Flock: Surveillance Without Accountability?

Since finding out the impact of Flock Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in our cities, SCA has dug into a black hole of surveillance information. Flock sells itself as a friend of law enforcement and an advocate for safety. Research finds it often contradicts its own guidelines. Whether intentionally deceptive, or unintentional, those contradictions cause questions and distrust.

Flock ALPR went online in 2017 growing quickly and some say “quietly.” In 2022 citizens began asking questions. Summer 2025 saw an explosion of objections and challenges that led to heated city council meetings. As opposition grows, cities continue to terminate their contracts over privacy concerns and fears of abuse. Audits prove those concerns to be valid.

Research in support of Flock consistently shows ALPR helps recover stolen vehicles and assists investigations after crimes occur. None of the peer-reviewed studies demonstrate meaningful real-time crime deterrence. Every review calls for stronger oversight and restrictions.

Flock contracts with more than 100 police agencies across Minnesota, operating over 500 cameras statewide and around 90,000 nationally. Brooklyn Park ended its contract after finding agencies sharing data were not consistently following state law. Shorewood “bagged” its camera this spring when it continued to alert on plates after Flock was instructed to turn the camera off. When a KSTP investigative team sought comment, Flock Safety canceled the interview 15 minutes before it was scheduled.

Although an agency may believe it has adequate policies to protect information, there are “side doors” and “back doors” allowing unfettered and often unrealized access. Flock’s own website flatly states “back-door access does not exist.” But University of Washington researchers found Border Patrol pulling data from at least ten Washington agencies that had never granted them access, simply because of how the network’s sharing rules flow through connected agencies.

Nationally documented cases of officer misuse:

Milwaukee Officer Josue Ayala used the system to track two women nearly 200 times, entering “investigation” as his reason for each search.
Atlanta Police Department audit records show that between Mar. 20-24, two credentialed users ran 15 searches using terms like “locate alien” and “ERO assist,” referring to ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations. After public pressure, Flock announced an end to federal assists. Yet, weeks later Pierce County, Georgia ran four searches labeled “Border Patrol Assist.”

Flock gets caught:

In Dunwoody, Georgia, Flock sales employees accessed live camera feeds, including a children’s gymnastics room and pool, to demo the system to prospective clients. Flock’s own FAQ states that “nobody from Flock Safety is accessing or monitoring your footage.” Access logs said otherwise. When the story broke, Flock apologized and agreed to stop.

When citizens push back, Flock and its allies have a message ready tying the push to “defund the police” rhetoric. In Dec. 2025, Flock CEO Garrett Langley emailed every law enforcement client in the country, dismissing critics as activists who want to “defund the police, weaken public safety, and normalize lawlessness.”

Langley’s words stuck.

South Lake Minnetonka Police Chief Ballsrud told his coordinating committee of mayors that opposition to Flock fits a “defund the police” narrative. A mayor agreed, saying it was this misinformation that is the opinion of some of her council members. (Video link below)
In Troy, New York, when more than 100 residents packed a six-hour city council meeting to oppose renewal, Mayor Carmella Mantello called their effort “defunding the police, whether we call it that or not.”
In Richmond, Virginia, a police official warned darkly of “powerful entities” trying to kill the technology, when residents, the ACLU, and a nonpartisan criminal justice nonprofit raised documented concerns about federal abuse.

Not everyone buys into Flock “speak.” Police chiefs in Staunton, Charlottesville, and Flagstaff openly lambasted using the term “defunding” as unprofessional and undemocratic. Staunton’s chief publicly rebuked CEO Langley and canceled its contract because of the email itself. If the email was meant as a silencing tactic, it may have backfired.

Flock markets “radical transparency” as a core value, but actually tells enforcement agencies to redact plates, search reasons, and case numbers. It encourages charging fees to discourage records requests. Flock builds the network with public money, profits from it, then deletes the paper trail when scrutiny grows. When pushed, Flock says it is a private technology company and it is not its role to audit how law enforcement officers do their jobs.

Flock quietly rewrote its terms of service in Dec. 2025 removing data ownership from agencies, expanding its intellectual property claims to cover virtually everything its system touches, and moving the entire contract to a vendor-controlled website that Flock can update at any time without customer notice. After the December rewrite any historical record of what the original terms said were excluded from the website

In Feb. 2026, Flock updated the terms again. This time adding mandatory arbitration, moving all disputes to Georgia courts, and removing language that could deter data sales. The cities that signed contracts believing they owned their data no longer do. There is no way to prove what the contract originally said.

Shorewood City Council will review the first audit of the Flock camera on June 8. The Council will decide the future of Flock in the city will at this meeting. Your voice matters. Speak at the meeting, call or email the council. Share this article with a neighbor.

Make a difference.

__________________________________________________________________________

THE PROS OF FLOCK

A 2025 evaluation of a major ALPR expansion found that increased automated license plate reader deployment improved investigative efficiency and generated more actionable leads for police agencies. Researchers studying a large police department found ALPR expansion increased the number of investigative “hits” tied to stolen vehicles, wanted persons, and criminal investigations.
A 2021 study found patrols using ALPRs were more likely to recover vehicles and support enforcement in crime hot spots than patrols without the technology. A 2024 review in Criminal Justice Policy Review reported that officers with direct ALPR experience viewed the systems positively and believed they improved policing effectiveness.

& THE CONS

A 2025 peer-reviewed study found that the rapid expansion of ALPR systems like Flock Safety has significantly outpaced oversight, creating serious risks involving privacy, data sharing, and mass surveillance. The study concluded that ALPR deployment has expanded faster than regulatory safeguards, leaving major gaps in accountability and oversight.
Researchers warned that interconnected ALPR networks allow agencies to conduct large-scale tracking and searches of people who are not suspected of crimes, raising civil liberties concerns about broad inter-agency data sharing and the growing ability to compile vehicle movement histories.