Written by 
Flock Safety markets its surveillance systems as modern crime solving tools. The company promises that its automated license plate readers and related technologies will help police find stolen cars, locate missing people, and solve cases faster. Over the past several years, Flock has grown into one of the largest surveillance vendors in the United States, with thousands of cameras deployed across cities, suburbs, and rural communities.
Behind the sales pitch is a long record of misuse, officer misconduct, civil rights violations, and technical failures. These problems have been documented by civil liberties groups, investigative journalists, public records requests, and internal audits. The pattern is clear. Once installed, Flock systems are routinely used for purposes far beyond what residents were told.
This expanded report goes deeper into the documented abuses, the technical risks, the privacy failures, the crime solving effectiveness statistics, and the growing number of police departments and city governments that have canceled their contracts with Flock Safety. It includes detailed findings from Ohio, Los Angeles, and other major cities nationwide.
Marion, Ohio City Council – Flock Camera Motion by Council Member Thaddaeus Smith
During the July 13, 2026 Marion City Council meeting, Council Member Thaddaeus Smith raised significant concerns about the city’s use of Flock Safety surveillance cameras. Smith stated that surveillance in local communities “isn’t right” and emphasized that cities across Ohio and the United States are canceling their Flock contracts due to privacy violations and constitutional concerns.
He warned that Flock’s capabilities do not align with constitutional protections and noted that the company holds more than three hundred million dollars in government contracts, meaning taxpayer money is being used to fund widespread surveillance. Smith argued that no amount of auditing can make residents feel comfortable with the scale of government operated camera systems and stated plainly that Marion “shouldn’t have them.” He concluded by signaling his intent to introduce a motion related to the removal of the cameras.
How Flock technology works and why it matters
Flock Safety’s core product is an automated license plate reader. The camera captures plates, vehicle details, and movement patterns. The system stores this information in a searchable database. Police departments can search for a vehicle’s past movements, set alerts, and share data with other agencies.
The company’s network is what makes the system powerful. A single camera is limited. Thousands of cameras connected together create a detailed record of where people travel, when they travel, and who they travel near.
This is not just a crime solving tool. It is a mass surveillance system.
The system does not require suspicion, warrants, or probable cause. It records everyone.
Crime solving effectiveness statistics
A major question for any community is whether Flock systems actually solve crimes. The company claims high success rates, but independent audits and public records tell a different story.
National effectiveness statistics
Across multiple cities, the percentage of crimes solved directly because of Flock data is far lower than the percentage of crimes that begin with Flock alerts.
Key findings include:
• In Los Angeles, only 2 percent of stolen vehicle cases were solved directly because of Flock data, while 31 percent of Flock alerts were false.
• In Minneapolis, only 3 percent of cases flagged by Flock resulted in arrests tied directly to Flock data.
• In Austin, only 4 percent of Flock alerts led to actionable investigative leads.
• In Denver, only 1 percent of violent crime investigations used Flock data as a primary source.
• In Chicago suburbs, only 5 percent of Flock alerts resulted in confirmed stolen vehicles.
Across all cities reviewed, the average percentage of crimes solved directly because of Flock data ranged between 1 percent and 5 percent.
Comparison to crime initiation statistics
In contrast, between 20 percent and 40 percent of police stops in cities with large Flock deployments begin with Flock alerts.
This means:
• A large portion of police activity begins with Flock alerts.
• A very small portion of solved cases are tied directly to Flock data.
• The system generates far more false leads than useful ones.
This raises a central investigative question.
Is the system worth it?
The numbers suggest that Flock systems generate a high volume of police activity but a low volume of solved cases.
Documented officer misconduct and personal misuse
The most consistent and disturbing trend is officers using Flock systems to stalk people in their personal lives. These cases are not rare. They appear across multiple states and departments.
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
An officer pleaded guilty after using Flock cameras to track his estranged wife and other family members.
Kechi, Kansas
A lieutenant pleaded guilty to computer crime and stalking after using Flock cameras to track his estranged wife.
Sedgwick County, Kansas
A police chief resigned after running his ex girlfriend’s plate and her new boyfriend’s plate more than 200 times.
Costa Mesa, California
An officer used Flock systems to track a mistress and her other romantic interests. He later pleaded guilty to multiple charges.
Orange City, Florida
An officer ran his ex girlfriend’s plate at least 69 times and also searched for her parents’ plates dozens of times. He was arrested and charged.
These cases show a clear pattern. Officers used Flock systems to monitor people they knew personally. They used the system to follow movements, check locations, and track relationships.
Internal oversight did not catch these abuses early. In most cases, the misconduct was discovered only after victims complained or outside investigators reviewed logs.
Misuse against critics, journalists, and residents who speak out
Flock systems have also been used to track residents who criticize police departments.
In one documented case, a Kansas police department ran a local critic’s license plate roughly 150 times over less than 2 years after he wrote a column critical of the department.
This is not crime fighting. It is retaliation.
It shows how easily a surveillance tool can be turned against people who speak out.
Surveillance of protesters and political activity
Investigations by the Electronic Frontier Foundation reviewed more than 12 million Flock search logs. The logs showed repeated use of the system to monitor protests and political demonstrations.
Agencies searched for vehicles associated with specific protest events. Some searches referenced protest activity directly. Others used vague terms that still clearly related to constitutionally protected speech.
Activists from Direct Action Everywhere, an animal rights group, were repeatedly targeted in Flock searches.
This shows that Flock systems are used to monitor political activity, even when no crime is suspected.
Discriminatory searches and biased policing
Search logs obtained through public records requests show widespread use of discriminatory language.
More than 80 agencies used terms referencing Romani people, including racial slurs, in hundreds of searches.
Some searches used Flock’s convoy feature to target entire traveling communities without any stated crime.
This is not neutral policing. It is targeted surveillance based on prejudice.
Technical failures, false alerts, and dangerous encounters
Flock cameras misread plates. When they do, the consequences can be severe.
In one case, a Flock camera misread a single letter on an SUV’s plate and flagged it as stolen. Officers conducted a high risk stop. They ordered the driver and partner out at gunpoint while their 6 week old baby remained in the car.
Only after radioing the plate to dispatch did officers realize the error.
The Los Angeles Police Department documented 161 false stolen vehicle alerts in just 2 months. Each alert resulted in an unnecessary stop of an innocent driver.
False alerts create dangerous situations. Innocent people are treated as suspects.
Data sharing failures, breaches, and unauthorized access
Once data is collected, controlling who can access it becomes difficult.
Dayton, Ohio
City workers covered Flock cameras with trash bags after discovering more than 7,100 immigration related searches that violated city policy. Officials described the violations as egregious.
Mountain View, California
The city ended its Flock contract after discovering that federal immigration officials had accessed local Flock data in violation of sanctuary city rules.
Evanston, Illinois
The city attempted to remove its Flock cameras. Flock Safety reinstalled them without permission. The city issued a cease and desist order.
These incidents show that local control over Flock data is limited. Once data enters the network, it can be accessed by outside agencies, including federal entities, often without local approval.
Expansion into Raven, Scout, and real time crime centers
Flock Safety has expanded beyond license plate readers.
Raven
An audio detection system that listens for gunshots and other sounds. Civil liberties groups warn that always listening systems can become general audio surveillance tools.
Scout
A sensor platform that integrates multiple types of inputs. This increases the amount of data collected about ordinary life.
Real time crime centers
Flock promotes integrations that combine plate data, audio alerts, sensor feeds, and other camera systems into a single dashboard.
These expansions increase the amount of data collected and concentrate power in centralized monitoring hubs.
The documented misuse of Flock’s core products raises serious questions about how these new tools will be used.
Law enforcement agencies canceling Flock contracts
A growing number of agencies have canceled or declined to renew Flock contracts.
Los Angeles Police Department
In July 2026, LAPD allowed its contract with Flock Safety to expire. The department cited serious concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and false alerts. Internal audits showed nearly 1 in 3 stolen vehicle alerts was wrong.
South Pasadena, California
Canceled its Flock contract over privacy concerns.
Mountain View, California
Ended its contract after discovering unauthorized immigration related searches.
South Portland, Maine
Terminated its contract due to surveillance and privacy concerns.
Bloomington, Indiana
Allowed its contract to expire in March 2026.
Santa Cruz and Santa Clara County, California
Both jurisdictions walked away from Flock systems over civil liberties concerns.
Flagstaff, Arizona
Discontinued use of Flock cameras.
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Ended its Flock relationship over privacy concerns.
Nationwide trend
Between August 2021 and May 2026, at least 82 Flock contracts were terminated across 28 states. A total of 39 cancellations occurred in the first 5 months of 2026 alone.
This shows that concerns are widespread and growing.
Ohio specific documented misuse and failures
Ohio has experienced some of the most serious and well documented misuse of Flock systems in the country.
Dayton, Ohio – Massive immigration related misuse and shutdown
Dayton installed Flock ALPR cameras under strict rules that prohibited using local data for immigration enforcement.
In early May 2026, an internal review found that those safeguards had failed. A former commander had not implemented the required restrictions. As a result, outside agencies were able to run thousands of immigration related searches against Dayton’s Flock data.
The report showed:
7,100 immigration related searches.
3,703 searches by U.S. Border Patrol.
779 searches by Lowndes County, Georgia.
1,778 searches for the term ICE.
443 searches for the word immigration.
140 outside agencies accessing Dayton’s data.
The spike began in July 2025. In 2023, there had been only 22 such searches.
Dayton officials stated they could not determine whether any of these searches produced actionable information or led to enforcement actions.
The city responded by:
Suspending use of all fixed Flock cameras.
Turning the cameras off.
Physically covering some cameras with trash bags.
Launching an independent review.
City Manager Shelley Dickstein admitted that the city had failed to execute on the safeguards promised to residents.
This is one of the most serious documented failures of Flock oversight in the country.
Ohio agencies accessing Dayton’s data
The Dayton report also showed that multiple Ohio agencies outside Dayton accessed the city’s Flock system for immigration related searches.
Agencies from Wooster, Warren, and counties including Montgomery, Franklin, and Butler were listed among the users.
This means that:
Local Ohio agencies were querying Dayton’s system.
Immigration related searches were not limited to federal or out of state entities.
Flock’s network allowed cross jurisdiction access despite local policy restrictions.
Dayton officials acknowledged they could not determine whether any of these searches produced actionable information.
Columbus, Ohio – Audit flags officer’s ICE related searches
In July 2026, Columbus conducted an audit of unusual police database searches.
The audit identified an officer whose Flock search patterns raised concerns about potential misuse related to immigration enforcement.
Some searches were tied to ICE related terms or contexts.
The audit was part of a broader review of how Columbus officers use law enforcement databases, including ALPR systems.
While not as large scale as Dayton, the Columbus audit confirms that Ohio departments are now scrutinizing officer use of Flock systems.
Los Angeles case study – The audit that ended the contract
Los Angeles conducted one of the most detailed audits of Flock Safety’s system to date.
The LAPD audit found:
161 false stolen vehicle alerts in 2 months.
Nearly 1 in 3 alerts was wrong.
Multiple wrongful stops of innocent drivers.
Officers relying on Flock alerts without verification.
The audit also raised concerns about:
Data sharing with federal agencies.
Lack of transparency in how Flock stores and shares data.
Potential for misuse similar to cases documented nationwide.
The LAPD concluded that the risks outweighed the benefits.
The department allowed its contract with Flock Safety to expire.
This is one of the largest police departments in the country walking away from Flock technology.
Governance failures and lack of oversight
Flock systems include audit logs. In theory, these logs should prevent misuse. In practice, they have not.
Most documented abuses were discovered only after outside investigation.
Internal monitoring either did not occur or did not lead to timely intervention.
Vendor behavior has also raised concerns.
Reinstalling removed cameras without permission.
Participating in data sharing pilots with federal agencies.
Downplaying risks in public presentations.
These actions undermine public trust.
Why this matters for communities
Flock Safety’s technology is powerful. It records movements, tracks vehicles, and creates detailed histories of where people travel.
The documented record shows that this power has been misused repeatedly.
Misuse is not hypothetical. It is documented.
Misuse is not rare. It is widespread.
Misuse is not accidental. It is intentional.
The system has been used to stalk ex partners, track critics, monitor protests, target marginalized communities, and conduct searches related to reproductive healthcare.
Technical failures have led to dangerous encounters. Unauthorized data sharing has violated local policy.
At the same time, Flock Safety is expanding into audio detection, sensor platforms, and real time crime centers.
This increases the amount of data collected and the risk of misuse.
Conclusion
The investigative record shows a clear pattern.
Flock Safety’s technology has been misused across multiple states and departments. Officers have used the system to stalk people in their personal lives. Agencies have used it to monitor protests and political activity. Discriminatory searches have targeted marginalized communities.
Technical failures have led to dangerous encounters. Unauthorized data sharing has violated local policy.
Ohio’s record is especially serious. Dayton experienced one of the largest documented policy failures in the country. Columbus has already had to audit officer use of Flock systems. Multiple Ohio agencies accessed Dayton’s data despite local restrictions.
Los Angeles conducted a detailed audit and found widespread false alerts and systemic risks. The department allowed its contract to expire.
The company is expanding into new forms of surveillance that increase the amount of data collected and concentrate power in centralized monitoring hubs.
For any community considering Flock or already using it, the finding is simple.
The risk is real.
The abuses are documented.
The pattern is nationwide.
Without strong limits, independent oversight, and genuine transparency, Flock systems function less as narrow crime solving tools and more as a flexible surveillance infrastructure that can be turned against the very people it claims to protect.