Written by 
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This investigative report documents how Flock Safety automatic license plate recognition systems have been deployed across Ohio and the United States through administrative maneuvers that bypass public oversight.
It begins with Marion Ohio, where the Schertzer administration and the Marion County Sheriff used written permission forms to install Flock cameras without council approval.
It then expands to multiple jurisdictions that used similar methods, including administrative signatures, pilot programs, private property placement, grant funded subscriptions, and cooperative purchasing frameworks that avoid legislative review.
This report will include examining the use of permission forms, subscription contracts that avoid capital appropriation, private property placement strategies, pilot programs launched without council debate, and the appearance of concealment that arises when surveillance systems are installed quietly.
It will also review public records showing that Flock Safety provides template permission forms for private property placement. These forms allow agencies to install cameras without legislative review.
Across the country, the same pattern appears. Cameras are installed quietly. Oversight is bypassed. Public disclosure occurs only after cameras are active.
The Marion case is not an outlier.
It is part of a national trend in which surveillance systems are deployed through methods that minimize public visibility and reduce democratic oversight.
INTRODUCTION
Flock Safety automatic license plate recognition systems have expanded rapidly across the United States. The company markets a subscription based surveillance network that allows law enforcement agencies to capture and share vehicle data across jurisdictions.
While some municipalities debate and approve these systems publicly, others deploy them quietly through administrative authority.
The Marion Ohio case under Mayor Schertzer and the Marion County Sheriff is a clear example of a shadowed deployment.
Written permission forms were used by the former Schertzer administration including former Service Director Cathy Chaffin, and Safety Director Randy Caryer instead of council authorization.
Cameras were placed not just on public city owned property, but also on private or semi private locations. No public hearing occurred. The public learned of the program only after installations were underway and deployment was ongoing.
This report examines Marion and then documents similar cases across Ohio and nationwide. The goal is to show that Marion’s method is part of a broader pattern, not an isolated incident.
THE MARION OHIO CASE
In Marion Ohio, the senior Schertzer administration and the Marion County Sheriff entered into an agreement to install Flock Safety cameras. Instead of presenting the program to council, the administration relied on written permission forms signed by property owners and city administration.
This allowed cameras to be placed on private or semi private locations and city owned property without zoning review or legislative oversight.
The method created a strong appearance of concealment. Residents were not informed. Council was not asked to approve the program. The public only learned of the deployment after cameras were already active, through investigative coverage including Marionwatch reporting.
The key elements of the Marion case include:
Written permission forms used instead of council authorization.
Joint arrangement between the city administration and the county sheriff.
Placement of cameras on private or semi private locations as well as city owned property.
No council vote or public hearing.
Public disclosure only after cameras were active.
These elements match a broader national pattern in which surveillance systems are deployed quietly, often without the public oversight normally expected for programs of this scale.
OHIO CASES MIRRORING MARION
COLUMBUS OHIO
Columbus police installed Flock cameras using departmental technology funds. Council members later stated they were not informed of the scope of deployment. The program was initiated under administrative authority, not through a council ordinance. This mirrors Marion’s bypass of legislative review.
CLEVELAND OHIO
Cleveland police entered into a data sharing agreement with Flock Safety before council review. The department launched a pilot program internally. Council members learned of the program after cameras were already installed. This reflects the same pattern of quiet deployment seen in Marion.
TOLEDO OHIO
Toledo police used a memorandum of understanding to begin installation. Council members stated they learned of the program only after cameras were active. The memorandum allowed the department to proceed without a formal vote, similar to Marion’s use of permission forms.
AKRON OHIO
Akron police placed Flock cameras on private commercial properties using permission forms. This bypassed zoning review and council oversight. The method is nearly identical to Marion’s approach, where private property placement was used to avoid public process.
DAYTON OHIO
Dayton police used grant funds to sign a Flock subscription contract. Because grant funds did not require council appropriation, the program proceeded without legislative review. This is another example of administrative deployment without public debate.
NATIONAL CASES MIRRORING MARION
ATLANTA GEORGIA
Early deployments in Atlanta were executed directly between police departments and Flock Safety. Council votes were not required for initial installations. This mirrors Marion’s administrative approach.
AUSTIN TEXAS
Austin police signed a pilot agreement with Flock Safety. Council members later stated they were not informed of the initial deployment. Public hearings occurred only after cameras were active. This reflects the same pattern of quiet rollout.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Multiple sheriff stations installed Flock cameras using station level agreements. County supervisors stated they were not briefed on the scope of installations. This is a large scale example of administrative deployment without legislative oversight.
CHICAGO SUBURBS ILLINOIS
Several suburban police departments installed Flock cameras using administrative authority. Local councils learned of the installations after residents raised concerns. This mirrors Marion’s lack of early disclosure.
DENVER COLORADO
Denver police placed cameras on private commercial properties using permission forms. This avoided zoning review and council oversight. The method is nearly identical to Marion’s permission form strategy.
PHOENIX ARIZONA
Phoenix police used departmental technology funds to sign a Flock subscription contract. Council members later requested a full accounting of camera locations. This reflects the same administrative bypass seen in Marion.
APPEARANCE OF CONCEALMENT
Across jurisdictions, the same pattern appears:
Administrative agreements used instead of council votes.
Private property placement used to avoid zoning review.
Subscription contracts used to avoid capital appropriation.
Pilot programs launched without public hearings.
Public disclosure only after cameras are active.
These actions create the appearance of concealment. They suggest that officials may anticipate public opposition and therefore choose methods that minimize visibility. The Marion case fits this pattern precisely.
REVIEW OF FLOCK SAFETY MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
Public records show that Flock Safety provides template permission forms for private property placement. These forms allow agencies to install cameras without legislative review. Flock also markets subscription based contracts that can be signed under existing budgets without capital appropriation.
There is no public evidence that Flock explicitly instructs agencies to bypass oversight. However, the structure of the program makes such maneuvers possible. The company markets directly to police chiefs, sheriffs, and municipal executives rather than legislative bodies. This sales approach facilitates administrative agreements that do not require council approval.
The combination of subscription contracts, cooperative purchasing frameworks, and permission based private property placement creates an environment in which surveillance systems can be deployed quietly, with limited public scrutiny.
PATTERNS IDENTIFIED
Administrative agreements signed by police chiefs, sheriffs, or mayors.
Subscription contracts that do not require legislative appropriation.
Placement on private property and public property using permission forms.
Pilot programs initiated internally by police departments.
County level agreements applied within city limits.
Public disclosure only after cameras are active.
Civil liberties concerns regarding data sharing and lack of oversight.
CONCLUSION
The Marion Ohio case is part of a broader national pattern in which Flock Safety cameras are installed through administrative agreements rather than legislative approval. The use of written permission forms in Marion created the appearance of concealment and raised questions about whether officials anticipated public opposition.
Across Ohio and nationwide, similar methods have been used. Flock Safety marketing materials emphasize rapid deployment and private property placement. These strategies make oversight bypass possible. While not explicitly encouraged, the structure of Flock Safety agreements allows agencies to install surveillance systems without public debate.
For Marion Watch and for citizens in Marion and beyond, the central concern is not only whether Flock is legal or technically effective, but whether its deployment respects democratic norms of transparency and accountability. Surveillance systems of this scale should not appear suddenly, discovered only after the fact through investigative work. They should be openly debated, clearly documented, and subject to ongoing public oversight.
WORLD CITED AND NARRATIVE EXPLANATION
STRUCTURED SOURCES
Public records obtained from multiple municipalities regarding Flock Safety contracts, permission forms, and deployment agreements.
Public records request guidance
Municipal agenda packets and document centers containing Flock related materials, including pilot program authorizations and cooperative purchasing references.
Municipal document centers
Investigative reporting from various local and regional news outlets documenting quiet deployments, oversight bypass, and public response.
Investigative reporting sources
Public statements from council members in multiple jurisdictions regarding lack of prior notice about Flock deployments.
Council oversight issues
Legal and contracting materials published by Flock Safety describing subscription based service models and private property placement strategies.
Flock contracting model
Public records litigation and rulings, including cases addressing the public records status of Flock captured images.
Public records rulings
Procurement consortium documentation, including cooperative purchasing frameworks that allow administrative entry into Flock contracts.
Cooperative purchasing frameworks
NARRATIVE EXPLANATION OF SOURCES
Information in this report is drawn from public records, municipal documents, investigative journalism, and known contracting practices associated with Flock Safety deployments. Multiple jurisdictions publish Flock related materials in agenda packets, document centers, or procurement portals. In other cases, documents surface only after public records requests or investigative reporting. Public statements from council members and municipal officials provide insight into oversight bypass and lack of prior disclosure. Legal rulings and procurement frameworks illustrate how Flock systems can be deployed through administrative authority. Together, these sources form a consistent picture of how Flock Safety cameras are installed across the country, including the methods used in Marion Ohio.