144] | Cameras could start on a lieutenant's or captain's signature[144][74] |
| # | Jurisdiction | Contract approved | Contract amount | Spending limit (before approval) | Dollars under limit | % under limit / bypass mechanism | Primary law or rule | Verbatim quote from law or rule | Documented outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Prescott, Arizona[76][85] | $48,100.00 initial contract for Prescott Police Department (Prescott City Contract No. 2023-151 for 16 Falcon cameras, executed March 3, 2023) & $49,330.00 amended Year 1 amount after two amendments[76][85][84] | $49,330.00 fiscal year 2024 entry after two amendments ($48,100 original contract)[84][76][85][84] | $50,000.00 City Council approval threshold after February 11, 2023[76][85][84][86] | $670.00 under[76][85][84][86] | 1.34% under: Delayed contract execution until February 11, 2023 procurement-rule change to avoid Council vote[76][85][84][86] | $50,000.00 Purchasing Agent limit under Prescott City Code Chapter 1-27 (Section 1-27-12(B), Section 1-27-12(C), & Section 1-27-9(A) anti-splitting rule, effective February 11, 2023); Lt. Jason Small wrote on February 3, 2023 that he was "waiting until February 11th due to our procurement rules changing allowing us to not have to go to council for approval"[76][85][84][86] | Prescott City Code § 1-27-12(C)(1): "Any procurement resulting in an expenditure from fifty thousand dollars and one cent ($50,000.01) to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) may be made without the requirements of public notification by advertisement, with City Council authorization." § 1-27-9(A): "Artificial division, splitting or fragmentation of a transaction to circumvent source selection or to avoid requirements for bidding or authorization of procurements is prohibited."[86] | Signed by Mayor without prior Council vote; Purchasing Manager Melissa Busby warned on October 16, 2023 that "once they get ready to renew it will have to go to Council for approval"[76][85][84] |
| 2 | Denver, Colorado[87][92] | 111 cameras at 70 sites (May 2024, $339,450.00 for Years 1 & 2); $666,000 two-year renewal ($1,005,450.00 maximum contract amount under Contract Control Number: POLIC-202578012-01 / 202472539-01) rejected May 5, 2025; $498,500 extension signed July 7, 2025 (plus permit application for four new cameras); five-month no-cost extension announced October 22, 2025[87][78][88][89][90][91][92] | $498,500[87][78][88][89][90][91][92] | $500,000.00 City Council approval threshold[77][93][94][95] | $1,500 under[87][78][88][89][90][91][92][77][93][94][95] | 0.30% under: Sub-threshold unilateral extension & five-month no-cost extension after unanimous Council rejection[87][78][91] | $500,000.00 City Council approval threshold (Section 3.2.6(E) of the Charter of the City and County of Denver); Executive Order No. 8 ($480,000 review); Article 20-64 & FAR 8.1 anti-splitting rules[77][93][94][95] | Denver City Charter § 3.2.6(E): "Contracts which will require or result in the payment or receipt by the City of one-half million dollars ($500,000.00) or more ... shall require the approval of the City Council acting by ordinance or resolution, prior to their execution by City officials." Denver Purchasing Policy Manual: "Buyers shall be diligent in preventing agency avoidance of the formal or informal bid thresholds or City Council required ordinance thresholds by artificially dividing requisitions to avoid any procurement regulations described in Article 20-64 of the Revised Municipal Code." Fiscal Accountability Rule 8.1: "City employees shall not split purchases to avoid the maximum limits contained in this Fiscal Accountability Rule, Charter, or Revised Municipal Code, or perform other actions with the intent of avoiding purchasing requirements."[77][94][95] | Nine Denver City Council members asked Auditor Timothy O'Brien on October 25, 2025 to block extension (four council members did not sign); Flock contract expired March 31, 2026 & replaced with about 50 Axon cameras for about $149,000[145][146][147][74] |
| 3 | Fort Lauderdale, Florida[79][80] | 25-camera free pilot in March 2022 ($0.00 cost, $68,750 list value); 40 Falcon cameras over five years in October 2024 for $499,996 (Purchase Order Number 10490 dated October 23, 2024 for $99,999.20/year after 24.699% discount off $3,319.99 list price); 22 Falcon cameras in August 2025 at $68,530/year[79][80] | $99,999.20 per year ($499,996 over five years)[79][80] | $100,000 City Commission approval threshold[79][80][96] | $0.80 under each year[79][80][96] | 0.0008% under: Zero-dollar administrative pilot followed by cooperative purchase split into annual payments 80 cents under threshold[79] | $100,000 Commission approval threshold ($99,999 Chief Procurement Officer PO delegated limit; Code of Ordinances, Div. 2, §§ 2-171–2-199.2, including § 2-176(e)(16), § 2-180(e), & § 2-189 administrative authority); routed via Insight Public Sector on OMNIA Partners/Cobb County cooperative contract[79][80][96] | Fort Lauderdale Code Sec. 2-173: "The minimum procurement award or rejection amount at which city commission approval is required shall be equal to or greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) total expenditure or, in the case of a term contract, equal to or greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) per term, excluding price adjustments." Sec. 2-176(c): "No contract or purchase shall be subdivided to avoid the requirements of this article and the Procurement Manual."[96] | More than $568,000 (at least $568,526) in Flock commitments executed with zero Commission votes across at least 62 paid Falcon cameras[79] |
| 4 | Knox County, Tennessee[81][74] | Multiple 10-camera purchases at $24,990 & five-camera split invoices at $12,500 since 2022, totaling more than $250,000 across 143 cameras[81][74] | $24,990 per 10-camera batch[81][74] | $25,000 county review and bidding threshold[81][74][97] | $10 under[81][74][97] | 0.04% under: Sub-threshold batch pricing ($10 under limit) & split invoices by Knox County Sheriff's Office[81][74] | $25,000 county review & competitive bidding threshold (up to $50,000 in counties with centralized purchasing) under Tennessee state code (T.C.A.) § 12-3-1212 (County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS) Reference Number: CTAS-918)[81][74][97] | CTAS-918: "Public advertising & competitive bidding for purchases costing over the maximum applicable amount established in T.C.A. § 12-3-1212 ($25,000 in counties with non-centralized purchasing)."[97] | Mayor Glenn Jacobs canceled contract by letter (August 2026); Knox County Commission voted unanimously to turn off & remove stationary ALPRs within 30 days along with their data unless involved in a criminal investigation[81][148] |
| 5 | Anoka County, Minnesota[98][99] | One-year contract signed June 30, 2026 by Sheriff Brad Wise for 75 ALPR cameras & 10 drones, reported at $174,999 ($1 below threshold) & $174,500 after reducing an initial two-year, $245,000 proposal for 200 cameras & 16 drones[98][99] | $174,999 (reported elsewhere as $174,500)[98][99] | $175,000 County Board approval threshold[98][100][101][102][99] | $1 under ($500 under at $174,500)[98][99][100][101][102] | 0.0006% under (0.29% at $174,500): Sub-threshold sheriff contract scaled down from $245,000 proposal to stay below County Board approval mark[98][99] | $175,000 Anoka County Board of Commissioners approval & competitive bidding threshold under Anoka County Procurement Policy & Minn. Stat. § 471.345 (Lt. Mendoza claimed contract was $500 below threshold)[98][100][101][102][99] | Minn. Stat. § 471.345, Subd. 3: "If the amount of the contract is estimated to exceed $175,000, sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice in the manner and subject to the requirements of the law governing contracts by the particular municipality or class thereof." Anoka County Procurement Policy §§ 2.2.3 & 2.3.2: "Purchases may not be split to avoid competitive thresholds..." and "The aggregate term of the contract is used to determine which individual has authority to award and execute a contract."[101][102] | Executed without Anoka County Board of Commissioners vote (Commissioner Mandy Meisner noted the contract identified the Sheriff's Office rather than the Board as the client); questioned at St. Francis City Council meeting in August 2026[98][100][99] |
| 6 | Kalamazoo, Michigan[103][105] | Three May & June 2021 agreements for Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety (KDPS) (signed May 24, May 28, & June 8, 2021); $99,900.00 renewal signed August 13, 2025 (PO Number: P-052389 for 39 Falcon & one Falcon Flex cameras after $10,450.00 in discounts)[103][104][105] | $99,900.00 per year (2025 renewal)[103][104][105] | $100,000 City Commission approval threshold[106][105][107] | $100 under[103][104][105][106][107] | 0.10% under: Split initial agreements & discounted renewal priced at $99,900.00 below $100,000 City Commission approval threshold[103][104][106][105] | $100,000 City Manager contract & sole-source approval limit under City Commission Policy No. 70.5[106][105][107] | Kalamazoo Purchasing Policy No. 70.5, § II.A.1: "The City Manager is hereby granted the authority to make purchases and approve contracts, including term contracts, when the total expenditure of the purchase does not exceed $100,000 and sufficient funding is provided for within the current budget."[106] | On August 17, 2026, the Kalamazoo City Commission voted 7–0 to amend its purchasing policy to require Commission approval for all ALPR contract renewals regardless of dollar amount[105][107] |
| 7 | Rowan County, North Carolina[108][109] | $50,000.00 two-year Contract No. 25239 (10 Falcon cameras at $25,000.00/year after $10,000.00 discount, October 22, 2024); Amendment #1 (October 29, 2025) modified renewal term from 24 months to 12 months; Change Order #1 (November 5, 2025) added $30,000.00 for an adjusted contract amount of $80,000.00[108][109] | $80,000 adjusted total ($50,000 contract plus $30,000 change order)[108][109] | $90,000 Board of Commissioners threshold[108][110][111] | $10,000 under[108][109][110][111] | 11.11% under: Initial two-year contract plus renewal-shortening amendment & change order kept below $90,000 Board of Commissioners threshold[108][109] | $90,000 Board of Commissioners approval threshold under County Purchasing Policy & N.C.G.S. § 143-129 & § 143-133[108][110][111] | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-129(a): "No ... purchase of apparatus, supplies, materials, or equipment requiring an estimated expenditure of public money in an amount equal to or more than ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) may be performed, nor may any contract be awarded therefor, by any board or governing body ... unless the provisions of this section are complied with..." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-133: "No bill or contract shall be divided for the purpose of evading the provisions of this Article."[110][111] | Processed administratively without Board of Commissioners vote; County Manager authorized Notice of Cancellation on September 30, 2026 & Board ratified cancellation on October 19, 2026[108][109] |
| 8 | Redondo Beach, California[112][113] | $34,300 three-year not-to-exceed agreement for Redondo Beach Police Department ($12,300.00 in year 1 for three Falcon cameras plus $11,000.00/year for a 24-month renewal option, File # 24-0007, January 9, 2024)[112][113][114] | $34,300 three-year total[112][113][114] | $35,000 standalone council award threshold[113][114][115] | $700 under[112][113][114][115] | 2.00% under: Initial three-year agreement priced below $35,000 threshold followed by first, second, & third sub-threshold amendments[112][113][114][115] | $35,000 contract threshold under Redondo Beach Municipal Code § 2-6.07, routed under "APPROVE CONTRACTS UNDER $35,000"[113][114][115] | Redondo Beach Municipal Code § 2-6.07(d): "Purchases of material, supplies, and equipment of an estimated expenditure of Thirty-Five Thousand and no/100ths ($35,000.00) Dollars or more shall be authorized in advance by the Council, unless otherwise approved in the current fiscal year's budget."[115] | Contract expanded across first ($18,450), second ($5,000/year), & third ($5,720 & $4,820/year for up to two years for two cameras) sub-threshold amendments without roll-call vote[113][114] |
| 9 | North Riverside, Illinois[116][117] | $24,950 purchase for seven Falcon cameras (including Flock Safety Advanced Search implementation) plus $19,700 annual subscription service fee for North Riverside police (October 3, 2022)[116] | $24,950 upfront purchase[116] | $25,000 competitive bidding threshold[116][117][118] | $50 under[116][117][118] | 0.20% under: Initial camera purchase approved with formal RFP process waived by village trustees[116][117][118] | $25,000 competitive bidding threshold under Illinois Statutes Chapter 65 (§ 5/8-9-1); formal RFP process waived unanimously by North Riverside trustees on October 3, 2022; Bid Authorization/Award left unchecked on March 20, 2023 Request for Board Action (resolution 23-R-05)[116][117][118] | 65 ILCS 5/8-9-1: "...any work or other public improvement which is not to be paid for in whole or in part by special assessment or special taxation, when the expense thereof will exceed $25,000, shall be constructed either (1) by a contract let to the lowest responsible bidder after advertising for bids ... or (2) ... without advertising for bids, if authorized by a vote of two-thirds of all the alderpersons or trustees then holding office."[118] | Approved October 3, 2022 without formal RFP; Cook County Forest Preserve District intergovernmental agreement resolution passed March 20, 2023[116][117] |
| 10 | McKinney, Texas[119][121] | $49,650 on Purchase Order 541126 (issued December 4, 2024) for 13 Flock Safety cameras for McKinney Police Department[119] | $49,650[119] | $50,000 competitive bidding threshold in December 2024 (raised to $100,000 on September 1, 2025)[120][119][121][122] | $350 under[119][121][122] | 0.70% under: Purchase order issued for $49,650 ahead of consent-agenda right-of-way agreement[119][121][122] | Competitive sealed bidding requirements under Texas Local Government Code § 252.021 & anti-splitting Class B misdemeanor penalty under § 252.062[119][121][122] | Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 252.062(a): "A municipal officer or employee commits an offense if the officer or employee intentionally or knowingly makes or authorizes separate, sequential, or component purchases to avoid the competitive bidding requirements of Section 252.021. An offense under this subsection is a Class B misdemeanor."[122] | McKinney City Council approved TxDOT Multiple Use Agreement (file 25-2391) on consent agenda on January 21, 2025 after cameras began operating on non-TxDOT roads in November 2024[119] |
| 11 | Park Ridge, Illinois[123][118] | $24,000 one-year Flock Safety contract extension for Park Ridge Police Department[123] | $24,000 per year[123] | $25,000 competitive bidding threshold[123][118] | $1,000 under[123][118] | 4.00% under: Annual contract priced at $24,000 below $25,000 Illinois competitive bidding threshold[123][118] | $25,000 competitive bidding threshold under Illinois Statutes Chapter 65 (§ 5/8-9-1) (requiring two-thirds supermajority of alderpersons when bids are not sought)[123][118] | 65 ILCS 5/8-9-1: "...when the expense thereof will exceed $25,000, shall be constructed either (1) by a contract let to the lowest responsible bidder after advertising for bids ... or (2) ... without advertising for bids, if authorized by a vote of two-thirds of all the alderpersons or trustees then holding office." Journal & Topics (July 14, 2026): "Because the city is not going out to bid on this, the contract must be approved by a two-thirds supermajority."[123][118] | Approved 5–1 on July 20, 2026 with Mayor Marty Maloney casting the deciding vote[123] |
| 12 | Columbia County, New York[124] | $97,129.58 spent by Columbia County Sheriff's Office on 10 Flock Safety license plate readers (software bought December 2024, cameras ordered October 2025) covered by a $279,790 state grant[124] | $97,129.58[124] | $20,000 bid threshold and Board of Supervisors authorization[125][124] | $77,129.58 over[125][124] | 385.65% over, purchased after the Board tabled the request: Unilateral sheriff purchase order out of a state grant with zero Board of Supervisors vote after the Board voted to table the Sheriff's Flock request[124] | After the Board of Supervisors voted on March 23, 2023 to table former Sheriff Don Krapf's request for authorization, the Sheriff's Office bypassed the Board completely & spent $97,129.58 (385.65% over New York's $20,000 GML § 103(1) competitive-bidding limit) via purchase order out of a state grant with zero Board vote[124] | The Daily Gazette (Aug. 19, 2026): "New Lebanon Town Supervisor Tistrya Houghtling questioned the legality of Krapf's purchase because it was never authorized by the Board of Supervisors. Whether or not the cameras were purchased with a law enforcement grant does not matter, board approval is still required, Stockport Town Supervisor Matt Murell added."[124] | Supervisors learned of the purchase on August 18, 2026 & asked the county attorney to review whether the contract is valid[124] |
| 13 | Waltham, Massachusetts[127][129][126] | $96,000 two-year agreement for 16 Flock Safety cameras beginning in fall 2025[127][126] | $96,000 two-year agreement[126][127][126] | $50,000 procurement threshold and City Council budget vote[128][127][129][126] | $46,000 over[126][128][127][126][129] | 92.00% over, paid from forfeiture funds outside the budget vote: Off-budget civil asset forfeiture funding bypassing a City Council appropriation vote & budget hearing[127][129][126] | Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30B ($50,000 threshold & § 11 anti-splitting rule); bypassed a City Council appropriation vote & budget hearing completely because police paid by spending court-seized civil asset forfeiture cash (M.G.L. c. 94C, § 47(d))[127][129][126] | M.G.L. c. 30B, § 11: "No person shall cause or conspire to cause the splitting or division of any procurement, specification, invitation for bids, request for proposals, proposal, solicitation, or quotation for the purpose of evading a requirement of this chapter."[129] | Installed across Waltham without City Council vote; Waltham added AI-assisted auditing on top of human search review in August 2026[127][126] |
| 14 | Cullman, Alabama[130][131] | $124,900 contract total over a 36-month initial term ($44,900 first-year subtotal & $40,000 annual recurring subtotal) for 16 Falcon cameras, signed December 19, 2023 by Chief David Nassetta[130][131] | $124,900 three-year total[130][131] | $30,000 competitive bidding limit and City Council approval[132][130][131] | $94,900 over[132][130][131] | 316.33% over, signed by the police chief with no council vote documented: Three-year, $124,900 order form signed directly by the Police Chief with zero City Council vote instead of pricing below the state bidding limit[130][131] | Instead of pricing the deal below Alabama's $30,000 competitive-bidding threshold (Ala. Code § 41-16-50), Police Chief David Nassetta signed the binding 36-month, $124,900 order form himself on December 19, 2023 with zero City Council vote anywhere in the city's 2010 to 2026 agenda archive[130][131] | Who Approved This (Cullman): "The Cullman Police Department's Flock Safety order form, obtained by records request, carries then-Chief David Nassetta's signature for the Cullman Police Department, dated December 19, 2023, a 36-month initial term with a $44,900 first-year subtotal, a $40,000 annual recurring subtotal, and a $124,900 contract total, with Flock Group Inc. signing December 20, 2023."[131] | Active 16-camera deployment in Cullman[130][131] |
| 15 | Monterey County, California[133] | $19,950 two-year agreement for three Falcon cameras ($10,950 in year one & $9,000/year after, File 23-826, November 28, 2023); separate executed order form signed June 5, 2024 for 60 readers at $402,750 total[133] | $19,950 consent item, then $402,750 order form[133] | Board-approved $19,950 cap[133] | $382,800 over the cap on the order form[133] | 1,918.80% over the cap, then 60 cameras ordered with no Board file: $19,950 three-camera consent-agenda item followed six months later by an unvoted $402,750 order form for 60 cameras[133] | Officials first placed a $19,950 two-year agreement for three cameras (capped at three 10% amendments under Consent Item 38) on the November 28, 2023 consent agenda (File 23-826), & six months later executed a $402,750 order form for 60 cameras ($382,800 over the Board-authorized cap) with zero Board of Supervisors approval file[133] | Who Approved This (Monterey County): "Monterey County's Board of Supervisors authorized a Flock Safety agreement on November 28, 2023 as Criminal Justice consent item 38, file 23-826, in an amount not to exceed $19,950 for a two-year term."[133] | More than 300 Flock readers installed countywide by April 2026; Sheriff Tina Nieto disclosed a 2025 out-of-state data sharing incident[133] |
| 16 | Coachella, California[134][135][136] | $178,750 year one total ($162,500 a year for 65 Falcon cameras plus $16,250 one-time installation fee) on order form bearing a customer signature block for "William B. Pattison, Jr." as City Manager dated July 1, 2021 with blank displayed signature lines on the published PDF[134][135][136] | $178,750 first-year total[134][135][136] | City Council approval (no separate dollar ceiling)[134][135][136] | Not applicable[134][135][136] | Order form for the same package after the council voted to continue the item: July 1, 2021 order form generated for the same $178,750 65-camera package (with blank displayed signature lines on the published PDF) after the City Council voted 5–0 to table the contract & send it back to committee[134][135][136] | After the Coachella City Council voted 5–0 on May 26, 2021 (Item 36) to table (continue) the $178,750 65-camera contract & send it back to the Public Safety Subcommittee, city officials generated a July 1, 2021 order form for the same $178,750 65-camera package with zero subsequent City Council approval in the reviewed minutes[134][135][136] | Coachella City Council Minutes (May 26, 2021, Item 36): "Motion: To continue item and send back to the Public Safety Subcommittee ... Approved: 5-0, by the following roll call vote..." Who Approved This (Coachella): "No later council meeting approving the agreement was found in the records reviewed, so the approval method is recorded as unknown."[134][136] | No later council meeting approving the agreement appears in the reviewed municipal records[134][135][136] |
| 17 | Milwaukee, Wisconsin[75] | Contract #E21123 increased from $52,500.00 (July 2025) by $36,900.00 to $89,400.00 (Amendment #1, six cameras), by $11,000.00 to $100,400.00 (Amendment #2, three cameras), & with Amendment #3, listed as pending on February 4, 2026, proposed to rise by $82,500.00 to $182,900.00 (renewal for 31 cameras through January 26, 2027)[75] | $100,400 executed ($182,900 proposed)[75] | $50,000 Finance and Personnel Committee approval threshold[137][75] | Amendments $13,100 and $39,000 under; $50,400 over in total[137][75] | Sole-source waivers instead of committee votes: "Services related to proprietary products" sole-source waivers bypassing Finance & Personnel Committee votes on the $52,500 contract & sub-$50,000 amendments[75] | Under City Charter § 16-05-4a, sole-source service contracts of $50,000 or more are invalid without Finance & Personnel Committee approval; purchasing officials bypassed committee votes on the $52,500 contract & sub-$50,000 Amendments #1 ($36,900) & #2 ($11,000) ($100,400 executed; $182,900 proposed with +$82,500 Amendment #3) by signing "services related to proprietary products" waivers[75] | ACLU of Wisconsin Filing (Feb. 4, 2026): "It is our understanding that the requirement for single or sole source service contracts to be approved by the Finance & Personnel committee under City Charter 16-05-4a will not be applied to this contract amendment on the grounds that the contract involves 'services related to proprietary products.'"[75] | ACLU of Wisconsin filed written objection with Finance & Personnel Committee on February 4, 2026[75] |
| 18 | New Bedford, Massachusetts[138][139] | 20 license-plate-reading cameras quietly adopted in late 2024 under then-Police Chief Paul Oliveira[138][139] | "Annual subscription" line under Insight Public Sector, with no mention of Flock[138][139] | City Council budget approval[138][139] | Not applicable[138][139] | Cameras listed under the reseller's name as an annual subscription: Listing the 20-camera network in the municipal budget under third-party IT reseller "Insight Public Sector" as an "annual subscription" without naming "Flock Safety"[138][139] | Police listed the 20-camera network in the fiscal year 2027 municipal budget under third-party IT reseller "Insight Public Sector" as an "annual subscription" without naming "Flock Safety", cameras or license plate readers, so City Councilors did not know what they were funding until August 2026[138][139] | The New Bedford Light (Aug. 27, 2026): "It listed Insight Public Sector, a third-party vendor, and the line item simply read 'annual subscription.' It did not mention Flock, cameras or license plate readers. ... Nowhere in the budget documents does it say... there would be no way to know that line item was for a citywide network of license plate reader cameras."[138] | City Council unanimously passed four motions on August 25, 2026 after Detective Emily Pacheco restraining-order probe & voted 8–3 on September 24, 2026 to pass temporary ban ordinance[138][139] |
| 19 | Sussex County, Virginia[82][140] | Flock Safety ALPR camera & Vehicle Fingerprint machine-vision subscription for Sussex County Virginia Sheriff's Department[82][140] | Unbid sheriff subscription[82][140] | Independent written sole-source determination[82][140] | Not applicable[82][140] | Vendor's own letter posted as the sole-source determination: Competitive bidding skipped by posting Flock CEO Garrett Langley's own marketing letter verbatim as the county's official Sole Source Determination[82][140] | Officials skipped competitive bidding (written sole-source determination requirement under Va. Code § 2.2-4303(E)) by posting a marketing letter signed Thank you, Garrett Langley CEO, Flock Safety verbatim as the county's official Notice of Award of Contract / Sole Source Determination[82][140] | Flock Safety Sole Source Letter (posted by Sussex County): "Flock Safety is the sole manufacturer and developer of the Flock Safety ALPR Camera. The Flock Safety ALPR camera and devices are the only Law Enforcement Grade ALPR System to offer the following combination of proprietary features..."[82] | Competitive procurement bypassed using vendor's own sole-source letter[82][140] |
| 20 | Benicia, California[83][141] | $236,250 two-year lease in May 2021 for 45 cameras ($5,000 per camera over two years plus $250 installation per camera); merged into five-year co-term[83][141] | $236,250 two-year lease[83][141] | $50,000 competitive bidding limit[142][83][141] | $186,250 over[142][83][141] | 372.50% over, with no competitive bids: Competitive bidding skipped using a sole-source justification letter & template staff reports written by Flock's own Territory Manager, paired with Measure C special fund routing[83][141] | Officials skipped competitive bidding ($50,000 limit under Benicia Municipal Code § 3.08.090) by using a sole-source justification letter written by Flock Territory Manager John Anderson, who also emailed template staff reports from Covina & Azusa on February 22, 2021 so we can start on the legal process[83][141] | Benicia Independent (July 2026): "Public agencies normally must competitively bid large purchases. A 'sole source' letter is how an agency justifies skipping that. In this case, the vendor supplied the letter itself, plus other cities' staff reports as templates."[141] | Funded from Measure C Fund for first two years before shifting to police operations budget; city billed in 2024 for a 51st camera denied a Caltrans encroachment permit[83][141] |
| 21 | Las Vegas, Nevada[143] | $6.3 million donation of Flock & Skydio surveillance gear to Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department by billionaire venture capitalist Ben Horowitz (whose firm Andreessen Horowitz is Flock Safety's lead investor)[143] | $6.3 million donated equipment[143] | City Council say over the purchase[143][143] | Not applicable[143] | Private donation through a police foundation: Off-budget $6.3 million private donation by Flock's lead venture capital investor routed through a tax-exempt police foundation to bypass a City Council vote[143] | Billionaire venture capitalist Ben Horowitz (Andreessen Horowitz, Flock Safety's lead investor) bypassed a Las Vegas City Council vote on $6.3 million in Flock & Skydio surveillance gear by donating it through a private, tax-exempt police foundation[143] | The Flaw (Sept. 26, 2025): "Last fall, Ben Horowitz announced publicly that he and his wife had donated $6.3 million in Flock and Skydio equipment to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department... The donation was routed through a tax-exempt police foundation, bypassing the city council that would otherwise have had a say."[143] | Deployed outside municipal budget appropriations following fall 2024 announcement[143] |
| 22 | Northern Kentucky (Independence, Newport, Fort Thomas, Fort Mitchell)[144] | Independence conducted 2023 free trial, purchased 15 cameras in 2024, & purchased five more in July (reported August 28, 2026)[144] | Free trials, then paid cameras[144] | City Council approval[74][144] | Not applicable[144][74] | Free trials and entry pricing kept under council thresholds, so cameras could start on a lieutenant's or captain's signature: Free trials & sub-threshold entry pricing structured so police could deploy cameras with only a lieutenant's or captain's signature without a City Council or County Commission vote[74][144] | Free trials & sub-threshold entry pricing were structured to stay below City Council or County Commission dollar limits so police could begin operating cameras with only a lieutenant's or captain's signature[74][144] | The Latin Times (Oct. 19, 2026): "...Flock's free trial program and entry-level pricing were deliberately structured to keep contracts below the dollar thresholds that require city council or county commission approval ... meaning law enforcement agencies could begin operating the cameras with only a lieutenant's or captain's signature on the agreement."[74] | Fort Thomas (Mayor Andy Ellison), Newport, Independence, & Fort Mitchell announced discontinuation of Flock cameras in August 2026[144] |
See also
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Fichten, Lauren; Clark, Alex (2025-07-24). "When license plate readers get it wrong". CBS News. Archived from the original on 2025-07-24. Retrieved 2025-10-28.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Kerhin, Brian (2026-01-09). "Menasha police officer accused of using license plate recognition system to track his ex". FOX 11 News. Archived from the original on 2026-01-10. Retrieved 2026-01-11.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Soicher, Spencer (2026-04-23). "He didn't commit a crime, but Flock cam alerts keep getting him pulled over". 9News (KUSA). Retrieved 2026-04-24.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Soicher, Spencer (2026-04-30). "Not a one-off: More Coloradans stopped by police after data errors triggered Flock alerts". 9News (KUSA). Retrieved 2026-08-10.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Tsui, Karina; Sottile, Zoe (2025-10-25). "Student handcuffed after Doritos bag mistaken for a gun by school's AI security system". CNN. Archived from the original on 2025-10-26. Retrieved 2025-10-28.
- ↑ "Flock cameras keep telling police a Colorado man who doesn't have a warrant has a warrant". 9News (KUSA). 2026-04-23. Retrieved 2026-04-24.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Paul, Jesse (2025-10-28). "A suburban police officer used a Flock surveillance camera to accuse a Denver woman of theft. Then she had to prove him wrong". The Colorado Sun. Retrieved 2026-04-24.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 "Flock cameras lead Colorado police to wrong suspect". CBS News Colorado. 2025-11-13. Retrieved 2026-04-24.
- ↑ "The cop who wrongfully accused a Denver woman of a package theft faces discipline". Denverite. 2025-11-11. Retrieved 2026-04-24.
- ↑ Soicher, Spencer (2026-02-23). "Colorado bill requiring warrant to search license plate tracking database advances". 9News (KUSA). Retrieved 2026-04-24.
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Pedraza, Pilar (2024-01-30). "KAKE NEWS INVESTIGATES: Duplicate license plate numbers lead to dangerous situations for some Kansas drivers". KAKE. Retrieved 2026-08-10.
- ↑ 12.00 12.01 12.02 12.03 12.04 12.05 12.06 12.07 12.08 12.09 12.10 12.11 Roarty, Adam (2025-12-09). "Reno Police Report Shows How Casino's Facial Recognition Led to Wrongful Arrest". CasinoBeats. Archived from the original on 2025-12-10. Retrieved 2025-12-16.
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Conneller, Philip (2025-11-11). "Peppermill Reno's Facial Recognition Tech Leads to Wrongful Arrest". Casino.org. Archived from the original on 2026-02-16. Retrieved 2025-12-16.
- ↑ García, Jerome (2025-12-11). "Peppermill Casino AI Software Gives 100% Match, Misidentifies Passer-by". Gambling News. Archived from the original on 2025-12-05. Retrieved 2026-01-11.
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Conneller, Philip (2026-01-28). "Reno Cop Concedes Peppermill Facial Recognition Arrest was Wrongful". Casino.org. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
- ↑ Gwilliam, Michael (2025-12-15). "Bodycam footage reveals moment innocent man is arrested after AI misidentifies him". Dexerto. Archived from the original on 2025-12-18. Retrieved 2025-12-16.
- ↑ "Victim of Black Mirror Scenario Settles with Peppermill and Goes After Local Reno Cop". Our Town Reno. 2025-11-14. Archived from the original on 2026-01-10. Retrieved 2025-12-16.
- ↑ "KILLINGER v. JAGER". Leagle. Archived from the original on 2026-02-10. Retrieved 2025-12-16.
- ↑ "Killinger vs Jager, Case Details". UniCourt. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
- ↑ Baker, Joe (2022-10-31). "Kechi police lieutenant arrested for using police technology to stalk wife". KWCH. Archived from the original on 2022-10-31.
- ↑ Stavola, Michael (2024-08-17). "Kansas police chief used Flock license plate cameras to track ex-girlfriend". Yahoo News. Archived from the original on 2024-08-17.
- ↑ McCandless, C.C. (2024-02-16). "Las Vegas police officer arrested for reportedly stalking ex-fiancée". FOX5 Vegas. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16.
- ↑ Tucker, Eric (2016-09-27). "When cops abuse confidential databases". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2023-07-21.
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 Eric Levenson (2026-07-26). "Inside the growing police use and misuse of Flock's license-plate reader cameras". CNN. Retrieved 2026-08-10.
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 Brendan Keefe (2026-07-17). "AI audit tool flags suspicious police searches as Flock misuse cases mount in Georgia". Atlanta News First. Retrieved 2026-08-10.
- ↑ "Ga. police supervisor arrested after Flock audit, department says". WRDW. 2026-07-23. Retrieved 2026-08-10.
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 "Grimmett v. City of Wichita, Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Case No. SG-2026-CV-002760" (PDF). Kansas Justice Institute. 2026-07-29. Retrieved 2026-08-12.
- ↑ Tim Carpenter (2026-07-31). "Kansas lawsuit challenges Wichita law enforcement's reliance on license plate reader cameras". Kansas Reflector. Retrieved 2026-08-10.
- ↑ "Automated License Plate Readers widely used, subject to abuse". University of Michigan. 2023-02-22. Archived from the original on 2023-06-17.
- ↑ Davidson, Nikki (2024-04-16). "ALPR Audit Takeaways: What We Learned About Policy Gaps". Government Technology. Archived from the original on 2024-04-17.
- ↑ 31.00 31.01 31.02 31.03 31.04 31.05 31.06 31.07 31.08 31.09 31.10 31.11 "Law Enforcement Use of Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Update, January 2026" (PDF). Virginia State Crime Commission. 2026-01-01. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
- ↑ 32.0 32.1 "Carpenter v. United States". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Archived from the original on 2018-06-23. Retrieved 2025-12-16.
- ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 "United States v. Jones". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Archived from the original on 2012-01-26. Retrieved 2025-12-16.
- ↑ 34.0 34.1 "Commonwealth v. McCarthy" (PDF). Justia. 2020-04-16. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-03-03. Retrieved 2025-12-16.
- ↑ "United States v. Knotts". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Archived from the original on 2012-06-01. Retrieved 2025-12-16.
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 Collier, Kevin (2025-09-18). "Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2025-09-18. Retrieved 2025-12-16.
- ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 Cox, Toby (2026-02-11). "A federal judge ruled Norfolk's Flock surveillance cameras don't invade people's privacy, yet". WHRO. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
- ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 "Judge holds Norfolk's license plate reader use constitutional". Courthouse News Service. 2026-01-28. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
- ↑ Maass, Dave; Lipton, Beryl (2021-04-22). "Data Driven: Explore How Cops Are Collecting and Sharing Our Travel Patterns Using Automated License Plate Readers". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 2018-11-15. Retrieved 2025-12-16.
- ↑ Kenney, Andrew (2024-09-19). "2 million license plates scanned monthly by Denver's new police cameras". Denverite. Archived from the original on 2024-09-19. Retrieved 2025-12-16.
- ↑ Thompson, Ben (2025-05-20). "75M license plates scanned under rebooted Austin police program; audit reveals successes, concerns". Community Impact. Archived from the original on 2025-06-07. Retrieved 2025-12-16.
- ↑ Leonardo US Cyber and Security Solutions (2025-09-09). "ELSAG SignalTrace product sheet". DocumentCloud. Retrieved 2026-06-21.
- ↑ 43.0 43.1 Cox, Joseph (2026-06-08). "This Company Will Add Phone, AirPod, and Smartwatch Trackers to License Plate Readers". 404 Media. Retrieved 2026-06-21.
- ↑ 44.0 44.1 "Leonardo US Cyber and Security Solutions receives a patent for their new electronic signature tracking system for law enforcement". Business Wire. 2024-05-30. Archived from the original on 2025-08-10. Retrieved 2026-06-21.
- ↑ Ismail, Adam (2026-06-17). "License Plate Cameras Will Soon Track Phones, Wearables, Infotainment, and Even Your Pets". The Drive. Retrieved 2026-06-21.
- ↑ Zialcita, Paolo; DeMare, Kiara (October 22, 2025). "Mayor extends Flock camera contract in Denver". Denverite. Archived from the original on June 1, 2026. Retrieved June 14, 2026.
- ↑ 47.0 47.1 47.2 Harris, Kyle (March 31, 2026). "Denver will keep surveilling license plates, with a new company". Denverite. Archived from the original on April 2, 2026. Retrieved June 14, 2026.
- ↑ Prentzel, Olivia (April 21, 2026). "Colorado Senate Bill 70 would limit surveillance technology". The Colorado Sun. Archived from the original on June 14, 2026. Retrieved June 14, 2026.
- ↑ 49.0 49.1 "Crime". Denver Open Data. City and County of Denver. Retrieved June 14, 2026.
- ↑ Soicher, Spencer (June 12, 2026). "Denver's license plate cameras went dark for a month. Auto theft dropped 29% anyway". 9NEWS (KUSA). Retrieved June 14, 2026.
- ↑ 51.0 51.1 Del Puerto, Luige (May 6, 2024). "Colorado law cracking down on car theft credited for sharp decline". Denver Gazette. Archived from the original on June 14, 2026. Retrieved June 14, 2026.
- ↑ "SB23-097: Motor Vehicle Theft / Unauthorized Use". Colorado General Assembly. Archived from the original on June 14, 2026. Retrieved June 14, 2026.
- ↑ Falayi, K. (2025-09-16). "One sleepy Virginia town. Nearly 7 million hits on its surveillance network". Virginia Center for Investigative Journalism. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
- ↑ "Why some cities are canceling Flock license plate reader contracts". NPR. 2026-02-19. Retrieved 2026-03-02.
- ↑ Ideastream: Cleveland Councilmember Kerry McCormack resigns before end of term
- ↑ WKYC: Kerry McCormack to resign from Cleveland City Council on Oct. 3
- ↑ Cleveland City Council Legistar: File #1367-2025
- ↑ Axios Cleveland: Cleveland mulls shift from ShotSpotter to Flock for gunshot detection
- ↑ Signal Cleveland: City Council debates: Is ShotSpotter making Cleveland safer?
- ↑ Cleveland Charter § 36: Emergency Measures
- ↑ Cleveland Charter § 108: Authorization of Contracts
- ↑ City of Cleveland: Division of Purchases & Supplies
- ↑ 63.0 63.1 63.2 Ohio Revised Code § 102.03
- ↑ 64.0 64.1 Cleveland Codified Ordinances Chapter 171: Employment Provisions
- ↑ 65.0 65.1 Signal Cleveland: Kerry McCormack says he had 'no engagement' with city over Flock
- ↑ 66.0 66.1 News 5 Cleveland: More questions raised about Flock Safety in Cleveland
- ↑ Signal Cleveland: Cleveland to replace ShotSpotter with other gunshot-detection tech
- ↑ 68.0 68.1 68.2 Cleveland Scene: Cleveland Puts Flock Expansion on Hold Amid Local Pushback
- ↑ 69.0 69.1 News 5 Cleveland: Grassroots group presses Cleveland to end relationship with Flock Safety
- ↑ 70.0 70.1 70.2 70.3 70.4 70.5 70.6 70.7 70.8 TechCrunch: Flock Safety quietly hired a sitting California mayor. Now he's suing Flock.
- ↑ DocumentCloud: Cabrera v. Flock Safety, Complaint
- ↑ 72.0 72.1 "California Government Code § 1090". California Legislative Information. Retrieved 2026-04-24.
- ↑ Collier, Kevin (2026-10-19). "How Flock's cameras spread through government deals that bypassed public scrutiny". NBC News. NBCUniversal Media, LLC. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 74.00 74.01 74.02 74.03 74.04 74.05 74.06 74.07 74.08 74.09 74.10 74.11 74.12 74.13 74.14 74.15 74.16 74.17 Salazar, Azucena (2026-10-20). "No Council Vote Required: How Flock Safety Cameras End Up in Cities That Never Approved Them". The Latin Times. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 75.00 75.01 75.02 75.03 75.04 75.05 75.06 75.07 75.08 75.09 75.10 75.11 75.12 ACLU of Wisconsin (2026-02-04). "Written Comment Regarding File # 251653 (Contract #E21123 Flock Group, Inc.)" (PDF). ACLU of Wisconsin. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 76.00 76.01 76.02 76.03 76.04 76.05 76.06 76.07 76.08 76.09 76.10 "Selected Public-Records Exhibits: Prescott City Contract No. 2023-151, Flock Safety Sole Source Letter, and Prescott Police Department Procurement Emails" (PDF). Deflock Prescott. City of Prescott / Flock Group Inc. 2023-03-02. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 77.0 77.1 77.2 77.3 77.4 77.5 "Charter of the City and County of Denver" (PDF). City and County of Denver Office of the Clerk and Recorder. 2022-12. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 78.0 78.1 78.2 78.3 78.4 78.5 ACLU of Colorado (2025-08-11). "Coalition of Civil Rights and Advocacy Organizations Deeply Opposed to Use of Flock Cameras for ICE Surveillance". ACLU of Colorado. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 79.00 79.01 79.02 79.03 79.04 79.05 79.06 79.07 79.08 79.09 79.10 Deflock Broward (2026). "Fort Lauderdale". Deflock Broward. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 80.0 80.1 80.2 80.3 80.4 80.5 80.6 80.7 80.8 "City of Fort Lauderdale Purchase Order Number 10490 (11498 - Insight Public Sector / Flock Group Falcon Infrastructure Year 1 of 5)" (PDF). South Florida Privacy Advocates ALPR-RECORDS Repository. City of Fort Lauderdale Procurement Services Division. 2024-10-23. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 81.00 81.01 81.02 81.03 81.04 81.05 81.06 81.07 81.08 81.09 81.10 Olivia Lee and Tessa Nacke (2026-08-25). "County commissioners interrogate Flock Safety, sheriff's office representatives at workshop session". The Daily Beacon. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 82.00 82.01 82.02 82.03 82.04 82.05 82.06 82.07 82.08 82.09 82.10 82.11 82.12 Garrett Langley (2025-04). "Sole Source Letter for Flock Safety ALPR Cameras and Solution" (PDF). Sussex County, Virginia. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ↑ 83.00 83.01 83.02 83.03 83.04 83.05 83.06 83.07 83.08 83.09 83.10 83.11 John Glidden (2021-05-13). "Benicia City Council to mull approving installation of 45 license plate readers throughout city". JohnGlidden.com. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 84.00 84.01 84.02 84.03 84.04 84.05 84.06 84.07 84.08 84.09 "Flock Procurement: Avoiding Competing Bids and Council Approval". Deflock Prescott. Deflock Prescott. 2026-07. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ↑ 85.00 85.01 85.02 85.03 85.04 85.05 85.06 85.07 85.08 85.09 "Contracts and Amendments: Flock Public-Records Consolidated Evidence PDF (01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf)" (PDF). Deflock Prescott. City of Prescott Public-Records Archive. 2026-07-21. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 86.0 86.1 86.2 86.3 86.4 86.5 "City of Prescott Exhibit A: Prescott City Code Chapter 1-27 (Procurement Code)" (PDF). City of Prescott. City of Prescott, Arizona. 2023-01-10. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 87.0 87.1 87.2 87.3 87.4 87.5 Paolo Zialcita, Kyle Harris (2025-05-05). "Denver rejects $666,000 extension for license-plate surveillance cameras after backlash". Denverite. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 88.0 88.1 88.2 88.3 Hernandez, Esteban L. (2025-09-02). "Denver license plate readers raise mass surveillance concerns". Axios Denver. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 89.0 89.1 89.2 89.3 ACLU of Colorado (2025-10-20). "Community Organizations and City Leaders Call for Denver Mayor Mike Johnston to Immediately Turn off Flock Cameras". ACLU of Colorado. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 90.0 90.1 90.2 90.3 Marques, Natalia (2025-10-28). "Mass opposition to Flock surveillance grows in Denver". Peoples Dispatch. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 91.0 91.1 91.2 91.3 91.4 Paolo Zialcita, Kiara DeMare (2025-10-22). "Denver extends Flock surveillance cameras despite pushback from city council". Denverite. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 92.0 92.1 92.2 92.3 92.4 "Amendatory Agreement Between the City and County of Denver and Flock Group Inc (Contract Control Number: POLIC-202578012-01 / 202472539-01)" (PDF). City and County of Denver Legistar. City and County of Denver / Flock Group Inc. 2025-03-01. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 93.0 93.1 93.2 93.3 Katie McLoughlin (2025-04-15). "Memorandum No. 8A: Contracts and Other Written Instruments of and for the City and County of Denver (Contract Procedures)" (PDF). City and County of Denver. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 94.0 94.1 94.2 94.3 94.4 John P Utterback (2017-09-20). "General Services Purchasing Procurement Policy and Procedure Manual" (PDF). City and County of Denver General Services Purchasing Division. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 95.0 95.1 95.2 95.3 95.4 Timothy M. O'Brien (2017-12-14). "Audit Report: Contract Controls in Alfresco" (PDF). City and County of Denver Office of the Auditor. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 96.0 96.1 96.2 96.3 96.4 "Fort Lauderdale, FL Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article V, Division 2: Purchasing (Ord. No. C-17-26)" (PDF). South Florida Privacy Advocates ALPR-RECORDS Repository. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 2026-03-06. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 97.0 97.1 97.2 97.3 97.4 "Dollar Threshold Chart (Reference Number: CTAS-918)". UT County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS) Electronic Library (e-Li). University of Tennessee Institute for Public Service. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 98.00 98.01 98.02 98.03 98.04 98.05 98.06 98.07 98.08 98.09 Akaolisa, Tom (2026-07-24). "Flock Camera and Drone Contract Signed One Dollar Below County Board Approval Threshold". MinneapoliMedia. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 99.00 99.01 99.02 99.03 99.04 99.05 99.06 99.07 99.08 99.09 Vue, Katelyn (2026-08-18). "Anoka County Sheriff's Office signs Flock contract, sidesteps board approval by lowering cost". Sahan Journal. Sahan Journal. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 100.0 100.1 100.2 100.3 100.4 Steeves, Elliot (2026-08-23). "ACSO presents on, defends ALPRs to St Francis City Council". ABC Newspapers / HometownSource.com. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 101.0 101.1 101.2 101.3 101.4 "Anoka County Procurement Policy (Version 1.0)". Anoka County, Minnesota. Anoka County Board of Commissioners. 2025-10-28. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 102.0 102.1 102.2 102.3 102.4 "Minnesota Statutes 2025, Section 471.345: Uniform Municipal Contracting Law". Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. 2025. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 103.0 103.1 103.2 103.3 103.4 103.5 "Flock Safety + MI - Kalamazoo PD Exhibit A Order Form (PO Number: P-052389, Signed August 13, 2025)" (PDF). Southwest Michigan Democratic Socialists of America. Flock Group Inc. / City of Kalamazoo. 2025-08-13. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 104.0 104.1 104.2 104.3 104.4 "Flock Safety + MI - Kalamazoo PD 2021 Agreements and Signature Certificates (Document Refs. K6XSE-LCDWN-CGYRP-2WVS9, FJ8LB-8QCNP-FQ7J3-YK2ET, and YWWFJ-LTVQ5-HU3NF-NAVNR)" (PDF). Southwest Michigan Democratic Socialists of America. Flock Group Inc. / City of Kalamazoo. 2021-06-08. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 105.00 105.01 105.02 105.03 105.04 105.05 105.06 105.07 105.08 105.09 Russell, Elliot (2026-08-18). "Kalamazoo city commission approval will now be required for Flock contracts". WMUK 102.1 FM. Western Michigan University. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 106.0 106.1 106.2 106.3 106.4 106.5 "City of Kalamazoo City Commission Policy No. 70.5: Purchasing Policy" (PDF). City of Kalamazoo. City of Kalamazoo, Michigan. 2009-03-16. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 107.0 107.1 107.2 107.3 107.4 Schuster, Matt (2026-08-17). "Kalamazoo City Commission Must Now Approve Renewals of License Plate Reader Camera Contracts". Public Media Network. Public Media Network. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 108.00 108.01 108.02 108.03 108.04 108.05 108.06 108.07 108.08 108.09 Anna Bumgarner, Jody Farrow-Bennett (2026-10-19). "Rowan County Board of Commissioners Agenda Packet (October 19, 2026): Ratification of Notice of Cancellation – Contract 25239 (Flock Safety)". Rowan County, North Carolina. Rowan County Board of Commissioners. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 109.0 109.1 109.2 109.3 109.4 109.5 109.6 "Rowan County, NC Moves to End Sheriff Flock Contract". For Flock's Sake. For Flock's Sake. 2026-10-17. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 110.0 110.1 110.2 110.3 110.4 "North Carolina General Statutes § 143-129: Procedure for letting of public contracts". North Carolina General Assembly. State of North Carolina. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 111.0 111.1 111.2 111.3 111.4 "North Carolina General Statutes § 143-133: No evasion permitted". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 112.0 112.1 112.2 112.3 112.4 112.5 "Flock Safety + CA - Redondo Beach PD Exhibit A Order Form and Master Services Agreement" (PDF). City of Redondo Beach Legistar. City of Redondo Beach / Flock Group, Inc. 2024-01-09. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 113.00 113.01 113.02 113.03 113.04 113.05 113.06 113.07 113.08 113.09 "City of Redondo Beach Administrative Report H.5., File # 24-0007: Approve Contracts Under $35,000 (Flock Group, Inc. dba Flock Safety)" (PDF). City of Redondo Beach Legistar. City of Redondo Beach, California. 2024-01-09. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 114.0 114.1 114.2 114.3 114.4 114.5 114.6 114.7 114.8 "Redondo Beach, CA Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-09-09. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 115.0 115.1 115.2 115.3 115.4 115.5 "Redondo Beach Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 6: Purchasing System (§ 2-6.07)". GoCodebook. City of Redondo Beach, California. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 116.00 116.01 116.02 116.03 116.04 116.05 116.06 116.07 116.08 116.09 Uphues, Bob (2022-10-11). "North Riverside trustees OK license plate reader system". Riverside-Brookfield Landmark. Growing Community Media. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 117.0 117.1 117.2 117.3 117.4 117.5 117.6 "Village of North Riverside Board of Trustees Agenda Packet (March 20, 2023): Request for Board Action and Resolution No. 23-R-05". Village of North Riverside. Village of North Riverside, Illinois. 2023-03-20. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 118.00 118.01 118.02 118.03 118.04 118.05 118.06 118.07 118.08 118.09 118.10 118.11 118.12 "Illinois Statutes Chapter 65. Municipalities § 5/8-9-1". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 119.00 119.01 119.02 119.03 119.04 119.05 119.06 119.07 119.08 119.09 "McKinney, TX Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-09-08. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 120.0 120.1 "Bill Analysis, S.B. 1173 (Enrolled)". Texas Legislature Online. Senate Research Center. 2025. Retrieved 2026-10-22.
- ↑ 121.0 121.1 121.2 121.3 121.4 121.5 "Texas Local Government Code § 252.021: Competitive Requirements for Purchases". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 122.0 122.1 122.2 122.3 122.4 122.5 "Texas Local Government Code § 252.062: Criminal Penalties". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 123.00 123.01 123.02 123.03 123.04 123.05 123.06 123.07 123.08 123.09 123.10 "Park Ridge Approves Flock License Plate Readers Contract Extension". Journal & Topics. Journal & Topics Media Group. 2026-07-21. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 124.00 124.01 124.02 124.03 124.04 124.05 124.06 124.07 124.08 124.09 124.10 124.11 "Board unaware of sheriff's Flock camera purchase". The Daily Gazette / HudsonValley360. The Daily Gazette. 2026-08-19. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 125.0 125.1 125.2 125.3 "New York General Municipal Law § 103". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 126.00 126.01 126.02 126.03 126.04 126.05 126.06 126.07 126.08 126.09 126.10 126.11 126.12 "Waltham, MA Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-08-21. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 127.00 127.01 127.02 127.03 127.04 127.05 127.06 127.07 127.08 127.09 127.10 Johnson, Charlie (2026-06-28). "Privacy Concerns Persist Over Waltham's Flock Safety Cameras as Massachusetts Passes New Consumer Data Protections". Waltham Times. Waltham News Alliance. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 128.0 128.1 128.2 128.3 "General Laws, Part I, Title III, Chapter 30B, Section 5". The 194th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Retrieved 2026-10-22.
- ↑ 129.0 129.1 129.2 129.3 129.4 129.5 129.6 129.7 "Massachusetts General Laws Part I, Title III, Chapter 30B, Section 11: Splitting of contracts prohibited". The General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 130.00 130.01 130.02 130.03 130.04 130.05 130.06 130.07 130.08 130.09 130.10 "Records show Cullman Police Department's Flock camera system expanded as retention policy changed". The Cullman Tribune. The Cullman Tribune. 2026-07-07. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 131.00 131.01 131.02 131.03 131.04 131.05 131.06 131.07 131.08 131.09 131.10 131.11 "Cullman, AL Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-07-07. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 132.0 132.1 132.2 132.3 "Alabama Code Title 41. State Government § 41-16-50". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 133.00 133.01 133.02 133.03 133.04 133.05 133.06 133.07 133.08 133.09 133.10 133.11 "Monterey County, CA Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-08-20. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 134.00 134.01 134.02 134.03 134.04 134.05 134.06 134.07 134.08 134.09 134.10 134.11 "City of Coachella Regular Meeting Minutes (May 26, 2021, Item 36)". City of Coachella. City of Coachella, California. 2021-05-26. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 135.00 135.01 135.02 135.03 135.04 135.05 135.06 135.07 135.08 135.09 135.10 "Flock Group Inc. Order Form for City of Coachella (65 Flock Safety Falcon Cameras, Dated July 1, 2021)". City of Coachella. City of Coachella / Flock Group Inc. 2021-07-01. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 136.00 136.01 136.02 136.03 136.04 136.05 136.06 136.07 136.08 136.09 136.10 136.11 "Coachella, CA Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-07-15. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 137.0 137.1 137.2 137.3 "Milwaukee City Charter, Chapter 16: Contracts" (PDF). City of Milwaukee. Office of the City Clerk. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2025-03-12. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 138.00 138.01 138.02 138.03 138.04 138.05 138.06 138.07 138.08 138.09 138.10 138.11 Anastasia E. Lennon (2026-09-25). "City Council passes temporary ordinance continuing Flock shutdown". The New Bedford Light. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 139.00 139.01 139.02 139.03 139.04 139.05 139.06 139.07 139.08 139.09 139.10 Anastasia E. Lennon (2026-08-25). "City Council advances four motions on Flock cameras". The New Bedford Light. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 140.00 140.01 140.02 140.03 140.04 140.05 140.06 140.07 140.08 140.09 140.10 Jason Hunyar (2026-06-07). "Flock's CEO Says You Can "Opt-Out", So I Asked Him How". FOIA Around And Find Out. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 141.00 141.01 141.02 141.03 141.04 141.05 141.06 141.07 141.08 141.09 141.10 141.11 Gregg Horton (2026-07-13). "What Benicia's Own Records Reveal About Its Flock Safety Surveillance Deal". Benicia Independent. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 142.0 142.1 142.2 142.3 "Benicia Municipal Code Chapter 3.08: Purchasing Regulation". GoCodebook. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 143.00 143.01 143.02 143.03 143.04 143.05 143.06 143.07 143.08 143.09 143.10 143.11 143.12 Juvaria Shahid (2026-07-08). "Dragnet Surveillance by Design". The Flaw. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 144.00 144.01 144.02 144.03 144.04 144.05 144.06 144.07 144.08 144.09 144.10 Dany Villarreal Martinez (2026-08-28). "Fort Thomas joins other NKY cities in dropping Flock Safety cameras". 91.7 WVXU. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ Maass, Brian (2025-10-28). "Denver City Council seeks to block Flock cameras contract due to concerns about "ethics, transparency, credibility"". CBS Colorado. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ Harris, Kyle (2025-10-29). "Majority of City Council blasts Denver's contract with Flock, saying it's 'undemocratic'". Denverite. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ Andrew Kenney, Kiara DeMare (2026-02-24). "Denver fires Flock, prepares to switch to new roadway surveillance system". Denverite. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ Sieber, Jacqui (2026-09-02). "Knox County joins cities nationwide in removing Flock cameras". WUOT. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)