Jump to content

Flock Safety

From Consumer Rights Wiki
Revision as of 03:18, 26 April 2026 by Neige (talk | contribs) (More Ghost Archives)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Flock Safety
Basic information
Founded 2017
Legal Structure Private
Industry Surveillance Technology
Also known as
Official website https://www.flocksafety.com

Flock Safety is a technology company that creates and operates an extensive surveillance network using automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and related technologies.[1] Flock was founded in 2017 by Georgia Tech alumni Garrett Langley (CEO), Matt Feury (CTO), and Paige Todd (CPO), beginning as a side project where they built their first surveillance cameras by hand.[2] The company operates on a "surveillance as a service" business model, owning and maintaining camera infrastructure while charging recurring fees to law enforcement agencies, private communities, and businesses for access to its surveillance data and network.[3]

As of mid-2025, independent reporting and public records indicate the Flock network comprised more than 80,000 AI-enabled cameras nationwide.[4] Flock's materials state deployments in roughly 5,000 communities, and the company reports the system processes "over 20 billion" vehicle scans per month; these latter two figures are company-provided and should be read as Flock's claims rather than independently verified totals.[5][6][7]

The company reported surpassing roughly $300 million in annual recurring revenue. In March 2025, it closed a $275 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz, which independent reporting estimated valued the company at about $7.5 billion.[3][8] As of 2025, the company has raised a total of $957.5 million in funding.[9]

Consumer impact summary

[edit | edit source]

Privacy

[edit | edit source]

Critics, including civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that Flock's mass surveillance network violates privacy rights and represents a form of constant public monitoring that differs fundamentally from traditional, fleeting police observation.[10] A lawsuit filed in 2024 challenges the constitutionality of warrant-less searches of ALPR databases; courts have split on the issue in different jurisdictions, and rulings continue to be appealed. For example, a federal complaint in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (E.D. Va.) alleges repeated location logging by ALPRs, while appellate activity in related Virginia cases continued into 2025. Readers should consult the cited court documents and reporting for further developments.[11][12] The system does not offer a public opt-out mechanism.[13] This raised concerns about the potential for misuse, profiling, and long-term monitoring of individuals and their associations.[14]

Specific privacy violations include:

  • Warrant-less tracking and data sharing: Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.[10]
  • Expanded audio surveillance: In 2025, Flock announced that its Raven gunshot detection systems would begin listening for "human distress" sounds, such as screaming, expanding beyond gunshot detection to voice monitoring.[15]
  • Undermining state shield laws: Despite state laws protecting healthcare access, out-of-state officers from jurisdictions that criminalize abortion or gender-affirming care can access Flock data on residents of protective states.[16]
  • Immigration enforcement: Research from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights documented systematic access to Flock data by federal immigration authorities, often in violation of state laws.[13] This occurred through three methods: "front door" access, where agencies directly shared data with Border Patrol; "back door" access via a default "National Lookup" setting that granted federal access without explicit local authorization; and "side door" searches where local officers ran searches on behalf of ICE.[13]
  • Contractual privacy overreach: The ACLU of Massachusetts found that Flock's default service agreement grants the company a "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free" license to disclose agency data for "investigative purposes," even if a local police department has chosen to restrict data-sharing with other agencies.[17]

Business model

[edit | edit source]

Flock Safety operates on a subscription-based "safety-as-a-service" model.[18] The company charges approximately $2,500 per camera annually, plus a one-time installation fee.[18] This subscription includes maintenance, software updates, and data hosting. Forbes reported in 2025 that a single license plate reader camera costs between $3,000 and $3,500, with additional fees for the FlockOS platform.[19] This model has proven highly successful, with the company reporting over $300 million in annual recurring revenue as of 2024, reflecting a 70% year-over-year increase.[3]

Flock's AI-enabled cameras capture detailed vehicle "fingerprints" — including make, model, color, bumper stickers, damages, and other distinguishing characteristics — in addition to license plates,[19] with footage retained for thirty days before deletion.[20] The company's network benefits from strong network effects. Investor Andreessen Horowitz has stated the system's power grows with adoption, as "digital evidence can be pooled across different law enforcement agencies," creating network effects that increase surveillance capabilities as more agencies join.[21] As cameras are deployed across more jurisdictions, participating agencies gain access to a broader shared data pool.

Flock initially focused on homeowner's associations — which still account for roughly 40% of its business — before expanding rapidly into law enforcement and enterprise sectors, illustrating a "land-and-expand" growth strategy.[18] Major venture capital firms have invested heavily, signaling strong market confidence. In March 2025, a funding round of $275 million was led by Andreessen Horowitz, with participation from Green Oaks Capital, Bedrock Capital, and Tiger Global, among others, valuing the company at $7.5 billion.[3][22] Major corporate clients include retailers like Lowe's and FedEx, mall operator Simon Property Group, and healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente.[23][24]

Strategic acquisitions and infrastructure investment fuel the company's expansion. Following its acquisition of Aerodome in October 2024, Flock Safety is building a 100,000-square-foot U.S.A. manufacturing facility for drone production.[9]

Surveillance technology

[edit | edit source]
Main article: Flock license plate readers

Flock Safety offers an integrated ecosystem of surveillance hardware and software marketed as a public safety platform.[25] The hardware component includes solar-powered ALPRs;[25] video cameras with AI-powered analytics for people and vehicle detection;[25] acoustic sensors that identify gunshots and breaking glass for real-time alerts;[25] and drones acquired through Aerodome for "drone as first responder" systems automatically dispatched to emergency calls.[9][26]

Specific product models include the Falcon and Sparrow license plate readers, as well as the Raven gunshot detection system.[27] Flock's software integrates with police vehicle systems, including widely-used Axon dashcams.[28]

The software platform includes FlockOS, a real-time crime center platform that enables users to view maps and geographic data, body camera and drone feeds, 911 call data, as well as traffic camera and acoustic sensor data.[7][29] FlockOS enables the National LPR Network, a nationwide database for sharing and searching LPR data across jurisdictions; and Flock Nova, a data analytics platform that integrates LPR data with law enforcement systems, such as Records Management Systems (RMS) and Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD), to identify patterns.[25]

Incidents

[edit | edit source]

The FBI is accused in pending lawsuit to use Flock data to "create a domestic terrorist" (February 2026)

[edit | edit source]

In a recent reporting by LegalEagle on Youtube https://youtu.be/ZRZoGc3Wdpo?t=1138 at timestamp 18:58, court documents are shown where law enforcement collects 30 days of movements from Flock cameras (after the fact) in efforts to "construct the appearance the person is a domestic terrorist". The release of this footage was denied to ensure people not know where the cameras are in order to avoid them. This was a part of the ICE operation "Midway Blitz".

Wrongful package theft accusation in Bow Mar, Colorado (September 2025)

[edit | edit source]

On 27 September 2025, Columbine Valley Police Sgt. Jamie Milliman wrongfully accused Denver resident Chrisanna Elser of package theft, relying exclusively on Flock Safety license plate reader data that placed her vehicle in Bow Mar during the robbery.[30] The officer asserted "zero doubt" about her guilt, telling her verbatim, "It is locked in. There is zero doubt. I wouldn't have come here unless I was 100% sure." He also bragged about the extensive surveillance network, stating "You can't get a breath of fresh air, in or out of that place, without us knowing."[31] When Elser denied the accusation, Milliman refused to show her the supposed evidence, stating, "You have not been honest with me, so I'm not going to extend you any courtesy of showing you a video when I don't need to."[32] Elser was compelled to compile extensive exculpatory evidence, including dashcam footage, Google Timeline data, witness statements, and surveillance images from her tailor. She ultimately submitted a seven-page affidavit and a voluminous Google Drive folder to prove her innocence.[30] The summons was voided several weeks later after Police Chief Bret Cottrell reviewed her evidence, writing, "After reviewing the evidence you have provided (nicely done btw), we have voided the summons that was issued." However, the department provided neither an apology nor an explanation.[31]

Denver contract and surveillance controversy (October 2025 ongoing)

[edit | edit source]

On 22 October 2025, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally renewed the city's contract with Flock Safety through an emergency executive order just hours before a town hall protest, after the Denver City Council had unanimously rejected the contract 12-0.[33][34] The council's rejection was due to a lack of guardrails around data access and privacy concerns.[33] The mayor's move, described by Councilwoman Shontel Lewis as "'king' behavior," bypassed the democratic process and sparked immediate public backlash.[33] A town hall protest organized by consumer advocate Louis Rossmann drew close to 700 attendees, filling a main conference room and overflow spaces.[34][1] Rossmann had also published a guide for residents to oppose the cameras.[35] The new, no-cost five-month extension included new safeguards, such as a $100,000 fine on Flock for any unauthorized data sharing and cutting off access for all jurisdictions outside of the Denver Police Department.[33][34] The mayor's office cited the technology's role in recovering stolen vehicles and solving homicides, while critics remained concerned about executive overreach and the system's potential for misuse.[33][34]

Data sharing with federal immigration authorities (Ongoing)

[edit | edit source]

Federal immigration enforcement agencies systematically accessed Flock's license plate data through multiple methods despite state laws prohibiting such sharing.[36] This included direct "front door" access where at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies enabled 1:1 data sharing with the U.S. Border Patrol,[13] "back door" access where Border Patrol searched data from at least ten Washington police departments without explicit authorization,[13] and "side door" searches where local officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" into search fields.[37] Internal Flock data revealed that CBP had access to more than 80,000 cameras nationwide, with searches conducted in multiple states, potentially violating state sanctuary laws.[38]

Investigation of abortion seeker (May 2025)

[edit | edit source]

A Johnson County, Texas sheriff's officer conducted a nationwide surveillance operation using Flock Safety's network to track a woman who had a self-managed abortion.[39] The search spanned 6,809 different Flock networks and queried data from over 83,000 cameras across multiple states.[13] The officer specifically searched Flock camera data from Yakima and Prosser, Washington, accessing surveillance data from jurisdictions where abortion is legally protected to investigate someone from a restrictive state.[40] While police initially claimed the surveillance was for the woman's "safety," internal documents revealed the case was officially logged as a "death investigation" and detectives had consulted the district attorney about charging the woman.[41] The incident sparked a congressional investigation and led to multiple jurisdictions re-evaluating their Flock contracts over concerns about reproductive rights surveillance.[42]

Paused federal pilots and systemic data sharing with federal agencies (August 2025)

[edit | edit source]

Flock Safety announced it was pausing all ongoing pilot programs with Department of Homeland Security agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).[43] The company stated this pause was to "ensure local compliance" and admitted its previous public statements had "inadvertently provided inaccurate information" about the level of federal access to its network.[43]

This decision followed investigations revealing systemic data sharing with federal immigration authorities that potentially violated state laws in Washington, Illinois, and other states with sanctuary protections.[13] A University of Washington Center for Human Rights report documented three methods of federal access:

  • Front door access: At least eight Washington law enforcement agencies, including police departments in Yakima and Wenatchee, enabled direct data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol.[13][44]
  • Back door access: A default "National Lookup" setting allowed Border Patrol to access data from at least ten Washington agencies without explicit authorization. Police chiefs in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee stated they were unaware of this setting and disabled it upon discovery.[13][44]
  • Side door searches: Law enforcement officers conducted searches on behalf of ICE, visible only when officers typed reasons like "ICE" or "illegal immigration" into search fields.[13] A public interest law firm noted Flock's pause of direct federal access does little to prevent this workaround, as "federal law enforcement cannot directly access this trove of information; they can just ask other Flock customers to run searches or share log-in information."[45]

Consumer complaints about business practices

[edit | edit source]

Multiple independent user reviews on Trustpilot, as well as reports from legal advocacy groups, detail a range of consumer complaints against Flock Safety. These issues span predatory billing practices, unreliable hardware, inadequate customer support, and concerns over the value and ethics of the service.

  • Predatory billing and contract issues: Customers report aggressive auto-renewal practices. One review alleges the company sent termination notices to the incorrect party and then enforced an auto-renewed two-year contract for nearly $10,000, demanding payment because the customer did not provide a thirty-day termination notice.[46] Another customer claimed the company would not offer a refund for cameras they found to be useless, describing the system as a "rip off."[47] The Institute for Justice has raised concerns that Flock tries to "lock customers into its products."[45]
  • Poor camera reliability and performance: Reviews frequently cite hardware failures and poor video quality. One neighborhood reported that a camera, costing $4,000 per year, was operational for only nine days before failing and had been offline for 25% of its total service time.[48] Another customer complained that the cameras are "not live" and lack night vision, concluding that a "$300 video camera system from Harbor Freight is 100% better."[47]
  • Inadequate customer support: Numerous complaints have been made about poor customer service, particularly among smaller communities and organizations. One reviewer felt that the company is "focused on big city/county government contracts" and that "little guys are at the back of the line for support."[48] The company's profile on TrustPilot indicates that it has not replied to negative reviews.[49]
  • Ethical and legal concerns: Some criticisms extend beyond business practices to the product's societal impact. Major civil liberties organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have published analyses raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns about the technology.[10] The ACLU has also published analyses raising considerable privacy concerns about the technology.[17]

Lawsuits

[edit | edit source]

Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (18 September 2025)

[edit | edit source]

A lawsuit in Norfolk, VA, revealed that the city's ALPR system has logged the location of a plaintiff's vehicle 526 times in 4 months.[11] The second plaintiff had their vehicle's position logged 849 times in a similar time period. The ALPR system is provided by Flock to the Norfolk Police Department in a deal costing $2.2 million, in return for Flock providing services through to the end of 2027. The camera installation began in 2023 and, at present, there are 176 cameras around the city. The lawsuit is requesting that the plaintiff's data be deleted and the cameras be turned off, arguing that these actions constitute an infringement of the Fourth Amendment and a warrant-less search. Flock counters this assertion by claiming that "LPRs do not constitute a warrant-less search because they take point-in-time photos of cars in public and cannot continuously track the movements of any individual." This legal position was supported by a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals in October 2025, which reversed a lower court and found that warrant-less use of Flock's system does not violate the Fourth Amendment.[12]

United States v. Martin (11 October 2024)

[edit | edit source]

In United States v. Martin (E.D. Va.), the district court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained via an ALPR network, issuing a memorandum opinion on 11 October 2024. The court concluded that the images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles on public roads and therefore did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.[50]

Legal commentators have treated the ruling as a persuasive decision supporting warrant-less searches of ALPR/Flock databases in that jurisdiction; however, it remains a district-court decision and not binding precedent outside the Eastern District of Virginia. Courts in other jurisdictions have reached different conclusions on the warrant requirements for ALPR searches.[51]

Public records lawsuits in Washington (2025)

[edit | edit source]

Multiple public-records disputes over Flock camera data have led to litigation in Washington. In one high-profile example, the cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood filed a declaratory-judgment action in Skagit County (Case No. 25-2-00717-29), asking a court to declare that images and data stored in Flock's AWS cloud are not "public records" under the Washington Public Records Act (PRA) unless and until a public agency accesses and downloads them.[52] The dispute became contested in multiple forums after the requester filed his own suit and responsive filings, alleging that the cities had violated the PRA. While the litigation proceeds, some municipalities have paused or disabled Flock camera deployments pending a judicial ruling on whether the raw images and data must be released as public records.[53]

Norfolk Circuit Court warrant requirement (2024-2025)

[edit | edit source]

In June 2024, a Norfolk Circuit Court judge granted a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the city's Flock ALPR system, ruling that, in that case, warrant-less access to the system implicated the Fourth Amendment.[54]

That trial-court ruling was later reversed by the Virginia Court of Appeals in Commonwealth v. Church in Oct 2025, which concluded the circuit court erred and held that the ALPR images at issue were point-in-time photographs of vehicles in public and therefore did not require a search warrant; the appellate court reversed the suppression and remanded for further proceedings.[55]

[edit | edit source]

References

[edit | edit source]
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Rossmann, Louis (23 Oct 2025). "Highlights from Denver's Flock camera town hall – Mayor didn't show up". YouTube (Video). Archived from the original on 23 Feb 2026. Retrieved 30 Oct 2025.
  2. ↑ Edmonson, Crystal (22 Aug 2023). "Flock Safety cameras help police amid worker shortage, CEO Garrett Langley says". Atlanta Business Chronicle.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 "Accelerating Innovation: Flock Secures $275 Million to Advance Crime-Solving Technology". Flock Safety. 13 Mar 2025. Archived from the original on 18 April 2026. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  4. ↑ Koebler, Jason (25 Aug 2025). "CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide". 404 Media. Archived from the original on 25 Aug 2025. Retrieved 29 Oct 2025.
  5. ↑ "City Leaders Choose Flock Safety: A Proven, Community-Focused Public Safety Solution". Flock Safety. 28 May 2025. Archived from the original on 18 April 2026. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  6. ↑ "Real-Time Vehicle Leads, Nationwide". Flock Safety. Archived from the original on 18 April 2026. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 "FlockOS". Flock Safety. Archived from the original on 20 April 2026. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  8. ↑ Hu, Krystal (13 Mar 2025). "US startup Flock Safety raises $275 million to fund manufacturing plant, R&D". Reuters. Archived from the original on 13 Mar 2025. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 MacBride, Elizabeth (10 Jun 2025). "Flock Safety: 2025 CNBC Disruptor 50". CNBC. Archived from the original on 12 Jun 2025. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Stanley, Jay (18 Aug 2025). "Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance". American Civil Liberties Union. Archived from the original on 19 Aug 2025. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Collier, Kevin (18 Sep 2025). "Police cameras tracked one driver 526 times in four months, lawsuit says". NBC News. Archived from the original on 18 Sep 2025. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 "Flock Applauds Virginia Court of Appeals Ruling Affirming Constitutionality of LPR Cameras". Flock Safety. 14 Oct 2025. Archived from the original on 20 April 2026. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  13. ↑ 13.00 13.01 13.02 13.03 13.04 13.05 13.06 13.07 13.08 13.09 "Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement". University of Washington Center for Human Rights. 21 Oct 2025. Archived from the original on 13 Nov 2025. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  14. ↑ Hamid, Sarah; Alajaji, Rindala (27 Jun 2025). "Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 28 Jun 2025. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  15. ↑ Guariglia, Matthew (2 Oct 2025). "Flock's Gunshot Detection Microphones Will Start Listening for Human Voices". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 29 Oct 2025. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  16. ↑ Maass, Dave (7 Oct 2025). "Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 7 Oct 2025. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Stanley, Jay (7 Oct 2025). "Flock Can Share Driver-Surveillance Data Even When Police Departments Opt Out, And Other Flock Developments". American Civil Liberties Union. Archived from the original on 24 Oct 2025. Retrieved 6 Jan 2026.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 "Flock Safety revenue, growth rate & funding". Sacra. Archived from the original on 23 Nov 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Brewster, Thomas (3 Sep 2025). "AI Startup Flock Thinks It Can Eliminate All Crime In America". Forbes. Archived from the original on 3 Sep 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  20. ↑ "How Flock Safety Eliminates Neighborhood Crime While Protecting Resident Privacy". Flock Safety. 11 Mar 2019. Archived from the original on 20 April 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  21. ↑ Ulevitch, David; George, David (13 Jul 2021). "Investing in Flock Safety". Andreessen Horowitz. Archived from the original on 28 Sep 2023. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  22. ↑ Pavri, Rezwan D.; Conklin, Colin G. (14 Mar 2025). "Wilson Sonsini Advises Flock Safety on $275 Million Financing". Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Archived from the original on 15 Mar 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  23. ↑ Brewster, Thomas (6 May 2024). "America's Biggest Mall Owner Is Sharing AI Surveillance Feeds Directly With Cops". Forbes. Archived from the original on 3 Feb 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  24. ↑ Brewster, Thomas (19 Jun 2024). "FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network". Forbes. Archived from the original on 28 Jan 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 "Flock Safety Product Hub". Flock Safety. Archived from the original on 22 Feb 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  26. ↑ "Flock Expands Into Drones". Flock Safety. 17 Oct 2024. Archived from the original on 22 Feb 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  27. ↑ Katz-Lecabe, Mike (1 Apr 2022). "Dissection of Flock Safety Camera". The Center for Human Rights and Privacy. Archived from the original on 30 Apr 2022. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  28. ↑ "Axon Partners with Flock Safety to Enhance Security for Cities and Neighborhoods". PR Newswire. 2 Apr 2020. Archived from the original on 4 Apr 2020. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  29. ↑ "The Evolution of FlockOS: How Customer Feedback Continues to Shape the Future". Flock Safety. 5 Aug 2025. Archived from the original on 25 April 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Kenney, Andrew (28 Oct 2025). "Police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of package theft. She had her own evidence". Denverite. Archived from the original on 28 Oct 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Prentzel, Olivia (28 Oct 2025). "After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence". The Colorado Sun. Archived from the original on 12 Nov 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  32. ↑ Coon, Anna (28 Oct 2025). "Police use Flock cameras to wrongfully accuse Denver woman of theft". KDVR. Archived from the original on 3 Nov 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 Roth, Chierstin (23 Oct 2025). "Some on the Denver City Council upset after Mayor Mike Johnston moves forward with controversial Flock cameras". CBS News Colorado. Archived from the original on 30 Oct 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 Grigsby, Deborah (23 Oct 2025). "Anger grows as Denver mayor extends Flock camera contract". Colorado Politics. Archived from the original on 24 Oct 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  35. ↑ Rossmann, Louis (20 Oct 2025). "A guide to de‑flocking Denver: here's EXACTLY what you need to do, step‑by‑step". YouTube (Video). Archived from the original on 23 Feb 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  36. ↑ Koebler, Jason; Cox, Joseph (27 May 2025). "ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows". 404 Media. Archived from the original on 27 May 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  37. ↑ Koebler, Jason (25 Aug 2025). "CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide". 404 Media. Archived from the original on 25 Aug 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  38. ↑ O'Connor, John (26 Aug 2025). "License plate camera company halts cooperation with federal agencies among investigation concerns". ABC7. Archived from the original on 27 Aug 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  39. ↑ Koebler, Jason; Cox, Joseph (29 May 2025). "A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion". 404 Media. Archived from the original on 29 May 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  40. ↑ Koebler, Jason; Cox, Joseph (7 Oct 2025). "Police Said They Surveilled Woman Who Had an Abortion for Her 'Safety.' Court Records Show They Considered Charging Her With a Crime". 404 Media. Archived from the original on 7 Oct 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  41. ↑ Epstein, Gideon (7 Oct 2025). "Flock Gives Law Enforcement All Over the Country Access to Your Location". ACLU Massachusetts. Archived from the original on 18 Oct 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  42. ↑ Stanley, Jay (21 Aug 2025). "I'm Hearing About More Pushback Against Flock, Fueled by Concern Over Anti-Immigrant Uses". ACLU. Archived from the original on 21 Aug 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 Langley, Garrett (25 Aug 2025). "Ensuring Local Compliance". Flock Safety. Archived from the original on 25 April 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 Gonzalez, Jordan (27 Oct 2025). "Flock Safety setting allowed U.S. Border Patrol access to Wenatchee Valley license plate data without police knowledge". The Wenatchee World. Archived from the original on 3 Nov 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 King, Dan (26 Aug 2025). "Public Interest Law Firm Responds to Flock Safety Pausing Federal Access to License Plate Reader Cameras". Institute for Justice. Archived from the original on 25 Sep 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  46. ↑ Fiala, Steven (8 Jan 2025). "Flock Safety reviewed by Steven Fiala on 1/8/2025". Trustpilot. Archived from the original on 8 Jan 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Rodriguez, Ruben (13 Oct 2023). "Flock Safety reviewed by Ruben Rodriguez on 10/13/2023". Trustpilot. Archived from the original on 8 Jan 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 Elliott, Steve (20 Jun 2025). "Flock Safety reviewed by Steve Elliott on 6/20/2025". Trustpilot. Archived from the original on 8 Jan 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  49. ↑ "Flock Safety Reviews". TrustPilot. Archived from the original on 8 Jan 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026. Hasn't replied to negative reviews
  50. ↑ Payne, Robert E. (11 Oct 2024). "MEMORANDUM OPINION, United States v. Martin, No. 3:23-cr-150 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2024)". vLex. Archived from the original on 8 Jan 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  51. ↑ Grosdidier, Pierre (Apr 2025). "Authorities can search Flock databases without a warrant". Texas Bar Journal. Archived from the original on 18 Apr 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  52. ↑ Guildner, Emily (16 Jul 2025). "City of Sedro-Woolley and City of Stanwood v. Jose Rodriguez — Complaint for Declaratory Judgment". Scribd. Archived from the original on 22 Feb 2026. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  53. ↑ Peterson, Jenna (10 Sep 2025). "Stanwood pauses Flock cameras amid public records lawsuits". HeraldNet. Archived from the original on 11 Sep 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  54. ↑ King, Katie (15 Jun 2024). "Norfolk judge rejects police Flock camera evidence without warrant". The Virginian-Pilot. Archived from the original on 2 Jul 2024. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
  55. ↑ Beales, Randolph A. (14 Oct 2025). "Commonwealth v. Ronnie D. Church, No. 0737-25-1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 2025) (unpublished opinion)" (PDF). Virginia Court System. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 Oct 2025. Retrieved 7 Jan 2026.
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Flock_Safety&oldid=52341"