FLOCK techtimes 100k cameras 53 cities
page 4 / 5
The Supreme Court has not yet decided an ALPR case. Until it does, the legal status of Flock's national network architecture depends on which circuit you live in, how many cameras your city has deployed, and what the next audit finds in the logs.
Why 53 Cities Left — and Why 800 More Signed Up in 2026
The reasons cities have canceled contracts cluster around three themes: immigration enforcement fears, unauthorized federal access, and a collapse of trust in Flock as a data steward.
The Trump administration's immigration enforcement push was the accelerant. Sanctuary cities that had approved Flock contracts years earlier — primarily to recover stolen vehicles — suddenly found themselves holding contracts that made their sanctuary policies effectively unenforceable. As one Santa Cruz council member put it after the city voted to cancel in January 2026: "We should in no way consciously be in this system at all — just no way."
Flock CEO Garrett Langley pushed back against the cancellation wave, characterizing the opposition as "coordinated attacks" from groups seeking to "defund the police, weaken public safety, and normalize lawlessness." That framing backfired with at least one client: Staunton, Virginia Police Chief Jim Williams wrote back to Langley saying the criticism amounted to "a group of local citizens who are raising concerns that we could be potentially surveilling private citizens" — and Staunton canceled its contract.
Flock's official position is that data control rests with local agencies. "Agencies and cities are very much able to use this technology in a way that complies with their values," spokesperson Holly Beilin told Stateline. The company has pointed to crime-solving wins — including identifying the Brown University shooting suspect within hours — as evidence of the system's value. Flock denies direct contracts with ICE.
A Center of Democracy and Technology analyst offered a different diagnosis: "It was only once they saw ICE officials or CBP officials in their own communities that they realized that this data was leaking out from their immediate jurisdiction."
Meanwhile, nearly 800 U.S. cities approved new Flock contracts in 2026 alone. Flock says new partnerships significantly outpace departures. The network now has more cameras than at any point in its history.
Legislative responses are multiplying. Colorado passed SB 26-070 requiring warrants before sharing ALPR data with federal agencies. Washington's SB 6002, the Driver Privacy Act, imposes similar restrictions. Kentucky's HB 58 caps data retention at 90 days — the first state-level retention limit of its kind. Maine passed a comprehensive ALPR privacy law. In May 2026, the ACLU supported a bipartisan amendment to a federal highway funding bill that would have blocked ALPR cameras except for tolling purposes — it did not pass, but represented the most direct federal legislative challenge to the technology to date.
What Residents Can Do Right Now
The practical exposure for any driver in a Flock-equipped city is real and present. Every pass through a camera logs your plate, make, model, color, and location. That data, stored for 30 days by default, has reached federal agencies in at least six documented jurisdictions despite city-level prohibitions — not because agencies forced their way in, but because a lookup setting was on.
File a public records request with your city's police department asking for all contracts with Flock Safety, data-sharing agreements, and audit logs of agency searches of your city's ALPR data. Check deflock.org, which has catalogued the locations of over 90,000 ALPR cameras nationwide. Contact your state legislator — California, Illinois, Washington, Colorado, Kentucky, and Maine have enacted or recently strengthened ALPR-specific restrictions. If you are in California, the ALPR Privacy Act (Civil Code §§ 1798.90.5–1798.90.55) entitles you to know how your data is being shared and used, and carries a $2,500 per-violation statutory damages provision that has now produced at least five class actions.
Dayton's trash bags will eventually come down. The cameras will be removed or replaced. But the broader question — whether any city can use Flock's network without its data eventually reaching agencies it never authorized — is one that courts, legislators, and the 53 cities that have already voted with their contracts are forcing into the open.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are Flock Safety cameras legal under the Fourth Amendment?
Courts have split on the question. Two rulings in January 2026 — Schmidt v. City of Norfolk and State v. Simonson — upheld limited Flock deployments as constitutional, with both courts emphasizing that the scale and retention period of a specific deployment matter to the analysis. The Institute for Justice is appealing the Norfolk ruling. The ACLU argues in a pending Fourth Circuit case that pervasive ALPR surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment's protections under the same mosaic theory the Supreme Court applied to cell-phone location data in Carpenter v. United States (2018). The Supreme Court has not yet decided an ALPR case. The constitutional status of a city's specific deployment depends on camera density, data retention duration, and the scope of cross-agency sharing — meaning the same technology can present different legal profiles in different cities.