User:Louis/Flock Safety municipal contract threshold bypasses
Police departments & officials across the United States have bought Flock Safety surveillance through deals priced just below elected-approval thresholds.[2] Flock leases solar-powered automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras that capture passing plates & upload data, including 111 in Denver photographing roughly 2 million plates monthly.[3][4][5]
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston's office signed a $498,500 extension under a $500,000.00 threshold,[6][7][8] Fort Lauderdale billed $99,999.20 yearly under $100,000,[9][10] Kalamazoo discounted to $99,900.00,[11][12] & Knox County paid $24,990 under $25,000.[13][8] Taxpayers fund recurring fees without a vote on nationwide plate searches; cities canceled contracts, removed cameras, or mandated approval through 2026.[3][14][13][15][8][5][16][2][17]
Contracts compared with approval limits
[edit | edit source]Police and local officials in 25 jurisdictions obtained Flock cameras through deals priced under the dollar amount that triggers an elected vote or competitive bidding, through deals that went over that amount without the vote or bidding, or through donations, free trials, sole-source letters, and budget lines that did not name Flock.[18][3][4][13][19][8][5][20][9][21][22][23][2][1][11][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]
| # | Jurisdiction | Under the limit by | Contract | Approval limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Prescott, AZ | $670 (1.34%) | $49,330[34][1][35] | $50,000 (City Council)[1][35][34][36] |
| 2 | Denver, CO | $1,500 (0.30%) | $498,500[4][7][37][38][39][40][41] | $500,000 (City Council)[6][42][43][44] |
| 3 | Fort Lauderdale, FL | $0.80 (0.0008%) | $99,999.20 a year[9][10] | $100,000 (City Commission)[9][10][45] |
| 4 | Knox County, TN | $10 (0.04%) | $24,990 per 10 cameras[13][8] | $25,000 (county review and bidding)[13][8][46] |
| 5 | Anoka County, MN | $1 (0.0006%); $500 (0.29%) at $174,500 | $174,999 ($174,500 in another report)[21][47] | $175,000 (County Board)[21][48][49][50][47] |
| 6 | Kalamazoo, MI | $100 (0.10%) | $99,900[11][51][17] | $100,000 (City Commission)[12][17][52] |
| 7 | Rowan County, NC | $10,000 (11.11%) | $80,000 total ($50,000 plus a $30,000 change order)[26][53] | $90,000 (Board of Commissioners)[26][54][55] |
| 8 | Redondo Beach, CA | $700 (2.00%) | $34,300[25][56][57] | $35,000 (City Council)[56][57][58] |
| 9 | North Riverside, IL | $50 (0.20%) | $24,950[24] | $25,000 (competitive bidding)[24][59][60] |
| 10 | McKinney, TX | $350 (0.70%) | $49,650[27] | $50,000 (competitive bidding in 2024)[61][27][62][63] |
| 11 | Park Ridge, IL | $1,000 (4.00%) | $24,000 a year[32] | $25,000 (competitive bidding)[32][60] |
| # | Jurisdiction | Amount | Approval required | How it got through |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Columbia County, NY | $97,129.58[28] | $20,000 bid threshold and Board of Supervisors[64][28] | $77,129.58 over (385.65%). Purchase order issued after the Board tabled the request[64][28] |
| 13 | Waltham, MA | $96,000 over two years[65][29] | $50,000 threshold and City Council budget vote[66][29][67][65] | $46,000 over (92.00%). Paid from police forfeiture funds outside the budget vote[65][66][29][67] |
| 14 | Cullman, AL | $124,900 over three years[30][68] | $30,000 bidding limit and City Council[69][30][68] | $94,900 over (316.33%). Signed by the police chief, with no council vote documented[69][30][68] |
| 15 | Monterey County, CA | $402,750 for 60 cameras[31] | Board cap of $19,950[31] | $382,800 over the cap (1,918.80%). Ordered with no Board file after a $19,950 consent item[31] |
| 16 | Coachella, CA | $178,750 first year[33][70][71] | City Council[33][70][71] | Order form for the same package after the council voted to continue the item[33][70][71] |
| 17 | Milwaukee, WI | $100,400 ($182,900 proposed)[3] | $50,000 (Finance and Personnel Committee)[72][3] | $50,400 over in total. Sole-source waivers instead of committee votes[72][3] |
| 18 | New Bedford, MA | Annual subscription under Insight Public Sector[19][73] | City Council budget approval[19][73] | Budget line names the reseller, not Flock[19][73] |
| 19 | Sussex County, VA | Unbid sheriff subscription[18][22] | Written sole-source determination[18][22] | Vendor's own letter posted as the sole-source determination[18][22] |
| 20 | Benicia, CA | $236,250 over two years[5][74] | $50,000 bidding limit[75][5][74] | $186,250 over (372.50%), with no competitive bids[75][5][74] |
| 21 | Las Vegas, NV | $6.3 million in donated equipment[23] | City Council[23] | Donated through a police foundation[23] |
| 22 | Northern Kentucky (four cities) | Free trials, then paid cameras[20] | City Council[8][20] | Cameras could start on a lieutenant's or captain's signature[20][8] |
| # | 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[1][35] | $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[1][35][34] | $49,330.00 fiscal year 2024 entry after two amendments ($48,100 original contract)[34][1][35][34] | $50,000.00 City Council approval threshold after February 11, 2023[1][35][34][36] | $670.00 under[1][35][34][36] | 1.34% under: Delayed contract execution until February 11, 2023 procurement-rule change to avoid Council vote[1][35][34][36] | $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"[1][35][34][36] | 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."[36] | 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"[1][35][34] |
| 2 | Denver, Colorado[4][41] | 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[4][7][37][38][39][40][41] | $498,500[4][7][37][38][39][40][41] | $500,000.00 City Council approval threshold[6][42][43][44] | $1,500 under[4][7][37][38][39][40][41][6][42][43][44] | 0.30% under: Sub-threshold unilateral extension & five-month no-cost extension after unanimous Council rejection[4][7][40] | $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[6][42][43][44] | 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."[6][43][44] | 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[76][77][14][8] |
| 3 | Fort Lauderdale, Florida[9][10] | 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[9][10] | $99,999.20 per year ($499,996 over five years)[9][10] | $100,000 City Commission approval threshold[9][10][45] | $0.80 under each year[9][10][45] | 0.0008% under: Zero-dollar administrative pilot followed by cooperative purchase split into annual payments 80 cents under threshold[9] | $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[9][10][45] | 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."[45] | More than $568,000 (at least $568,526) in Flock commitments executed with zero Commission votes across at least 62 paid Falcon cameras[9] |
| 4 | Knox County, Tennessee[13][8] | Multiple 10-camera purchases at $24,990 & five-camera split invoices at $12,500 since 2022, totaling more than $250,000 across 143 cameras[13][8] | $24,990 per 10-camera batch[13][8] | $25,000 county review and bidding threshold[13][8][46] | $10 under[13][8][46] | 0.04% under: Sub-threshold batch pricing ($10 under limit) & split invoices by Knox County Sheriff's Office[13][8] | $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)[13][8][46] | 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)."[46] | 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[13][15] |
| 5 | Anoka County, Minnesota[21][47] | 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[21][47] | $174,999 (reported elsewhere as $174,500)[21][47] | $175,000 County Board approval threshold[21][48][49][50][47] | $1 under ($500 under at $174,500)[21][47][48][49][50] | 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[21][47] | $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)[21][48][49][50][47] | 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."[49][50] | 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[21][48][47] |
| 6 | Kalamazoo, Michigan[11][17] | 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)[11][51][17] | $99,900.00 per year (2025 renewal)[11][51][17] | $100,000 City Commission approval threshold[12][17][52] | $100 under[11][51][17][12][52] | 0.10% under: Split initial agreements & discounted renewal priced at $99,900.00 below $100,000 City Commission approval threshold[11][51][12][17] | $100,000 City Manager contract & sole-source approval limit under City Commission Policy No. 70.5[12][17][52] | 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."[12] | 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[17][52] |
| 7 | Rowan County, North Carolina[26][53] | $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[26][53] | $80,000 adjusted total ($50,000 contract plus $30,000 change order)[26][53] | $90,000 Board of Commissioners threshold[26][54][55] | $10,000 under[26][53][54][55] | 11.11% under: Initial two-year contract plus renewal-shortening amendment & change order kept below $90,000 Board of Commissioners threshold[26][53] | $90,000 Board of Commissioners approval threshold under County Purchasing Policy & N.C.G.S. § 143-129 & § 143-133[26][54][55] | 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."[54][55] | Processed administratively without Board of Commissioners vote; County Manager authorized Notice of Cancellation on September 30, 2026 & Board ratified cancellation on October 19, 2026[26][53] |
| 8 | Redondo Beach, California[25][56] | $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)[25][56][57] | $34,300 three-year total[25][56][57] | $35,000 standalone council award threshold[56][57][58] | $700 under[25][56][57][58] | 2.00% under: Initial three-year agreement priced below $35,000 threshold followed by first, second, & third sub-threshold amendments[25][56][57][58] | $35,000 contract threshold under Redondo Beach Municipal Code § 2-6.07, routed under "APPROVE CONTRACTS UNDER $35,000"[56][57][58] | 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."[58] | 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[56][57] |
| 9 | North Riverside, Illinois[24][59] | $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)[24] | $24,950 upfront purchase[24] | $25,000 competitive bidding threshold[24][59][60] | $50 under[24][59][60] | 0.20% under: Initial camera purchase approved with formal RFP process waived by village trustees[24][59][60] | $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)[24][59][60] | 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."[60] | Approved October 3, 2022 without formal RFP; Cook County Forest Preserve District intergovernmental agreement resolution passed March 20, 2023[24][59] |
| 10 | McKinney, Texas[27][62] | $49,650 on Purchase Order 541126 (issued December 4, 2024) for 13 Flock Safety cameras for McKinney Police Department[27] | $49,650[27] | $50,000 competitive bidding threshold in December 2024 (raised to $100,000 on September 1, 2025)[61][27][62][63] | $350 under[27][62][63] | 0.70% under: Purchase order issued for $49,650 ahead of consent-agenda right-of-way agreement[27][62][63] | Competitive sealed bidding requirements under Texas Local Government Code § 252.021 & anti-splitting Class B misdemeanor penalty under § 252.062[27][62][63] | 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."[63] | 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[27] |
| 11 | Park Ridge, Illinois[32][60] | $24,000 one-year Flock Safety contract extension for Park Ridge Police Department[32] | $24,000 per year[32] | $25,000 competitive bidding threshold[32][60] | $1,000 under[32][60] | 4.00% under: Annual contract priced at $24,000 below $25,000 Illinois competitive bidding threshold[32][60] | $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)[32][60] | 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."[32][60] | Approved 5–1 on July 20, 2026 with Mayor Marty Maloney casting the deciding vote[32] |
| 12 | Columbia County, New York[28] | $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[28] | $97,129.58[28] | $20,000 bid threshold and Board of Supervisors authorization[64][28] | $77,129.58 over[64][28] | 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[28] | 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[28] | 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."[28] | Supervisors learned of the purchase on August 18, 2026 & asked the county attorney to review whether the contract is valid[28] |
| 13 | Waltham, Massachusetts[29][67][65] | $96,000 two-year agreement for 16 Flock Safety cameras beginning in fall 2025[29][65] | $96,000 two-year agreement[65][29][65] | $50,000 procurement threshold and City Council budget vote[66][29][67][65] | $46,000 over[65][66][29][65][67] | 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[29][67][65] | 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))[29][67][65] | 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."[67] | Installed across Waltham without City Council vote; Waltham added AI-assisted auditing on top of human search review in August 2026[29][65] |
| 14 | Cullman, Alabama[30][68] | $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[30][68] | $124,900 three-year total[30][68] | $30,000 competitive bidding limit and City Council approval[69][30][68] | $94,900 over[69][30][68] | 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[30][68] | 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[30][68] | 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."[68] | Active 16-camera deployment in Cullman[30][68] |
| 15 | Monterey County, California[31] | $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[31] | $19,950 consent item, then $402,750 order form[31] | Board-approved $19,950 cap[31] | $382,800 over the cap on the order form[31] | 1,918.80% over the cap, then 60 cameras ordered with no Board file: Two-step bait-and-switch: $19,950 three-camera consent-agenda item followed six months later by an unvoted $402,750 order form for 60 cameras[31] | 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[31] | 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."[31] | More than 300 Flock readers installed countywide by April 2026; Sheriff Tina Nieto disclosed a 2025 out-of-state data sharing incident[31] |
| 16 | Coachella, California[33][70][71] | $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[33][70][71] | $178,750 first-year total[33][70][71] | City Council approval (no separate dollar ceiling)[33][70][71] | Not applicable[33][70][71] | 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[33][70][71] | 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[33][70][71] | 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."[33][71] | No later council meeting approving the agreement appears in the reviewed municipal records[33][70][71] |
| 17 | Milwaukee, Wisconsin[3] | 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)[3] | $100,400 executed ($182,900 proposed)[3] | $50,000 Finance and Personnel Committee approval threshold[72][3] | Amendments $13,100 and $39,000 under; $50,400 over in total[72][3] | 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[3] | 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[3] | 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.'"[3] | ACLU of Wisconsin filed written objection with Finance & Personnel Committee on February 4, 2026[3] |
| 18 | New Bedford, Massachusetts[19][73] | 20 license-plate-reading cameras quietly adopted in late 2024 under then-Police Chief Paul Oliveira[19][73] | "Annual subscription" line under Insight Public Sector, with no mention of Flock[19][73] | City Council budget approval[19][73] | Not applicable[19][73] | Cameras listed under the reseller's name as an annual subscription: Disguising the 20-camera network in the municipal budget under third-party IT reseller "Insight Public Sector" as an "annual subscription" without naming "Flock Safety"[19][73] | Police disguised 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[19][73] | 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."[19] | 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[19][73] |
| 19 | Sussex County, Virginia[18][22] | Flock Safety ALPR camera & Vehicle Fingerprint machine-vision subscription for Sussex County Virginia Sheriff's Department[18][22] | Unbid sheriff subscription[18][22] | Independent written sole-source determination[18][22] | Not applicable[18][22] | 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[18][22] | 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[18][22] | 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..."[18] | Competitive procurement bypassed using vendor's own sole-source letter[18][22] |
| 20 | Benicia, California[5][74] | $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[5][74] | $236,250 two-year lease[5][74] | $50,000 competitive bidding limit[75][5][74] | $186,250 over[75][5][74] | 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[5][74] | 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[5][74] | 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."[74] | 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[5][74] |
| 21 | Las Vegas, Nevada[23] | $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)[23] | $6.3 million donated equipment[23] | City Council say over the purchase[23][23] | Not applicable[23] | 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[23] | 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[23] | 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."[23] | Deployed outside municipal budget appropriations following fall 2024 announcement[23] |
| 22 | Northern Kentucky (Independence, Newport, Fort Thomas, Fort Mitchell)[20] | Independence conducted 2023 free trial, purchased 15 cameras in 2024, & purchased five more in July (reported August 28, 2026)[20] | Free trials, then paid cameras[20] | City Council approval[8][20] | Not applicable[20][8] | 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[8][20] | 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[8][20] | 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."[8] | Fort Thomas (Mayor Andy Ellison), Newport, Independence, & Fort Mitchell announced discontinuation of Flock cameras in August 2026[20] |
- Contracts, purchase orders, emails, and procurement laws, numbered by table row or article section.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Costa Mesa: Costa Mesa Agenda Report File 26-315, dated July 21, 2026, puts the annual cost of the city's Flock system at $151,800 and describes the June 2022 lease of 31 cameras through a cooperative agreement with Insight Public Sector.[89] -
Costa Mesa: Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 2-164 requires formal bidding and a City Council award at $50,001 or more, while Section 2-165(b)(5) exempts purchases through cooperative purchasing agreements.[90] -
-
Murfreesboro: The Murfreesboro Pulse reported on August 6, 2026 that Murfreesboro first agreed to buy 15 Flock cameras for $128,250 over three years and then added an amendment effective September 19, 2025.[92] -
-
San Francisco: Mission Local reported that a San Francisco Human Rights Commission report looked into 1.6 million improper Flock searches by out-of-state agencies between 2024 and 2025.[94]
Overview of municipal threshold-bypass mechanisms
[edit | edit source]Subscription camera leases and taxpayer payments
[edit | edit source]Flock Group, Inc., operating as Flock Safety, leases solar-powered automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras, high-speed roadside camera systems that automatically capture passing license plate numbers & upload the data to a server, such as the 111 solar-powered Flock cameras installed at 70 sites in Denver in May 2024 that photographed roughly 2 million license plates per month.[3][4][5] Municipalities & law enforcement agencies pay recurring subscription or lease fees for the cameras, monitoring, & cloud retrieval tools rather than purchasing standalone hardware outright: in Benicia, California, a two-year lease agreement for 45 cameras cost $236,250, billed at $5,000 per camera over two years plus a one-time installation cost of $250 per camera, while in Knox County, Tennessee, the sheriff's office paid $12,500 for five cameras & $24,990 for 10 cameras, & Fort Lauderdale received a 2024 quote listing $3,319.99 per camera before a 24.699% discount brought a five-year, 40-camera commitment to $499,996 ($99,999.20 per year).[18][13][5][9]
Taxpayer funding for these subscriptions comes from city & county general funds, special municipal tax accounts such as Benicia's Measure C Fund (with the police department's operations budget paying subsequent years), & state or federal grants such as an organized retail theft grant in Costa Mesa, with payments routed either directly to Flock Group, Inc. or through third-party vendor Insight Public Sector.[3][95][19][5][96] Under this subscription model, billing starts once the first camera goes in the ground under a five-year co-term merging contracts together (even after Caltrans denied an encroachment permit for Benicia's 51st camera), while Flock's standard police contracts grant the company "a nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right and license [to] disclose the Agency Data" (including any footage) to enable law enforcement monitoring against law enforcement hotlists & provide footage search access to law enforcement for investigative purposes only.[3][74] In February 2026, Flock revised its standard terms & conditions to remove its contractual pledge not to sell customer data, add a perpetual license to use & disclose footage after a contract ends, & restrict early contract exits across a network of more than 120,000 Flock cameras scanning roughly 20 billion license plates each month across 49 states.[8]
Five documented procurement-bypass structures
[edit | edit source]Local governments establish a charter or ordinance approval threshold, a dollar ceiling in municipal or county law above which a contract requires an elected council or commission vote, such as Section 3.2.6(E) of the Charter of the City and County of Denver, which requires City Council approval by ordinance or resolution before City officials execute any contract of $500,000.00 or more.[6][8] Under the first bypass structure, executive officials & law enforcement agencies price agreements immediately below those ceilings or engage in contract splitting & requisition dividing, the practice of dividing a larger purchase into smaller separate orders or annual installments to stay beneath oversight dollar limits: examples include Denver Mayor Mike Johnston's unilateral $498,500 extension ($1,500 below Denver's $500,000 threshold) followed by a five-month no-cost extension after the Denver City Council unanimously rejected a $666,000 two-year renewal, the Knox County Sheriff's Office structuring 10-camera purchases at $24,990 ($10 below the $25,000 county review mark) alongside split invoices of $12,500 for five cameras, Fort Lauderdale dividing a five-year, $499,996 commitment into five annual payments of $99,999.20 (each 80 cents under the $100,000 Commission threshold), & Anoka County Sheriff Brad Wise signing a one-year, $174,999 contract ($1 below the $175,000 Anoka County Board of Commissioners threshold, also reported as $174,500 after scaling down a $245,000 two-year proposal).[42][43][44][4][7][13][8][9][21][40][47] An October 19, 2026 NBC News review of local government contracts & public records found that in dozens of communities across the United States, residents & their elected representatives never voted on whether to install Flock cameras because police departments & other officials regularly purchased the technology through deals that avoided competitive bidding or fell just below spending thresholds requiring approval by elected representatives, including sub-threshold or bid-waived agreements in Kalamazoo ($99,900.00 under a $100,000 City Manager limit), Prescott ($48,100.00 & $49,330.00 after delaying execution until a February 11, 2023 procurement-rule change eliminated council approval, near a $50,000 threshold noted by DeflockPrescott), Redondo Beach ($34,300 under a $35,000 threshold), & North Riverside ($24,950 camera purchase & $19,700 annual fee approved after village trustees waived a formal RFP process).[2][1][35][34][11][12][24][25][56]
Under the second bypass structure, agencies invoke a sole-source or single-source waiver, a procurement exemption that skips competitive bidding or legislative committee review by claiming only one vendor can supply the product: in Benicia, California & Sussex County, Virginia, police & county officials relied on sole-source letters supplied by John Anderson, Territory Manager for Flock Safety, & CEO Garrett Langley claiming Flock is the "sole manufacturer and developer of the Flock Safety ALPR Camera," while in Dallas, Texas, a three-year, $5.74 million Flock agreement cleared the city council in May 2025 via a consent agenda vote (a bundled vote on routine items with minimal floor debate) under a sole-source designation, & in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, purchasing officials waived Finance & Personnel Committee approval under City Charter 16-05-4a across amendments raising Contract #E21123 from $52,500.00 to $89,400.00, $100,400.00, & $182,900.00 on the grounds that the cameras involve "services related to proprietary products."[18][3][8][74][22] A third structure uses zero-dollar pilot agreements & entry-level trials that generate no initial invoice or council vote before converting into paid deployments, as documented in Fort Lauderdale's March 2022 $0.00 pilot for 25 cameras (list value $68,750) signed by the Chief Procurement Officer & in Northern Kentucky cities such as Independence, which conducted a free trial in 2023 before purchasing 15 cameras in 2024 & five more in July (reported August 28, 2026), with agreements structured so law enforcement agencies could begin operating cameras with only a lieutenant's or captain's signature; a fourth structure routes contracts through third-party vendor Insight Public Sector, which in New Bedford, Massachusetts appeared in the fiscal year 2027 budget only as an "annual subscription" without mentioning Flock, cameras, or license plate readers after then-Police Chief Paul Oliveira quietly deployed 20 cameras in late 2024, & in Fort Lauderdale & Costa Mesa served as the cooperative purchasing channel on an OMNIA Partners contract.[19][8][73][20][9][89]
Under a fifth structure, agencies acquire hardware outside local general-fund appropriations through private gifts or state & federal grants, including venture capitalist Ben Horowitz's $6.3 million donation of Flock & Skydio equipment to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department routed through a tax-exempt police foundation to bypass the city council, & grant-funded expansions in Costa Mesa & Pasadena.[8][96][97][23] After audits & public records exposed these deployments & improper data sharing, officials in Knox County, New Bedford, Oak Park, Columbia Heights, Fort Thomas, Newport, Independence, & Fort Mitchell moved to cancel contracts or remove cameras, while lawmakers in Kalamazoo, Cincinnati, & New York adopted or introduced measures requiring legislative approval or statewide restrictions.[15][19][98][20][16][99][100][17][52]
Sub-threshold contract pricing and post-rejection extensions
[edit | edit source]Denver unilateral extensions after unanimous council rejection
[edit | edit source]
In May 2024, the city of Denver installed 111 solar-powered Flock cameras at 70 sites citywide under a pilot contract for the Denver Police Department (DPD) dated February 12, 2024, photographing roughly 2 million license plates per month.[4][14][41] An internal DPD audit found that officers failed to enter case numbers for investigations in 17 percent of searches, while At-large Councilmember Sarah Parady & hundreds of constituents raised concerns that the cameras could violate the Fourth Amendment or provide data to federal agencies collaborating on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigations.[4][7] After the initial agreement expired by its terms on February 28, 2025 with $339,450.00 in total charges for Years 1 & 2, the City and County of Denver & Flock Group Inc. (with a signature block for Mark Smith as General Counsel) drafted an Amendatory Agreement (under contract control number POLIC-202578012-01 / 202472539-01) as of March 1, 2025 to revive the expired contract through February 28, 2027, adding $333,000.00 in Year 3 & $333,000.00 in Year 4 for 111 "Flock Safety LPR, fka Falcon" cameras on the Flock Safety Platform ($666,000 combined) & raising the Maximum Contract Amount in Subsection 5.4.1 to "One Million Five Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,005,450.00)".[4][41] On May 5, 2025, after Mayor Mike Johnston's office asked council members to vote down the proposed two-year, $666,000 contract extension in response to the public pushback, all Denver City Council members present voted unanimously against the renewal, with Council president Amanda Sandoval not present.[4][7] Denverite reporters Paolo Zialcita & Kyle Harris reported the May 5, 2025 council vote:[4]
Denver City Council rejected a proposal to spend $666,000 to keep a network of automobile-tracking surveillance cameras in Denver for another two years. Mayor Mike Johnston’s office asked the council to kill the proposed contract, which had attracted backlash from hundreds of people. The city will instead create a task force to address concerns before potentially reintroducing the contract. All council members present voted against the contract. Council president Amanda Sandoval was not present.
Under the City and County of Denver Charter, Executive Order No. 8, & Fiscal Accountability Rule 8.1 (FAR 8.1), any contract that may require the City to expend $500,000.00 or more requires approval by the City Council acting by ordinance or resolution before execution, & city employees are prohibited from splitting purchases to avoid that $500,000 maximum limit.[6][42][44] On July 7, 2025, after the council unanimously voted down the two-year $666,000 contract extension in May, Mayor Johnston's administration unilaterally extended the previously expired contract with Flock Inc. through October 2025 for $498,500, skirting just under the $500,000 threshold requiring City Council approval.[6][7][37][38][39] Axios Denver summarized the July contract approval:[37]
The mayor's administration unilaterally approved a new contract with the company in July worth $498,500, just below the threshold requiring council approval, Parady said in a statement last week.
On July 8, 2025, one day after signing the $498,500 extension, the Johnston administration & DPD submitted a permit application in collaboration with Flock Group Inc. to install four new Flock cameras across the city without public notice.[7][38] After delaying the release of search audit logs requested under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) for more than three months, DPD sent redacted audit logs to City Council members on July 23, 2025 showing that Denver's Flock data had been searched more than 1,400 times for ICE since June 13, 2024.[7] On October 20, 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado & five Registered Neighborhood Organizations announced an October 22 community town hall demanding that Johnston turn off the cameras ahead of the contract's expiration at the end of October.[7][38] On the morning of October 22, 2025, hours before hundreds of residents & City Council members Sarah Parady, Serena Gonzalez-Gutierrez, & Shontel Lewis gathered at the town hall, Johnston's office announced that it would again unilaterally extend its contract with Flock Safety by another five months through March 31, 2026 at no cost, avoiding a City Council vote.[39][40] That evening, Party for Socialism and Liberation organizer Katie Leonard told the town hall crowd that the mayor "announced this morning that he is again unilaterally extending the city’s contract with Flock".[39] Under the October 22 announcement, city officials stated that Flock had verbally agreed to pay Denver $100,000 in damages if data is improperly released to external parties & that external agencies would need a memorandum of understanding with Denver barring civil immigration enforcement sharing, though city officials acknowledged those changes had not been written into a signed contract.[40]
In an October 25, 2025 letter to city Auditor Timothy O'Brien, nine members of the Denver City Council asked him not to sign the five-month contract extension with Flock Group Inc., accusing the administration of circumventing the council's authority to approve contracts, operating in an "undemocratic" manner, & potentially violating the city's contracting rules.[76][77] In their October 25 letter to the auditor, the nine council members wrote:[77]
We do not believe that the City and County of Denver should continue doing business with a company that has demonstrated such disregard for honesty and accountability.
Four council members did not sign the letter: Darrell Watson, Amanda Sawyer, Kevin Flynn, & Diana Romero Campbell.[77] At a council committee meeting on October 29, 2025, Councilmember Amanda Sawyer questioned whether she liked how the mayor's office went through "extending this contract so that it stays under the $500,000 amount" before stating that "They have not done anything illegal here."[77] On October 28, 2025, Auditor Timothy O'Brien responded in writing to the council members that he would investigate & perform his due diligence by considering whether the contract was "intentionally split in violation of city contracting rules" & assessing whether it "subverted City Council’s independent oversight".[76][77] On February 24, 2026, Mayor Mike Johnston's office announced that Denver would stop using its Flock Safety cameras when the extension ended at the close of March 2026 & instead pay about $149,000 for one year of service from competing automated license plate reader provider Axon, reducing the city's camera portfolio from 111 cameras to about 50 cameras.[14][40]
Anoka County one-dollar sub-threshold sheriff contract
[edit | edit source]
Under Minnesota's Uniform Municipal Contracting Law (Minnesota Statutes 2025, section 471.345), Subdivision 3 mandates that if a contract is estimated to exceed $175,000, "sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice", whereas Subdivision 4 provides that contracts estimated to "exceed $25,000 but not to exceed $175,000" may be made either upon sealed bids or by direct negotiation with two or more quotations "without advertising for bids".[50] The Anoka County Procurement Policy (Version 1.0, adopted October 28, 2025 by the Anoka County Board of Commissioners) incorporates those Uniform Municipal Contracting Law thresholds in Table B, states under "Thresholds for Requiring Competition" (2.2.3) that "Purchases may not be split to avoid competitive thresholds", & specifies under "Authority to Award and Sign" (2.3.2) that:[49]
The aggregate term of the contract is used to determine which individual has authority to award and execute a contract. Aggregate means the initial term plus any/all renewal options included.
Under Table E & "Special Delegations" (2.3.3) of the Anoka County Procurement Policy, contracts from $25,001 to $175,000 fall within the award & signatory authority of the County Administrator (while in consultation with the County Administrator, the Sheriff & County Attorney may authorize awards & sign contracts within their approved budgets in amounts not to exceed the County Administrator's award authority threshold in Table E), whereas contracts of $175,001 & above require County Board award authority.[49] On May 14, 2026, Anoka County Commissioner Mandy Meisner & local municipal leaders hosted a town hall in Columbia Heights, a city in Anoka County, Minnesota, where residents expressed strong opposition to the city's 12 Flock Safety license plate reader cameras installed in 2024 & raised concerns about federal immigration agents accessing the data.[16][21] After the city restricted out-of-state data sharing in January & statewide data sharing in February, Mayor Amáda Márquez Simula told Minnesota public radio outlet MPR News that the system did not provide enough of a record of who was using the data it collected.[16] As reported by MPR News on June 9, 2026, the Columbia Heights City Council voted unanimously on Monday night to cancel its 12-camera contract with Flock Safety, with Columbia Heights City Council Member Rachel James later telling Sahan Journal that "the stronger I felt that we had to protect our residents and cancel the contract".[16][47]
Earlier in 2026, Anoka County Sheriff Brad Wise had discussed an initial proposal for a two-year, $245,000 Flock pilot program involving 200 license plate reader cameras & 16 drones with the Anoka County Board of Commissioners, an amount that would have required a board vote.[47] Instead of presenting the $245,000 proposal to the board for an official vote, Wise signed a one-year contract with Flock Safety on June 30, 2026 for the "Flock Safe County Pilot Project", covering 75 license plate readers & 10 remotely deployed drones funded from the sheriff's 2026 operating budget.[21][47] MinneapoliMedia reported on July 24, 2026 that the one-year agreement was priced at $174,999, $1 below the $175,000 threshold where "all non-budgeted and all contract agreements awarding over $175,000 require County Board approval", while Sahan Journal reported on August 18, 2026 that the cost of the program was reduced to $174,500.[21][47] Fridley resident Aaron Klemz said of Wise that he specifically went back to Flock "to shrink the length of time from two years to one" so as "to get it just below the $175,000", whereas sheriff's spokesperson Tierney Peters stated in an email that Wise struck the lower-cost contract "to avoid legal ambiguity and to allow the pilot to proceed under his established authority" & Commissioner Mike Gamache said, "The sheriff acted as he can."[47] Commissioner Meisner, who represented Columbia Heights, Fridley, & Hilltop & had advocated for routing the initiative through the county's Capital Improvement Plan process, wrote in an official public statement, "I do not support how this decision was made."[21][47] Sahan Journal quoted Meisner's July 8 post on the contract:[47]
“As a County Commissioner, I was neither invited to provide input nor informed of this contract until after it had already been signed,” read her July 8 post. “Instead, the Sheriff decided to move forward under the authority of the Sheriff’s Office. The contract identifies the Sheriff’s Office, not the Anoka County Board, as the client.”
In August 2026, Anthony Mendoza of the Anoka County Sheriff's Office presented the county's Flock Safety pilot program to the St. Francis City Council, where Council Member Joe Muehlbauer questioned how the county approved the pilot program & stated that it was expected to go before the Anoka County Board before Sheriff Brad Wise signed the contract without board approval.[48] Mendoza disputed the previous characterization of how close the contract came to the spending threshold requiring board approval, telling the council that the contract was "$500 below the threshold, not $1 below it" & adding, "There is a significant difference" & "I think just stating the facts correctly does change some of the perception."[48] The council members & Mayor Mark Vogel supported joining the county's drone-assisted response program, but opposed adding Flock automated license plate reader cameras in the city over privacy & passive data-collection concerns.[48]
Costa Mesa cooperative lease and retail theft grant cameras
[edit | edit source]
In June 2022, the city of Costa Mesa, California entered into an initial agreement with Atlanta-based Flock Safety to install 31 fixed automated license plate reader cameras at a cost of $97,600, leased through an Omnia Partners Cooperative Agreement with third-party reseller Insight Public Sector.[96][89] In 2023, 15 additional Flock cameras were acquired using funds from the state Organized Retail Theft (ORT) Grant, bringing the network monitored by the Costa Mesa Police Department to 46 Flock ALPR cameras.[96][89] In 2024, city officials approved a three-year lease with Flock Safety funded by a $306,000 budget allocation plus $153,750 in grant funding.[96] According to the City of Costa Mesa Agenda Report (File #: 26-315), presented by Police Lieutenant Jared Barnes for the July 21, 2026 City Council meeting, the city executed a subsequent cooperative agreement through Omnia Partners with Insight Public Sector for the lease & maintenance of the 46 Flock Safety ALPR camera systems through April 2027:[89]
In June 2022, the City leased 31 Flock Safety ALPR cameras through Omnia Partners Cooperative Agreement with Insight Public Sector. A subsequent cooperative agreement through Omnia Partners with Insight Public Sector was executed for the lease and maintenance of 46 Flock Safety ALPR camera systems through April 2027.
Under the subsequent agreement, the all-inclusive lease was priced at $3,000 per camera annually for a total annual cost of $151,800 covered by the General Fund & the ORT Grant.[89] By July 2026, following community comments & reports of law enforcement misuse that included a Costa Mesa Police Department administrative investigation in 2023 & 2024 into an employee who resigned & was charged by the Orange County District Attorney's Office after accessing ALPR images to track his ex-wife, girlfriend, & a third individual, some Costa Mesa City Council members requested an audit of the department's use of camera data, & Councilmember Andrea Marr requested an agenda item that would allow the council to discontinue the city's agreement with Flock.[96][89]
Kalamazoo discounted renewal and sequential contracts under commission ceiling
[edit | edit source]
The City of Kalamazoo Purchasing Policy (City Commission Policy 70.5, dated March 16, 2009) grants the City Manager administrative purchasing authority up to $100,000 without City Commission action:[12]
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.
City Commission Policy 70.5 also grants the City Manager "the authority to approve single (sole) source purchases up to $100,000", while the approval of the City Commission is required if the contract term or extended contract "exceeds five years and a total, including extension, of $100,000".[12] Public records released for the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety (KDPS) include three sequential 2021 Flock Safety contract filings executed via PandaDoc by Alex Latraverse, listed as VP of Growth for Flock Safety, on May 24, 2021 (document reference K6XSE-LCDWN-CGYRP-2WVS9), May 28, 2021 (document reference FJ8LB-8QCNP-FQ7J3-YK2ET), & June 8, 2021 (document reference YWWFJ-LTVQ5-HU3NF-NAVNR).[51][17] In a subsequent 12-month Exhibit A Order Form ("Docusign Envelope ID: 5223AE92-C3FC-4A71-A7EF-48B9927DA952", purchase order P-052389) signed on July 28, 2025 by Dan Haley as Chief Legal Officer for Flock Group, Inc. & on August 13, 2025 by Laura Lam as Chief Operating Officer for MI - Kalamazoo PD covering 39 "Flock Safety LPR, fka Falcon" cameras, one "Flock Safety LPR Flex, fka Falcon Flex" camera, & one "Flock Safety Platform - Essentials" package, Flock applied $10,450.00 in discounts ($4,600.00 on the Flock Safety Platform & $5,850.00 on Flock Safety Professional Services, with the Existing Infrastructure Implementation Fee listed at $0.00 for 39 units) to set the Subtotal Year 1, Annual Recurring Subtotal, & Contract Total at $99,900.00, falling under the $100,000 City Commission approval threshold.[11][12]
On August 17, 2026, following protests & opposition from the Southwest Michigan chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America over reports that the 39 ALPR cameras operated by KDPS were searched more than 750 times per day on average & could be accessed by seven municipal, county, or state law enforcement agencies, the Kalamazoo City Commission voted 7–0 to require City Commission approval before the city renews or modifies any ALPR contract.[17][52] During the meeting, Mayor David Anderson stated that because the contract costs less than $100,000, KDPS had not previously needed City Commission approval, while Vice Mayor Drew Duncan introduced the purchasing-policy measure & told colleagues that the commission should "have the say whether this surveillance technology goes up in our city or not."[17][52] Public Media Network reporter Matt Schuster described how Commissioner Jae Slaby amended the motion to close the $100,000 threshold gap:[52]
City purchasing policy generally requires commission approval only for contracts above $100,000. Commissioner Jae Slaby noted the city’s existing Flock contract had not come before the commission in the past not because it renewed automatically, but because it fell under that threshold. She amended Duncan’s motion to specifically add ALPR contracts to the purchasing policy’s list of special-circumstance exceptions, ensuring commission review applies regardless of the contract’s dollar amount. The amendment passed 7-0 before the underlying motion was adopted.
Prescott contract timing around procurement threshold change
[edit | edit source]
In Prescott, Arizona, public records compiled by Deflock Prescott show that Prescott Police Department leadership began evaluating Flock Safety cameras in fall 2022, when Amy Bonney emailed Special Operations Bureau Lieutenant Jason Small on November 18, 2022 that the Mayor & City Manager were "on board" & asked whether "the total annual cost is less than $20K??", before writing on November 22, 2022 that "we can determine when we put it in front of the council."[1][34] After Flock Safety representative Kraig Gardner sent 60-day pilot paperwork on January 24, 2023, Small emailed Gardner on January 26, 2023 requesting vendor documentation to avoid soliciting competing bids:[1][34]
Our legal is good with the changes. Do you guys have GSA, State Contract, or Sole Source documentation I can have. This will save me having to get other bids.
Later that morning on January 26, 2023, Gardner sent Small a February 2, 2022 letter from Axon Enterprise, Inc. & a Flock Safety Sole Source Letter, writing, "Here is how we have managed to obtain sole source with other agencies."[1][34] Under Prescott City Code Chapter 1-27 (effective February 11, 2023), the procurement code granted the Purchasing Agent authority to execute contracts from $10,000.01 through $50,000.00 under Section 1-27-12(B), required City Council approval for contracts from $50,000.01 through $100,000.00 under Section 1-27-12(C), & prohibited dividing a single procurement unit to avoid council approval under Section 1-27-9(A).[34][36] On February 3, 2023, Small emailed Gardner that the police department was delaying execution of the contract until after February 11 so that a change in municipal procurement rules would allow the city to avoid bringing the contract to the Council for approval:[1][34]
We are good to go with the contract. I am waiting until February 11th due to our procurement rules changing allowing us to not have to go to council for approval. The Chief will have the Mayor sign after the 11th. If possible would we be able to be invoiced after 7/1/23. This is the start of our fiscal year and would make things much easier for us.
On March 3, 2023, the City of Prescott & Flock Group Inc. executed Prescott City Contract No. 2023-151 (DOC-000477) for a Total Contract Amount of $48,100.00 (in proximity to a $50,000 threshold noted by Deflock Prescott), covering 16 Falcon ALPR cameras at $2,500.00 each ($40,000.00), Flock Safety Advanced Search at $2,500.00, & a $5,600.00 Professional Services - Standard Implementation Fee ($350.00 per camera), with an Annual Recurring Total of $42,500.00 & $3,548.75 in estimated sales tax.[1][35][34] Following a September 5, 2023 amendment order form (DOC-000487, listing a $46,100.00 contract amount) & an amendment executed on October 5, 2023 (DOC-000486) setting the Initial Term & Renewal Term each to 12 months, Purchasing Manager Melissa Busby sent an October 16, 2023 internal email (DOC-000214) instructing finance staff to enter Prescott City Contract No. 2023-151 into its MUNIS financial system for $49,330.00 in fiscal year 2024 (FY24) (with a begin date of October 5, 2023 & initial expiration date of October 4, 2024):[35]
Jason Small is saying that it is for only 1 year, but everything I’m seeing says it will be automatically renewed if not cancelled. I have let him know once they get ready to renew it will have to go to Council for approval.
The consolidated Prescott public-records archive also includes a separate Flock Safety Exhibit A Order Form (DOC-000472, listing Hamza Al Baroudi as main contact) structured under a "PROJECT PROVE IT" 60-day opt-out period for 30 "Flock Safety Falcon" cameras, one "Solar Falcon ® LR" camera, & Condor video camera bundles with a Subtotal Year 1 & Contract Total of $344,550.12 ($291,250.12 Annual Recurring Subtotal plus one-time implementation fees & $24,319.37 in estimated tax).[35]
Redondo Beach and North Riverside sub-threshold approvals
[edit | edit source]
Under Redondo Beach Municipal Code § 2-6.07, procurements of $35,000.00 or more require competitive quotes & City Council authorization, & no procurement unit may be split or divided to avoid competitive procedures.[56][58] On January 9, 2024, the City of Redondo Beach, California placed an Administrative Report (File # 24-0007, from Finance Director Wendy Collazo, approved by City Manager Mike Witzansky) on the Redondo Beach City Council agenda under the batch heading "APPROVE CONTRACTS UNDER $35,000:" to approve an agreement with Flock Group, Inc. dba Flock Safety for automatic license plate readers "IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $34,300" for an initial term from January 9, 2024 through January 8, 2025 "WITH AN OPTION TO RENEW FOR 24 MONTHS."[56][57] In the attached Exhibit A Order Form & Master Services Agreement (entered into on the "02 day of November 2023" & bearing signature blocks for Mark Smith as General Counsel for Flock Group, Inc. & for the Mayor, City Clerk Eleanor Manzano, & the City Attorney of the City of Redondo Beach), the City of Redondo Beach on behalf of the Redondo Beach Police Department ordered two Flock Safety Falcon cameras & one Flock Safety Falcon LR camera with a 12-month Initial Term (Subtotal Year 1: $12,300.00, comprising $11,000.00 for the Flock Safety Platform plus $300.00 & $1,000.00 in one-time implementation fees) & a 24-month Renewal Term at an Annual Recurring Subtotal of $11,000.00 per year, totaling $34,300 across the initial year & two renewal years.[25][56] Public-records tracker Who Approved This documented how the initial sub-$35,000 item was followed by first, second, & third sub-threshold contract amendments:[57]
The item ran under a heading for contracts under 35,000 dollars, which is a sub-threshold route rather than a standalone council award. A first amendment on the October 1, 2024 agenda added not more than 18,450 dollars. A second amendment on the December 17, 2024 agenda bought an application programming interface for 5,000 dollars a year through October 2, 2027. A third amendment, listed August 5, 2025 and again August 19, 2025, added 2 cameras in the harbor and pier area for 5,720 dollars through January 18, 2026 and 4,820 dollars a year for up to 2 years after that, raising the total annual not to exceed figure across all amendments to 29,820 dollars.
Under Illinois Statutes Chapter 65 (§ 5/8-9-1), any work or public improvement exceeding $25,000 in municipalities of less than 500,000 inhabitants must be let by contract to the lowest responsible bidder after advertising for bids, unless authorized without advertising for bids by a vote of two-thirds of all the alderpersons or trustees.[60] In the Village of North Riverside, Illinois, village trustees voted unanimously on October 3, 2022 to waive a formal request-for-proposals (RFP) process & pay Flock Safety $24,950 upfront to purchase seven solar-powered Falcon automatic license plate reader cameras & "advanced implementation" of Flock Safety Advanced Search.[24][59] Riverside-Brookfield Landmark reporter Bob Uphues reported that in addition to the $24,950 upfront purchase price, North Riverside agreed to a separate $19,700 annual subscription service fee:[24]
In addition to the upfront costs to acquire the cameras and associated technology, the village will pay Flock Safety an annual $19,700 subscription service fee that allows the camera system to interface with other databases, like LEADS, where police from across Illinois pool information, and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, among others.
In the Village of North Riverside on March 20, 2023, Christian Ehrenberg, serving as Chief of Police, submitted a "REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION" under the report of Trustee Flores (with the Bid Authorization/Award box left unchecked & Ordinance/Resolution selected) alongside a resolution regarding a new license plate reader (20-R-05) to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Cook County Forest Preserve District (passed by the district's board on February 7, 2023 for a one-year term from February 1, 2023 to January 31, 2024 with two one-year renewal options) to place one of the "seven (7) FLOCK automated license plate readers" at the southeast corner of 31st Street & 1st Avenue, noting that sufficient funds were "budgeted and available in the current fiscal year for the purchase of the ALPR System."[59]
Rowan County, McKinney, Columbia County, Waltham, Delaware, Cullman, Monterey County, Park Ridge, and Coachella sub-threshold and post-tabling contracts
[edit | edit source]
In Rowan County, North Carolina, where North Carolina General Statutes § 143-129 requires formal bids for apparatus, supplies, materials, or equipment costing $90,000 or more & § 143-133 provides that no bill or contract may be "divided for the purpose of evading the provisions of this Article," the Rowan County Sheriff's Office entered into Contract No. 25239 with Flock Group Inc. on October 22, 2024 for 10 Flock Safety Falcon cameras across a 24-month Initial Term & 24-month Renewal Term at $25,000.00 per year after a $10,000.00 discount, for a Contract Total of $50,000.00.[26][54][55] On October 29, 2025, Chief Legal Officer Dan Haley signed Contract Amendment #1 - 25239 modifying the Renewal Term "from twenty-four (24) months to twelve (12) months," & on November 5, 2025, Flock issued Contract Change Order #1 - 25239 (Quote Number: Q-172614, pre-audited November 14, 2025) for a 12-month Subscription Term at $30,000.00, raising the adjusted contract amount to $80,000.00 below the County's $90,000 Board of Commissioners approval threshold before the County Manager authorized a Notice of Cancellation on September 30, 2026 & the Board ratified the cancellation on October 19, 2026.[26][53] In their October 19, 2026 memorandum to the Board of Commissioners, Chief Finance Officer Anna Bumgarner & Purchasing and Contract Administration Director Jody Farrow-Bennett wrote:[26]
None of these actions met the threshold requiring approval by the Board of Commissioners. The value of each action remained below the County's $90,000 approval threshold, and the Sheriff's Office obtained the multiple quotations required by County Purchasing Policy. Accordingly, the contract, amendment, and change order were processed administratively.
Additional sub-threshold & post-tabling agreements documented in municipal records & Who Approved This include McKinney, Texas, where Purchase Order 541126 was issued on December 4, 2024 for 13 Flock Safety cameras at $49,650 (with Texas Local Government Code § 252.021 & § 252.062 barring separate, sequential, or component purchases to avoid competitive bidding requirements), before the McKinney City Council approved a Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Multiple Use Agreement (file 25-2391) on its consent agenda on January 21, 2025,[27][62][63] & Columbia County, New York, where the Columbia County Sheriff's Office spent $97,129.58 on 10 Flock Safety license plate readers covered by a $279,790 state grant after the Board of Supervisors had tabled former Sheriff Don Krapf's authorization request on March 23, 2023, with supervisors learning of the purchase on August 18, 2026.[28] In Waltham, Massachusetts, where Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30B, Section 11 bars splitting any procurement to evade Chapter 30B requirements, police installed 16 Flock Safety cameras under a two-year agreement worth $96,000 (about $3,000 a year per camera) beginning in fall 2025 using court-seized civil asset forfeiture funds that did not require a City Council appropriation or budget hearing,[29][67][65] while the Delaware State Police bought Flock Safety products through agency purchasing without a public board vote, including $95,261 in January 2026 for the core Flock Safety software package, $100,275 in September 2025 for an integrated public safety platform, & a quote of $4,624.99 each for five tactical cameras.[91]
In Cullman, Alabama, the Cullman Police Department's Flock Safety order form carried then-Chief David Nassetta's signature dated December 19, 2023 (signed by Flock Group Inc. on December 20, 2023) for 16 Flock Safety Falcon cameras across a 36-month initial term with a $44,900 first-year subtotal, a $40,000 annual recurring subtotal, & a $124,900 contract total with no documented City Council vote,[30][68] while in Monterey County, California, the Board of Supervisors authorized a two-year, $19,950 agreement for three Falcon readers on its November 28, 2023 consent agenda (File 23-826, priced at $10,950 in year one & $9,000 a year after), & a separate executed Flock order form signed June 5, 2024 in the county's document library covered 60 readers at $402,750 total with no board file tied to it.[31] In Park Ridge, Illinois, the city contracted for Flock Safety cameras at $24,000 for a one-year term (below the $25,000 competitive bidding threshold in Illinois Statutes Chapter 65, § 5/8-9-1), & in July 2026 approved a one-year, $24,000 extension by a 5–1 supermajority vote with Mayor Marty Maloney casting the deciding vote,[32][60] while in Coachella, California, after the Coachella City Council voted 5–0 on May 26, 2021 (Item 36) to continue a proposed 65-camera Flock Group Inc. agreement & send it back to the Public Safety Subcommittee, an order form pricing the 65 cameras at $162,500 a year plus a $16,250 one-time installation fee ($178,750 year one total) carried 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) & no subsequent council approval recorded in the reviewed minutes.[33][70][71]
Denver municipal charter, procurement rules, and Colorado statutory framework
[edit | edit source]Charter threshold and executive anti-splitting rules
[edit | edit source]
Under the Charter of the City and County of Denver, updated in December 2022, Section 3.2.6 grants the Denver City Council authority to approve or disapprove certain contracts and leases by ordinance or resolution.[6] Section 3.2.6(E) establishes the $500,000.00 threshold at or above which City officials cannot execute a contract before receiving legislative approval from the City Council:[6]
Approval of certain contracts by Council. Contracts which will require or result in the payment or receipt by the City of one-half million dollars ($500,000.00) or more, and those in which personal property valued at one-half million dollars ($500,000.00) or more will be sold or transferred by or to the City, and those in which a provider of services to the City will receive a percentage of generated revenues, shall require the approval of the City Council acting by ordinance or resolution, prior to their execution by City officials.
Section 3.2.6(G) of the Charter provides that the contracting powers granted elsewhere in the Charter to administrative departments, agencies, & other branches of the City and County of Denver are "subordinate to the power of council to approve the same" or to withhold approval before the contracts are executed.[6] Section 2.9.4(B) further requires that every contract let by the Department of General Services remain subject to the provisions of the Charter & any authorizing ordinances, & contain a clause to that effect.[6]
Executive branch contracting procedures implementing the Charter threshold are set forth in Executive Order No. 8, Memorandum 8A, titled Contract Procedures & issued on April 15, 2025, by Acting City Attorney Katie McLoughlin to all agencies under the Mayor.[42] In Memorandum 8A, Section IV.G.3 provides that once a City contract is signed by the contractor, approved by the Initiating Authority and any other required approving authority, approved as to form by the City Attorney, and approved by the City Council if required, it must be signed by the Mayor or Acting Mayor, attested by the Clerk and Recorder or Deputy, countersigned by the Manager of Finance or Acting Finance Signatory, and countersigned by the Auditor or delegee.[42] In Section IV.H.1.a(1), Memorandum 8A defines the expenditure contracts & contract amendments that require City Council approval:
The following types of contracts must be approved by City Council: a) Expenditure Contracts: (1) Contracts that may require the City to expend $500,000 or more or sell personal property worth $500,000 or more, and amendments which cause the total contract to exceed that amount;
Directly beneath that threshold rule, Section IV.H.1.a(4) prohibits splitting contracts to bypass City Council review & sets a $480,000 mandatory legal-review threshold for sub-threshold agreements:[42]
(4) Reminder: Contracts should not be split in a manner to avoid approval by City Council. Please review any contract that is $480,000 or more with your Assistant City Attorney to determine whether it should be approved by City Council. Please also alert your Assistant City Attorney if an initial contract is less than $500,000, but is expected to be amended at a later date to be over $500,000 in order to evaluate whether the initial contract should be approved by City Council.
Purchasing policy manual and auditor findings on split contracts
[edit | edit source]
Within the Department of General Services, the Purchasing Division's Procurement Policy and Procedure Manual, revised on September 20, 2017, & approved by John P Utterback, the Director of Purchasing, addresses requisition dividing, the practice of splitting a larger purchase into smaller orders to stay below oversight dollar limits.[43] Under its division of requirements policy, the manual instructs city buyers:
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.
In December 2017, the Office of the Auditor, led by the Denver Auditor, O'Brien, released a citywide performance audit report titled Contract Controls in Alfresco, which assessed whether the City had controls in place to prevent expenditure contracts from being split into multiple agreements with the same vendor to avoid City Council oversight.[44] In Finding 2 of the report, O'Brien cited Fiscal Accountability Rule 8.1 (FAR 8.1), which requires every city agency & department to record financial transactions in the City's financial system of record:
FAR 8.1 prohibits purchase splits by stating, "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."
After reviewing 5,257 data records in the Alfresco contract repository, the Auditor's Office identified four instances in which contracts appeared to have been split to avoid the $500,000 City Council oversight limit:[44]
During the audit, we found several contracts that appear to have been split. These contracts, if consolidated, would have been subject to City Council approval. But, due to how these contracts were structured, the individual contract amounts did not go over the $500,000 threshold that mandates City Council approval. Avoiding the oversight limit diminishes the appearance of transparency and could be used to conceal contracts from City Council.
The December 2017 audit documented one case in which an agency created two on-call contracts on the same day with the same vendor & nearly identical scopes of work, authorizing $485,000 on each contract for a combined $970,000 in authorized expenditures & $711,481 in actual spending without City Council approval.[44] In a second case involving a continuing vendor relationship, an agency repeatedly amended a contract by adding approximately $80,000 & extending the term until the maximum amount approached the $500,000 limit, at which point the agency added a three-month renewal, opened a new contract for the remaining nine months of the year, & spent $637,924 across the two contracts.[44] O'Brien's report noted that contracts requiring City Council approval took an average of about 42 days longer to finalize than sub-threshold contracts, giving agencies an incentive to structure agreements below $500,000.[44]
Those same charter & fiscal rules formed the basis of the Denver City Council's objection in October 2025, after Mayor Mike Johnston's administration followed the Council's May vote against a $666,000 two-year Flock Safety renewal by extending the contract for just less than $500,000 & then announcing a five-month no-cost extension through March 31, 2026, on October 22, 2025.[76][77][40] In response to the October 25, 2025 letter from nine Denver City Council members, all but four members of the council, asking the Auditor not to sign the five-month Flock extension, O'Brien wrote on October 28, 2025:
I will perform my due diligence, as I would for every contract, by considering whether this contract is intentionally split in violation of city contracting rules and assessing if it subverted City Council’s independent oversight
Colorado statutory anti-splitting and official misconduct provisions
[edit | edit source]At the state level, under the Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 31-15-712 governs municipal contracts for public improvement construction costing five thousand dollars or more in cities & forbids dividing a project into separate projects for the sole purpose of evading open competitive bidding, unless dividing the project reduces the total cost:
All work done by the city in the construction of works of public improvement of five thousand dollars or more shall be done by contract to the lowest responsible bidder on open bids after ample advertisement. It shall be unlawful for any person to divide a works of public improvement construction into two or more separate projects for the sole purpose of evading or attempting to evade the requirement that works of public improvement construction costing five thousand dollars or more be submitted to open bidding, unless the total cost of any such project would be less if divided into two or more projects than if submitted to open bidding as one project.
While Section 31-15-712 makes it unlawful to divide public improvement construction projects costing five thousand dollars or more for the sole purpose of evading open bidding unless dividing the project lowers the total cost, the City and County of Denver's $500,000.00 legislative approval threshold for expenditure & personal-property contracts is governed by Section 3.2.6(E) of the Charter, Article 20-64 of the Revised Municipal Code, Fiscal Accountability Rule 8.1, & Executive Order No. 8.[6][42][43][44][101]
In Title 18, Article 8 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, Sections 18-8-404 & 18-8-405 define two grades of official misconduct when a public servant knowingly violates a statute or a lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to their office.[102][103] Section 18-8-404 defines first degree official misconduct:
(1) A public servant commits first degree official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit for the public servant or another or maliciously to cause harm to another, he or she knowingly:
(a) Commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official function; or (b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law; or (c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.
(2) First degree official misconduct is a class 1 misdemeanor.
Section 18-8-405 defines the lesser offense of second degree official misconduct:
(1) A public servant commits second degree official misconduct if he knowingly, arbitrarily, and capriciously:
(a) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law; or (b) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.
(2) Second degree official misconduct is a petty offense.
For purposes of Title 18, Section 18-1-901(3)(b) defines a "Benefit", which under Section 18-8-404(1) includes a gain or advantage to a third party pursuant to the desire or consent of the beneficiary:
means any gain or advantage to the beneficiary including any gain or advantage to another person pursuant to the desire or consent of the beneficiary.
Section 18-1-901(3)(o) defines a "Public servant" for purposes of Title 18:
means any officer or employee of government, whether elected or appointed, and any person participating as an advisor, consultant, process server, or otherwise in performing a governmental function, but the term does not include witnesses.
Following the October 2025 Flock Safety contract extension, the Mayor's Office stated after consulting the City Attorney's Office that the extension did not violate the City Charter.[77] Speaking at a committee meeting on October 29, 2025, Councilmember Amanda Sawyer, one of the four council members who did not sign the October 25 letter to Timothy O'Brien, asked whether she liked the way the mayor's office went through "extending this contract so that it stays under the $500,000 amount" before adding:[77]
No, I'm not in love with the process. But it is also their right. They have not done anything illegal here.
Invoice splitting and multi-year installment structuring
[edit | edit source]Knox County ten-dollar sub-threshold batches and split invoices
[edit | edit source]
In Knox County, Tennessee, the Knox County Sheriff's Office acquired Flock Safety cameras without approval from elected county commissioners through contract splitting (dividing a larger purchase into smaller separate orders or invoices so each transaction stays below the dollar limit that triggers external review).[13][8] As summarized in the University of Tennessee County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS) Dollar Threshold Chart (Reference Number: CTAS-918), Tennessee's County Purchasing Law of 1983, § 5-14-204 & § 5-14-205, & Tennessee state code (T.C.A.) § 12-3-1212 require public advertising & competitive bidding for county purchases costing over $25,000 in counties with non-centralized purchasing (or sealed bids for expenditures estimated to exceed up to $50,000 in counties with centralized purchasing & a full-time purchasing agent under T.C.A. § 5-14-108 of the County Purchasing Law of 1957), whereas purchases costing less than that maximum applicable amount may be made without competitive bids & public advertisement.[46] According to records reviewed by InvestigateTV on October 12, the Knox County Sheriff's Office structured camera purchases in batches of $24,990, $10 beneath the $25,000 mark that triggers review by the county mayor's office, alongside split invoices of $12,500 that combined would have crossed that line.[8] By the time county commissioners took up the matter, the sheriff's office had 143 active cameras & had spent more than $250,000 with no formal authorization from elected officials.[8] At an August 24, 2026 Knox County Commission workshop, where protesters gathered in opposition to nearly 150 Flock-manufactured cameras stationed across Knox County, County Commissioner Larsen Jay pointed out multiple transactions since 2022 that cost the sheriff's office $24,990 for 10 Flock cameras, falling just below the $25,000 threshold that requires the sheriff's office to seek additional approval on a purchase.[13]
Flock CEO Garrett Langley did not attend the August 24, 2026 Knox County Commission workshop despite County Commissioner Gina Oster saying Langley was expected to be present in late July, leaving commissioners to direct their questions to Flock Director of Public Affairs Trevor Chandler, Regional Sales Director Alex Guth, & Knox County Sheriff's Office representatives.[13] Reading from a purchasing report provided to the commissioners, Jay noted that five Flock cameras cost the department $12,500 while 10 cameras cost $24,990, asking, "That means you got a $10 discount for five more cameras?" & stating to the workshop:[13]
When you have the exact same price, less $10, to not hit a threshold, it raises a huge red flag to me.
Jay also told the workshop that the repeated $24,990 orders showed a pattern of buying equipment immediately beneath the county's $25,000 review threshold:[13]
It was constant purchases for cameras that fell right under the threshold for $25,000 to trigger sort of an additional review, and multiple transactions that I've been provided information on are $24,990 ... Which to me shows a pattern of constantly buying stuff that's just barely under the threshold again and again and again. It really concerns me.
Knox County Sheriff's Office Director of Procurement Hugh Holt told Jay at the August 24, 2026 workshop that the purchase cost $24,990 & noted that although he had been the director of procurement since 2016, he was not directly involved with the Flock transactions until October 2025, prompting Jay to ask why the director of procurement was not involved with buying items for the sheriff's office.[13] During the same workshop, County Commissioner Shane Jackson noted that Knox County does not own the cameras themselves & that the sheriff's office's payment buys access to the cameras' data, which is stored for 30 days before being deleted by Flock, with the exception of data being used in criminal investigations.[13] Holt stated, "Flock owns the cameras. We own the data," & estimated that Knox County had seen close to $100,000 worth of Flock camera damage, which Flock is financially responsible for.[13]
Before the August 24, 2026 workshop, Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs stated that he does "not believe these devices have a place in Knox County".[13] During the workshop, Commissioner Shane Jackson read from a letter sent by Jacobs canceling the county's Flock contract:[13]
I wonder whether this meeting is moot because I have here in front of me a letter from (Jacobs) canceling the contract and saying that it was never approved or legally through our system ... If we're not in contract, you know, why are we even here?
As reported by Knoxville public radio station WUOT News on September 2, 2026, Knox County commissioners voted unanimously on Monday to turn off & remove automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras in use in dozens of locations.[15] Under the ordinance, stationary ALPRs must be removed within 30 days along with their data, unless it is involved in a criminal investigation, & agreements with companies that provide the equipment are prohibited.[15] During the commissioners' discussions over the ordinance, officials could not confirm whether the county's sheriff's office had an active service agreement with Flock Safety.[15] When Flock missed the county's deadline after Knox County declared its contract invalid & demanded removal of the hardware, the county had public works crews physically shield the cameras with plastic covers while awaiting removal.[8]
Fort Lauderdale eighty-cent annual installment structuring
[edit | edit source]
In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, municipal procurement records produced in July 2026 & analyzed by civic documentation project Deflock Broward show that the city enrolled in Flock Safety's surveillance network & committed more than $568,000 (at least $568,526) across at least 62 paid Falcon cameras with zero City Commission votes.[9] Fort Lauderdale's Flock program began in March 2022 when the Chief Procurement Officer administratively signed a "Government Agency Study Customer Agreement", approved as to form by the Police Legal Advisor's office, for a 12-month pilot of 25 free Flock ALPR cameras plus installation quoted through Axon under Exhibit C at a list value of $68,750 & a total cost of $0.00.[9] Because the $0.00 deal generated no invoice, no budget line, & no procurement trigger, it went through without a City Commission vote, even though the agreement capped Flock's liability at $100, required the city to indemnify Flock, gave Flock marketing rights over the city's name, & contemplated access to footage from private "Non-Agency End Users" including schools, homeowners associations (HOAs), & businesses.[9]
Under the Fort Lauderdale, FL Code of Ordinances ("Ord. No. C-17-26, §§ 1, 4, adopted September 6, 2017"), section 2-173 defines the city's "Mandatory commission approval amount":[45]
Mandatory commission approval amount. 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.
Section 2-173 of the ordinance also defines an "Unauthorized purchase" to include:[45]
Splitting orders of the same or like materials/requirements into two (2) or more individual purchases with the intention of circumventing the competitive solicitation requirements.
Section 2-176(c) further establishes a "Prohibition against subdivision", stating that "No contract or purchase shall be subdivided to avoid the requirements of this article" & "the Procurement Manual."[45]
In October 2024, Fort Lauderdale executed a five-year purchase (City PO 10490, paired with wholesale order Insight PO 0068716017 to Flock for $450,000.40) for 40 Flock Falcon cameras totaling $499,996 through third-party reseller Insight Public Sector on a cooperative purchasing contract (a contract negotiated through a lead government agency that other municipalities use through a reseller channel without separate Commission review), specifically the OMNIA Partners/Cobb County cooperative contract also used by Davie & Hollywood.[9] On the face of City of Fort Lauderdale Purchase Order Number 10490 (dated October 23, 2024, issued to vendor "11498 - INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR", & approved by Chief Procurement Officer Glenn Marcos), the city billed "FLOCK GROUP FALCON INFRASTRUCTURE" ("Year 1 of 5", "based on quote# 227700036", noting a 1.0% discount under the "Licensing & Software" cloud category with "greater discount given") for 40.0000 units at a unit cost of $2,499.980 & a Purchase Order Total of $99,999.20, while printing on the purchase order that a procurement administrator's delegated approval authority extends "Over $5,000 and up to $99,999" & the Chief Procurement Officer's authority covers "Over $99,999".[10] The $499,996 five-year total equaled five times Fort Lauderdale's $100,000 Commission-approval threshold, & the city paid it as five annual installments of $99,999.20, each eighty cents ($0.80) under the $100,000 threshold that triggers a public vote.[9] According to the pricing quote in the city's records production, the $99,999.20 annual payment was calculated from a list price of $3,319.99 per camera discounted by 24.699% across the 40 cameras.[9] While City PO 10490 called the transaction a "Grant Approved Purchase", no grant was named anywhere in the records the city produced, & a full-text sweep by Deflock Broward of every published agenda & action summary from all 362 Commission-body meetings between October 2021 & July 2026 found no agenda item, grant acceptance, action, or vote for the purchase.[9]
Fort Lauderdale issued an additional purchase order in August 2025 (City PO 14582, paired with wholesale order Insight PO 0069123419 for $61,710) labeled "Phase 3" through the same cooperative channel for 22 more Flock Falcon cameras at $68,530 per year.[9] Like the October 2024 purchase, the $68,530 annual purchase order fell below the $100,000 Commission threshold & was absent from every published City Commission agenda & action summary, while its "Phase 3" label implied a Phase 2 that appeared nowhere in the produced records.[9] Because the city routed at least $568,526 in Flock commitments through a cooperative reseller & recorded the spending under the reseller's vendor number, the expenditures were not visible to anyone searching the city's books for "Flock".[9]
Sole-source waivers, reseller disguises, private donations, and free-trial conversions
[edit | edit source]Vendor-authored sole-source waivers in Sussex County, Benicia, and Milwaukee
[edit | edit source]
A sole-source justification, also referred to in municipal procurement as a single- or sole-source contract waiver,[3] is a legal mechanism that allows a government agency to award a contract without competitive bidding by claiming that only one vendor can meet its need.[22] Rather than a purchasing agency independently developing its procurement rationale for skipping competitive bids, Flock Safety's chief executive officer[22] & regional sales staff supplied pre-drafted sole-source letters directly to local law enforcement officials.[74] Sussex County, Virginia published a "Notice of Award of Contract / Sole Source Determination" on its official website for its sheriff's department[22] consisting of a sole-source letter for Flock Safety ALPR cameras signed at the bottom by Flock Safety chief executive officer Garrett Langley.[18] Langley's letter asserted that Flock was the sole provider of its "Vehicle Fingerprint" technology, a proprietary machine-vision system that analyzes vehicle attributes such as color, type, make, & objects like roof racks or bumper stickers based on image analytics.[18] The letter also claimed Flock was the only license-plate-reader vendor to partner natively with Axon's Evidence.com platform & offered access to cameras bought by homeowner associations & private businesses "at no additional cost",[18] while touting "[p]rivacy controls to enable certain vehicles to 'opt-out' of being captured".[18][22]
Public records from Benicia, California documented how regional sales staff packaged these waivers alongside municipal staff report templates.[74] On February 22, 2021, Flock Safety Northern California territory manager John Anderson emailed Benicia police chief Michael Greene & his lieutenant, Mark Menesini, a file titled "Sole Source Letter - Benicia Police Department.pdf" together with sample staff reports from Covina & Azusa "so we can start on the legal process".[74] On April 29, 2021, Anderson sent an updated contract along with "our most current Sole Source letter for good measure".[74] The Benicia City Council subsequently reviewed a two-year, $236,250 lease agreement for 45 cameras funded initially through the city's Measure C fund before shifting ongoing costs to the police department's operations budget.[5]
In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the city's Department of Administration invoked an exception to City Charter 16-05-4a to bypass Finance & Personnel Committee approval for Contract #E21123 with Flock Group, Inc., asserting that the agreement involved "services related to proprietary products".[3] According to a February 4, 2026 written comment submitted by the ACLU of Wisconsin, the city originally approved a $52,500.00 contract on July 9, 2025 for a term running from January 27, 2025 through January 26, 2026.[3] Two unapproved amendments on September 17, 2025 added six cameras for $36,900.00 & three cameras for $11,000.00, raising the contract value to $100,400 while extending the term to January 26, 2027 without committee review.[3] A pending third amendment presented to the committee on February 4, 2026 proposed adding another $82,500 to renew annual recurring license fees for 31 city-funded cameras for a term through January 26, 2027, which would bring the total contract cost to $182,900 without committee approval.[3]
Third-party reseller and cooperative purchasing channels in New Bedford, Richmond, and Murfreesboro
[edit | edit source]
Municipalities also obscured Flock Safety expenditures in budget & procurement records by routing payments through third-party vendor Insight Public Sector[19] & cooperative reseller channels.[9] In New Bedford, Massachusetts, the city quietly adopted Flock technology under then-Police Chief Paul Oliveira in late 2024 without public disclosure,[19] deploying 20 license-plate-reading cameras.[73] When the New Bedford City Council approved the fiscal year 2027 municipal budget, the funding line item for the system listed third-party vendor Insight Public Sector & described the expenditure only as an "annual subscription", omitting any reference to Flock Safety, cameras, or license plate readers.[19] Fort Lauderdale, Florida similarly used Insight Public Sector on an OMNIA Partners/Cobb County cooperative contract in October 2024 to execute its unvoted five-year, $499,996 Flock commitment.[9]
New Bedford councilors learned of the 20-camera network in August 2026 after an internal affairs investigation revealed that police detective Emily Pacheco had allegedly used the system to track her ex-girlfriend in violation of a restraining order.[73] New Bedford councilor Derek Baptiste questioned how many other individuals were being tracked through a system that "was snuck right under our noses" for two years.[73] "The City Council unanimously passed four motions regarding Flock" on August 25, 2026, one of which asked the mayor and Police Department to physically remove or cover all 20 cameras,[73] followed by an 8–3 council vote on September 24, 2026 giving first approval to a temporary ordinance barring Flock camera use in the city.[19] In Richmond, Virginia, the Richmond Police Department purchased its Flock ALPR contract through procurement vendor Insight Public Sector without a direct council vote, with a Richmonder review of the city's payment register finding at least $1,003,674.81 in Flock-related payments from October 2024 to November 2025 across roughly 100 cameras plus gunshot detectors before the department cut off an ATF agent's access in July 2025 after immigration-related searches & extended the contract through June 30, 2027,[105] while in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, the city used Omnia Partners cooperative contract number R250203 to enter an original three-year agreement effective August 1, 2025 for 15 cameras at $128,250 ($42,750 a year) & an amendment effective September 19, 2025 adding readers & video cameras at $195,515.10 in year one & $161,158.80 in each of years two & three for a combined three-year total of $646,082.70 across 106 readers.[106]
Private billionaire donations, grant bypasses, and free-trial conversions
[edit | edit source]
Law enforcement agencies also deployed or expanded Flock camera networks through private foundation donations that bypassed city council approval,[23] organized retail theft & policing grants,[96] & free trials conducted before camera purchases.[20] In October 2024, venture capitalist Ben Horowitz, whose firm Andreessen Horowitz serves as Flock Safety's lead investor under its "American Dynamism" practice, donated $6.3 million in Flock & Skydio surveillance equipment to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.[23] Horowitz stated that the gift aimed at "making the best technology available to the public sector" because agencies often struggle with "budgeting for strategic technology projects".[23] By routing the $6.3 million donation through a tax-exempt police foundation, the department deployed the cameras without a Las Vegas City Council vote.[23] In San Francisco, where the police department contracted for more than 400 Flock cameras, Mayor Daniel Lurie announced tightened usage rules on September 29, 2026 after a San Francisco Human Rights Commission report documented 1.6 million improper searches of the city's camera data by out-of-state agencies between 2024 & 2025.[94]
External grant funding similarly financed additional municipal camera installations alongside city budget allocations[96] & expanded existing police camera networks.[97] After Costa Mesa, California signed an initial $97,600 agreement for 31 cameras in 2022, 15 additional cameras paid for by an organized retail theft grant were installed on city streets before officials approved a three-year lease in 2024 funded by a $306,000 budget allocation & $153,750 in grant funding.[96] In Pasadena, California, the police department launched its program in 2023 with 61 fixed cameras & requested 11 more through grant funding in July 2026[97] to expand its network to 72 cameras, prompting dozens of residents to rally at Pasadena City Hall on August 19, 2026 demanding the system's removal.[107]
Zero-dollar trials also established physical camera infrastructure before agencies entered into unvoted paid commitments[9] or sought subsequent camera purchases & multi-year contracts.[20] Much like the 2022 pilot in Fort Lauderdale, Florida for 25 free cameras,[9] police in Independence, Kentucky conducted a free trial in 2023 before purchasing 15 cameras in 2024 & five more in July (reported August 28, 2026).[20] In nearby Newport, Kentucky, police ran a trial before proposing a two-year contract for six cameras, though resident opposition & court rulings led Newport, Independence, Fort Thomas, & Fort Mitchell to drop their Flock programs by August 2026.[20] In Oak Park, Illinois, the village board voted on August 5, 2025 to cancel a Flock contract it had renewed a year earlier, weeks before an audit by Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias found that Flock had violated state law by allowing federal Customs and Border Protection agents to access Illinois license-plate data.[98]
Federal and state investigations, legislation, and litigation
[edit | edit source]Congressional investigations and Federal Trade Commission referral
[edit | edit source]On November 3, 2025, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) & U.S. Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) sent a letter to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Andrew Ferguson urging the agency to investigate Flock Safety's cybersecurity practices.[95][108] The lawmakers reported that Flock informed Congress in August 2025 that approximately 75% of its law enforcement customers had opted into its "National Lookup Tool", & that a Congressional staff search of a public tool operated by cybersecurity company Hudson Rock revealed that "infostealer" malware had stolen passwords for at least 35 Flock customer accounts.[95] Wyden & Krishnamoorthi also cited an August 11, 2025 Unraveled Press report and a July 9, 2025 Palos Heights Deputy Chief of Police memo showing that Drug Enforcement Administration task force members had used a Palos Heights, Illinois police detective's login credentials to conduct Flock searches before the department enabled multi-factor authentication (MFA).[95] Noting that the FTC had held in at least four cases against Uber, Chegg, Drizly, & Blackbaud that failing to require MFA is an unfair business practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act, and citing California Civil Code § 1798.90.53, Wyden & Krishnamoorthi wrote in their November 3, 2025 letter to Ferguson:
Flock has received vast sums of taxpayer money to build a national surveillance network. But Flock’s cavalier attitude towards cybersecurity needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of hackers and foreign spies tapping this data. Accordingly, we urge the FTC to hold Flock accountable for its negligent cybersecurity practices.
On August 26, 2026, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, launched an investigation into Flock Safety's artificial intelligence camera network & demanded that CEO Garrett Langley produce documents & information no later than September 8, 2026.[109] Hawley's letter noted that Flock had a $8.3 billion valuation, operated more than 120,000 cameras across 49 states, & recorded more than 20 billion vehicle scans every month.[109] The letter stated that in Missouri, "the St. Charles County Police Department terminated its contract this month" after an audit revealed that a civilian employee had run Flock searches for personal reasons, & that the Los Angeles Police Department dropped its contract after an audit showed officers had stopped 161 vehicles incorrectly flagged as stolen in two months, while Milwaukee prosecutors charged a police officer who allegedly searched his girlfriend's license plate 124 times & her former boyfriend's plate 55 times while entering "investigation" as the justification.[109] Hawley wrote in his August 26, 2026 letter to Langley:
Congress never authorized the network your industry has built. Your company’s internal policies are, in practice, the only safeguards for hundreds of millions of Americans. People across the country are now discovering that fact and demanding answers from their elected officials.
State enforcement actions, legislation, and municipal bans
[edit | edit source]An August 2025 audit of 12 local law enforcement agencies by Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias found that Flock Safety broke state laws, which ban license plate reader data from being used for immigration status investigations and criminal investigations related to out-of-state abortion access, by lacking proper data-sharing safeguards & running a pilot program that allowed Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to access Illinois license plate reader data before Flock paused the pilot with CBP & other federal agencies not only in Illinois but nationwide, weeks after Oak Park's board of trustees voted on August 5, 2025 to cancel its Flock contract.[98] On October 3, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a petition for a writ of mandate in San Diego County Superior Court against the City of El Cajon after the El Cajon Police Department refused to stop sharing ALPR data with numerous out-of-state law enforcement agencies across states including Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Texas, & Virginia in violation of SB 34, which prohibits sharing ALPR data with federal and out-of-state agencies where the data's use is beyond the reach of California's oversight and regulation.[110] On January 21, 2026, Bonta filed a motion in California v. City of El Cajon requesting a writ of mandamus, along with declaratory & injunctive relief, ordering the City of El Cajon, the El Cajon Police Department, & Chief Jeremiah Larson to cease sharing ALPR data with over 100 out-of-state law enforcement agencies.[111]
In New York, State Senator Michelle Hinchey announced legislation (S.9890/A.10808) on September 22, 2026 to regulate ALPR systems statewide.[99] The bill would require ALPR data to be deleted within 48 hours unless used as evidence in an investigation or retained pursuant to a warrant, ban the sale of ALPR data to private entities, block out-of-state law enforcement access without judicial authorization, require auditable access logs & annual public website reporting on camera locations & plate counts, & create a private right of action for damages & attorney's fees.[99] Hinchey stated in the September 22, 2026 announcement:
ALPRs, and Flock cameras specifically, have sprung up all around our state without community input and in many cases without the public even knowing. America is not a surveillance state, and while we want law enforcement to have every tool they can to keep us safe and protect our communities, people’s basic rights must be maintained in the process.
Salem, Massachusetts Mayor Dominick Pangallo & Police Chief Lucas Miller said in a July 23, 2026 statement that the City of Salem was not renewing the Salem Police Department's contract with Flock Safety and would be removing the installed cameras:
The City has determined that there are insufficient protections for the ALPR data generated by Flock’s systems. Such data should be owned and used only in furtherance of Salem’s public safety priorities.
In Knoxville, Tennessee, Knox County commissioners voted unanimously in a decision reported on September 2, 2026 to turn off & remove automatic license plate reader cameras, passing an ordinance requiring stationary ALPRs & their data to be removed within 30 days unless involved in a criminal investigation & prohibiting agreements with companies that provide the equipment.[15] On September 10, 2026, the Cincinnati City Council unanimously passed a motion introduced by Council member Anna Albi & co-sponsored by Council members Jeff Cramerding & Seth Walsh, directing the city administration to present a surveillance technology overview within 30 days & draft an ordinance requiring "Council approval of related contracts", limits on data sharing & storage, a surveillance use policy, & an annual impact report:[100]
WE FURTHER MOVE that the administration draft an ordinance for Council's consideration, including limits on data sharing and storage; a state of surveillance annual impact report; surveillance use policy; and Council approval of related contracts.
On September 24, 2026, the New Bedford City Council in Massachusetts voted 8–3 on first approval to pass Councilor-at-large Shane Burgo's temporary ordinance barring the city from operating license plate readers or expanding or renewing a contract for them.[19]
Federal civil rights and privacy litigation
[edit | edit source]In a Fourth Amendment lawsuit filed in October by Norfolk resident Lee Schmidt & Portsmouth resident Crystal Arrington alongside Institute for Justice (IJ) attorney Michael Soyfer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the City of Norfolk's use of 172 Flock Safety cameras installed in 2023, Chief Judge Mark Davis rejected the city's motion to dismiss in a ruling reported by IJ on February 6, 2025, citing Carpenter v. United States.[113] Chief Judge Davis found in the ruling, as quoted by the Institute for Justice:
a reasonable person could believe that society’s expectations, as laid out by the Court in Carpenter, are being violated by the Norfolk Flock system.
Chief Judge Davis also wrote in the ruling:
the complaint alleges facts notably similar to those in Carpenter that the Supreme Court found to clearly violate society’s expectation of privacy: law enforcement secretly monitoring and cataloguing the whole of tens of thousands of individual’s movements over an extended period.
In 2026, Hall & Lampros, LLP (founded by Christopher B. Hall and Andrew Lampros) filed a federal class action lawsuit, Murkerson v. Flock Group, Inc., et al., No. 3:26-cv-00223-LMM, in federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia, Newnan Division, on behalf of plaintiff Tyler Murkerson against Flock Group, Inc. d/b/a Flock Safety, Coweta County, Georgia, Sheriff Lenn Wood, & Coweta County Sheriff's Deputies.[114] The complaint, asserting claims under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Georgia RICO Act, Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act, & Georgia ALPR Statute, alleges that after Murkerson filed a civil rights lawsuit against Coweta County sheriff's deputies over a gas station parking lot arrest, deputies used Flock cameras to track his vehicle for 197 days across five searches reaching more than 6,000 agency camera networks nationwide.[114] According to Hall & Lampros's case summary, an August 2026 Coweta County Sheriff's Office internal audit flagged employee accounts, three employees resigned before the audit was completed, & the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was asked to conduct an independent inquiry.[114] Describing the audit logs & platform controls in the case summary, Hall & Lampros wrote:
Audit records show the only justifications entered were “info” and “37”—neither corresponds to any investigation, case, incident, warrant, or call for service. Flock’s platform required only free-text input rather than actual case numbers, accepting whatever was typed (on 20 occasions, the Medford, OR police department entered “hehehe” as a search reason).
References
[edit | edit source]- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 "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.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 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.
- ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 ACLU of Wisconsin (2026-02-04). "Written Comment Regarding File # 251653 (Contract #E21123 Flock Group, Inc.)" (PDF). ACLU of Wisconsin. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 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) - ↑ 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 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.
- ↑ 6.00 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04 6.05 6.06 6.07 6.08 6.09 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 "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) - ↑ 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 7.12 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) - ↑ 8.00 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.09 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.16 8.17 8.18 8.19 8.20 8.21 8.22 8.23 8.24 8.25 8.26 8.27 8.28 8.29 8.30 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) - ↑ 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20 9.21 9.22 9.23 9.24 9.25 9.26 9.27 9.28 Deflock Broward (2026). "Fort Lauderdale". Deflock Broward. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 10.10 10.11 10.12 "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.
- ↑ 11.00 11.01 11.02 11.03 11.04 11.05 11.06 11.07 11.08 11.09 11.10 11.11 "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.
- ↑ 12.00 12.01 12.02 12.03 12.04 12.05 12.06 12.07 12.08 12.09 12.10 12.11 12.12 "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.
- ↑ 13.00 13.01 13.02 13.03 13.04 13.05 13.06 13.07 13.08 13.09 13.10 13.11 13.12 13.13 13.14 13.15 13.16 13.17 13.18 13.19 13.20 13.21 13.22 13.23 13.24 13.25 13.26 13.27 13.28 13.29 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) - ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 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) - ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 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) - ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 Estelle Timar-Wilcox, Cathy Wurzer, Lukas Levin (2026-06-09). "Columbia Heights City Council votes to end Flock Safety camera contract". MPR News. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 17.00 17.01 17.02 17.03 17.04 17.05 17.06 17.07 17.08 17.09 17.10 17.11 17.12 17.13 17.14 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.
- ↑ 18.00 18.01 18.02 18.03 18.04 18.05 18.06 18.07 18.08 18.09 18.10 18.11 18.12 18.13 18.14 18.15 18.16 18.17 18.18 18.19 18.20 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) - ↑ 19.00 19.01 19.02 19.03 19.04 19.05 19.06 19.07 19.08 19.09 19.10 19.11 19.12 19.13 19.14 19.15 19.16 19.17 19.18 19.19 19.20 Anastasia E. Lennon (2026-09-25). "City Council passes temporary ordinance continuing Flock shutdown". The New Bedford Light. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 20.00 20.01 20.02 20.03 20.04 20.05 20.06 20.07 20.08 20.09 20.10 20.11 20.12 20.13 20.14 20.15 20.16 20.17 20.18 Dany Villarreal Martinez (2026-08-28). "Fort Thomas joins other NKY cities in dropping Flock Safety cameras". 91.7 WVXU. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 21.00 21.01 21.02 21.03 21.04 21.05 21.06 21.07 21.08 21.09 21.10 21.11 21.12 21.13 21.14 21.15 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) - ↑ 22.00 22.01 22.02 22.03 22.04 22.05 22.06 22.07 22.08 22.09 22.10 22.11 22.12 22.13 22.14 22.15 22.16 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.
- ↑ 23.00 23.01 23.02 23.03 23.04 23.05 23.06 23.07 23.08 23.09 23.10 23.11 23.12 23.13 23.14 23.15 23.16 23.17 23.18 23.19 23.20 Juvaria Shahid (2026-07-08). "Dragnet Surveillance by Design". The Flaw. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 24.00 24.01 24.02 24.03 24.04 24.05 24.06 24.07 24.08 24.09 24.10 24.11 24.12 24.13 24.14 24.15 Uphues, Bob (2022-10-11). "North Riverside trustees OK license plate reader system". Riverside-Brookfield Landmark. Growing Community Media. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 25.00 25.01 25.02 25.03 25.04 25.05 25.06 25.07 25.08 25.09 "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.
- ↑ 26.00 26.01 26.02 26.03 26.04 26.05 26.06 26.07 26.08 26.09 26.10 26.11 26.12 26.13 26.14 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.
- ↑ 27.00 27.01 27.02 27.03 27.04 27.05 27.06 27.07 27.08 27.09 27.10 27.11 27.12 "McKinney, TX Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-09-08. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 28.00 28.01 28.02 28.03 28.04 28.05 28.06 28.07 28.08 28.09 28.10 28.11 28.12 28.13 28.14 "Board unaware of sheriff's Flock camera purchase". The Daily Gazette / HudsonValley360. The Daily Gazette. 2026-08-19. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 29.00 29.01 29.02 29.03 29.04 29.05 29.06 29.07 29.08 29.09 29.10 29.11 29.12 29.13 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.
- ↑ 30.00 30.01 30.02 30.03 30.04 30.05 30.06 30.07 30.08 30.09 30.10 30.11 30.12 30.13 "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.
- ↑ 31.00 31.01 31.02 31.03 31.04 31.05 31.06 31.07 31.08 31.09 31.10 31.11 31.12 31.13 31.14 "Monterey County, CA Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-08-20. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 32.00 32.01 32.02 32.03 32.04 32.05 32.06 32.07 32.08 32.09 32.10 32.11 32.12 "Park Ridge Approves Flock License Plate Readers Contract Extension". Journal & Topics. Journal & Topics Media Group. 2026-07-21. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 33.00 33.01 33.02 33.03 33.04 33.05 33.06 33.07 33.08 33.09 33.10 33.11 33.12 33.13 "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.
- ↑ 34.00 34.01 34.02 34.03 34.04 34.05 34.06 34.07 34.08 34.09 34.10 34.11 34.12 34.13 34.14 34.15 34.16 34.17 "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) - ↑ 35.00 35.01 35.02 35.03 35.04 35.05 35.06 35.07 35.08 35.09 35.10 35.11 35.12 35.13 35.14 35.15 35.16 "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.
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 36.4 36.5 36.6 36.7 36.8 "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.
- ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4 37.5 37.6 37.7 37.8 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) - ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.6 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) - ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.6 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) - ↑ 40.00 40.01 40.02 40.03 40.04 40.05 40.06 40.07 40.08 40.09 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) - ↑ 41.0 41.1 41.2 41.3 41.4 41.5 41.6 41.7 "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.
- ↑ 42.00 42.01 42.02 42.03 42.04 42.05 42.06 42.07 42.08 42.09 42.10 42.11 42.12 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) - ↑ 43.00 43.01 43.02 43.03 43.04 43.05 43.06 43.07 43.08 43.09 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) - ↑ 44.00 44.01 44.02 44.03 44.04 44.05 44.06 44.07 44.08 44.09 44.10 44.11 44.12 44.13 44.14 44.15 44.16 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) - ↑ 45.00 45.01 45.02 45.03 45.04 45.05 45.06 45.07 45.08 45.09 45.10 "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.
- ↑ 46.0 46.1 46.2 46.3 46.4 46.5 46.6 "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.
- ↑ 47.00 47.01 47.02 47.03 47.04 47.05 47.06 47.07 47.08 47.09 47.10 47.11 47.12 47.13 47.14 47.15 47.16 47.17 47.18 47.19 47.20 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.
- ↑ 48.0 48.1 48.2 48.3 48.4 48.5 48.6 48.7 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) - ↑ 49.0 49.1 49.2 49.3 49.4 49.5 49.6 49.7 49.8 "Anoka County Procurement Policy (Version 1.0)". Anoka County, Minnesota. Anoka County Board of Commissioners. 2025-10-28. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 50.0 50.1 50.2 50.3 50.4 50.5 50.6 "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.
- ↑ 51.0 51.1 51.2 51.3 51.4 51.5 "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.
- ↑ 52.00 52.01 52.02 52.03 52.04 52.05 52.06 52.07 52.08 52.09 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.
- ↑ 53.0 53.1 53.2 53.3 53.4 53.5 53.6 53.7 "Rowan County, NC Moves to End Sheriff Flock Contract". For Flock's Sake. For Flock's Sake. 2026-10-17. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 54.0 54.1 54.2 54.3 54.4 54.5 54.6 "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.
- ↑ 55.0 55.1 55.2 55.3 55.4 55.5 55.6 "North Carolina General Statutes § 143-133: No evasion permitted". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 56.00 56.01 56.02 56.03 56.04 56.05 56.06 56.07 56.08 56.09 56.10 56.11 56.12 56.13 56.14 56.15 "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.
- ↑ 57.00 57.01 57.02 57.03 57.04 57.05 57.06 57.07 57.08 57.09 57.10 57.11 "Redondo Beach, CA Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-09-09. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 58.0 58.1 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.5 58.6 58.7 "Redondo Beach Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 6: Purchasing System (§ 2-6.07)". GoCodebook. City of Redondo Beach, California. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 59.00 59.01 59.02 59.03 59.04 59.05 59.06 59.07 59.08 59.09 59.10 "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.
- ↑ 60.00 60.01 60.02 60.03 60.04 60.05 60.06 60.07 60.08 60.09 60.10 60.11 60.12 60.13 60.14 60.15 "Illinois Statutes Chapter 65. Municipalities § 5/8-9-1". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 61.0 61.1 "Bill Analysis, S.B. 1173 (Enrolled)". Texas Legislature Online. Senate Research Center. 2025. Retrieved 2026-10-22.
- ↑ 62.0 62.1 62.2 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.6 "Texas Local Government Code § 252.021: Competitive Requirements for Purchases". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 63.0 63.1 63.2 63.3 63.4 63.5 63.6 63.7 "Texas Local Government Code § 252.062: Criminal Penalties". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.3 64.4 "New York General Municipal Law § 103". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 65.00 65.01 65.02 65.03 65.04 65.05 65.06 65.07 65.08 65.09 65.10 65.11 65.12 65.13 "Waltham, MA Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-08-21. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.3 "General Laws, Part I, Title III, Chapter 30B, Section 5". The 194th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Retrieved 2026-10-22.
- ↑ 67.00 67.01 67.02 67.03 67.04 67.05 67.06 67.07 67.08 67.09 "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.
- ↑ 68.00 68.01 68.02 68.03 68.04 68.05 68.06 68.07 68.08 68.09 68.10 68.11 68.12 "Cullman, AL Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-07-07. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 69.0 69.1 69.2 69.3 69.4 "Alabama Code Title 41. State Government § 41-16-50". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 70.00 70.01 70.02 70.03 70.04 70.05 70.06 70.07 70.08 70.09 70.10 70.11 "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.
- ↑ 71.00 71.01 71.02 71.03 71.04 71.05 71.06 71.07 71.08 71.09 71.10 71.11 71.12 "Coachella, CA Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-07-15. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 72.0 72.1 72.2 72.3 72.4 "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.
- ↑ 73.00 73.01 73.02 73.03 73.04 73.05 73.06 73.07 73.08 73.09 73.10 73.11 73.12 73.13 73.14 73.15 Anastasia E. Lennon (2026-08-25). "City Council advances four motions on Flock cameras". The New Bedford Light. 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 Gregg Horton (2026-07-13). "What Benicia's Own Records Reveal About Its Flock Safety Surveillance Deal". Benicia Independent. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 75.0 75.1 75.2 75.3 75.4 "Benicia Municipal Code Chapter 3.08: Purchasing Regulation". GoCodebook. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 76.0 76.1 76.2 76.3 76.4 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) - ↑ 77.00 77.01 77.02 77.03 77.04 77.05 77.06 77.07 77.08 77.09 77.10 77.11 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) - ↑ "Tennessee Code Title 12. Public Property, Printing and Contracts § 12-3-1212". FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 79.0 79.1 "Knox County Procurement Code" (PDF). Knox County, Tennessee. Knox County Procurement Division. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-03-15. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ "Anoka County, MN Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 81.0 81.1 81.2 81.3 81.4 "Contract No. 25239 with Flock Safety: agenda attachments". Rowan County, North Carolina. Rowan County Board of Commissioners. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ "Park Ridge Discusses Renewing Flock License Plate Reader Contract". Journal & Topics. Journal & Topics Media Group. 2026-07-14. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ "General Laws, Part I, Title XV, Chapter 94C, Section 47". The 194th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ "Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Coachella City Council, May 26, 2021" (PDF). City of Coachella. City of Coachella. 2021-05-26. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ "Flock Group Inc. Services Agreement Order Form, City of Coachella" (PDF). City of Coachella. City of Coachella. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ "Coachella Municipal Code Chapter 4.08: Purchasing". GoCodebook. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 87.0 87.1 "Flock furor: Police cameras in New Bedford and South Coast". The New Bedford Light. 2026-07-27. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ "Code of Virginia § 2.2-4303. Methods of procurement". Virginia Law. Virginia General Assembly. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 89.0 89.1 89.2 89.3 89.4 89.5 89.6 89.7 89.8 Barnes, Jared (2026-07-21). "City of Costa Mesa Agenda Report File #: 26-315: Flock Safety Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Report and Presentation". City of Costa Mesa Legistar. City of Costa Mesa Police Department. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ "Costa Mesa Municipal Code Art. 2 Purchasing (CA)". GoCodebook. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 91.0 91.1 "Flock cameras pop up in Sussex County". Cape Gazette. Cape Gazette. 2026-08. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ↑ "Flock Cameras Raise Privacy Questions, Murfreesboro Now Operates Over 100 License Plate Readers Documenting the Movement of Vehicles". The Murfreesboro Pulse. 2026-08-06. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ "RPD has spent $1 million on Flock. With those contracts up for renewal, anti-surveillance activists call for cancellation while Mayor, Council demur". The Richmonder. 2026-03-12. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 94.0 94.1 Frankie Solinsky Duryea (2026-09-29). "S.F. sticks with Flock surveillance cameras, but mayor tightens police use". Mission Local. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 95.0 95.1 95.2 95.3 95.4 Wyden, Ron; Krishnamoorthi, Raja (2025-11-03). "Letter to FTC Chair Andrew N. Ferguson Regarding Flock Safety" (PDF). U.S. Senate. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 96.0 96.1 96.2 96.3 96.4 96.5 96.6 96.7 96.8 Cardine, Sara (2026-07-17). "Could Flock cameras wing their way out of Costa Mesa? Heads will weigh in Tuesday". Daily Pilot / Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 97.0 97.1 97.2 André Coleman (2026-07-06). "Audit Finds Police Flock Camera Program Complies With State Law, Department Policy". Pasadena Now. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 98.0 98.1 98.2 Brendan Heffernan (2025-08-28). "After Oak Park cut ties, state says Flock Safety broke the law". Wednesday Journal. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 99.0 99.1 99.2 99.3 "Hinchey Bill Would Protect New Yorkers from Unwarranted Surveillance by License Plate Readers like Flock". The New York State Senate. 2026-09-22. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 100.0 100.1 100.2 Costello, Becca (2026-09-10). "Cincinnati considers restrictions on surveillance technology". 91.7 WVXU. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 101.0 101.1 "C.R.S. § 31-15-712: Public improvements by contract - cities". Colorado.Public.Law. 2025. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 102.0 102.1 102.2 "C.R.S. § 18-8-404: First degree official misconduct". Colorado.Public.Law. 2025. Archived from the original on 2025-09-28. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 103.0 103.1 "C.R.S. § 18-8-405: Second degree official misconduct". Colorado.Public.Law. 2025. Archived from the original on 2025-04-01. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ 104.0 104.1 "C.R.S. § 18-1-901: Definitions". Colorado.Public.Law. 2025. Archived from the original on 2025-04-01. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ "Richmond, VA Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-09-24. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ "Murfreesboro, TN Flock Contract". Who Approved This. Who Approved This. 2026-09-08. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ Eddie Rivera (2026-08-20). "Dozens Rally at Pasadena City Hall to Demand Removal of Flock Cameras". Pasadena Now. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
- ↑ "Wyden, Krishnamoorthi Urge FTC to Investigate Surveillance Tech Company on Negligently Handling Americans' Personal Data". Office of U.S. Senator Ron Wyden. 2025-11-03. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 109.0 109.1 109.2 109.3 "Chairman Hawley Investigates AI-Powered Flock Cameras Amidst Privacy Concerns". Office of U.S. Senator Josh Hawley. 2026-08-26. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ "Attorney General Bonta Sues El Cajon for Illegally Sharing License Plate Data with Out-of-State Law Enforcement". State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. 2025-10-03. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ "Attorney General Bonta Continues Legal Challenge to Stop El Cajon from Illegally Sharing License Plate Data". State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. 2026-01-21. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ Puleo, Nick (2026-07-26). "As More Communities Drop Flock Cameras, Local Police Defend Use". South Shore Times. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 113.0 113.1 113.2 King, Dan (2025-02-06). "Judge Rules Lawsuit Challenging Norfolk's Use of Flock Cameras Can Proceed". Institute for Justice. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ↑ 114.0 114.1 114.2 114.3 "Murkerson v. Flock Group, Inc., et al". Hall & Lampros, LLP. 2026. Retrieved 2026-10-21.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)