Flock Cameras in Deer Park

What Deer Park bought, what it costs, and what the record shows

Deer Park, Ohio

Deer Park is running a surveillance camera network it never wrote rules for

Deer Park operates Flock Safety cameras that record every passing vehicle and log where it was and when. The city funded them with $14,000 from the courts, signed a two-year contract, and turned them on in February 2025 — without adopting a written policy, a retention limit, or any public audit. We think council should let the contract lapse and turn the cameras off. Here is the evidence, with sources for every claim.

The short version

On November 4, 2024, Deer Park's council voted to earmark $14,000 it had received "in funds from the courts" for a Flock Safety camera program. The minutes record the argument made that night: "We are one of 10-15 agency's that do not have this program."1 A month later, the city's finance director told council that "the contract with Flock lasts for 2 years, and if we cannot pay the equipment is taken back," and warned that while the city had most of year one covered, "we need to be aware we need to find the money for year 2."2 By February 2025, two officers had finished training and the minutes state "cameras will be in use this month."3

That is the entire public record of how Deer Park acquired a surveillance system. There was no policy debate, no retention rule, no audit requirement, and no vote on who outside Deer Park may search the data.

What these cameras actually do

A Flock camera does not watch for suspicious behavior. It records every vehicle that passes — the plate, the vehicle's appearance, the location, and the time. Nearly all of those vehicles belong to people who have done nothing wrong. The result is a searchable history of ordinary residents' movements — which is why the technology is contested in a way that a squad car on Blue Ash Road is not.

The Supreme Court ruled in June 2026 that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained a person's phone location data, because "an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information."5 That case was about a geofence warrant for Google data, and we want to be precise about this: the opinion does not mention license plate readers anywhere.5 Legal commentators, including in Ohio, have asked whether ALPRs are next. That is a prediction about where the law may go, not something the Court decided.6

Nine cameras, and no policy governing them

The Atlas of Surveillance, a project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the University of Nevada, Reno, lists the Deer Park Police Department as operating nine Flock ALPRs as of September 2025. That listing was derived from a Flock "shared devices list" obtained by public records request from a different agency — meaning Deer Park's cameras were visible in another department's system.7

We checked the city's website on July 29, 2026 — the Police Department pages, the About page, and the department contacts page. None of them mentions Flock, license plate readers, ALPR, cameras, retention, or any policy governing them.8 To be careful about what that does and does not prove: it means no such policy is published, not that none exists. A public records request under R.C. 149.43 is how a resident can find out.9

Compare Colerain Township, in the same county, which adopted a written ALPR policy in April 2025 that caps retention at 30 days.4 Dayton published its policy, its impact statement, and the public comments on it.10 These are Ohio agencies doing what Deer Park has not.

The vendor's assurances are the only protection Deer Park has, and here is what they have been worth

With no policy and no audit, Deer Park is relying entirely on Flock's word about who can see its data. That word has a record.

Flock told its police customers it had no relationship with the Department of Homeland Security. It had given four federal agencies access to its system. In September 2025 the company confirmed to Senator Ron Wyden's office that it provided access to Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security Investigations, the Secret Service, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service as part of a pilot, and that "due to internal miscommunication, customers were inaccurately informed that Flock did not have any relationship with DHS."11 Wyden's conclusion, in his words: "Flock deceived its law enforcement customers."11

Flock's contract promise not to sell customer data no longer exists. The December 2025 terms said "Flock does not own and shall not sell Customer Data." The February 16, 2026 terms delete that sentence, delete the section requiring training images be "never sold or shared with third parties," and add a perpetual license for Flock to use customer data to "support and improve Flock's products and services."12,13 We downloaded both versions and read them ourselves. Flock's public pages still say customers own and control their data, which remains true and now guarantees less.14

Flock's answer on abortion-related searches was an audit that could only see what officers typed. The company said its audit "found not a single credible case of law enforcement using the system to locate vulnerable women seeking healthcare."15 Flock does not require a case-specific search reason, and in a dataset of 11.4 million searches, more than 14 percent of the stated reasons were the single word "investigation" with no case number.11 Wyden's office also examined the privacy filter Flock announced as the fix and found the filters "are easy to circumvent and do not meaningfully protect the privacy of Oregonians."11

To be fair to the company: Flock registered its own security vulnerabilities as CVEs through MITRE rather than burying them, and its audit logging is the reason much of what is known about ALPR misuse is known at all.16 We say so on every page where it is relevant. Flock's statements are quoted at length here.

Why "we have safeguards" has not held up elsewhere

Mountain View, California had safeguards too. Its own city bulletin reported that federal agencies accessed data from one of its cameras between August and November 2024 through a nationwide search setting that was "enabled without MVPD's permission or knowledge."17 The council voted unanimously to terminate the contract in February 2026.18

Closer to home, Cleveland's public safety director told council in July 2026 that the city had shut off outside access to its cameras: "We are no longer involved in a national lookup."20 Cleveland acted after reporting that immigration authorities had accessed its camera data without the city's knowledge.20

Dayton is the case Deer Park cannot argue around. Dayton did the things this site asks Deer Park to do: it adopted a written ALPR policy by public commission vote in 2022, published it, and published the public comments on it.10 That policy prohibited using the data for immigration enforcement. In 2026 the city found roughly 7,100 immigration-related search requests in its own system anyway, from outside agencies, over about three years — because a network sharing setting was on and a commander had not implemented the safeguards he had helped write.21,22 Dayton's city manager called it "egregious violations of policy" that "led to a deterioration of trust."21 The city suspended the program — and then, unable to confirm the cameras had actually stopped and unsure whether its contract let it remove them, sent public works out to put black trash bags over all 72 of them.23,24

Deer Park has no published policy at all.8 It is not in a better position than Dayton was. It is in a worse one, because Dayton could at least read its own logs and discover the problem.

The same month, the Los Angeles Police Department — one of Flock's largest customers — let its contract lapse rather than re-sign, its chief information officer citing "serious concerns around civil liberties and civil rights issues."25 By May 2026, more than 80 jurisdictions in 28 states had terminated Flock contracts, 39 of them in that year's first five months.26 The full record of what other cities did is here.

Nobody has told Deer Park residents whether their cameras are enrolled in Flock's national lookup network, or which agencies can search them. The Atlas listing suggests at least one outside agency could see them.7

What it costs, and what nobody has published

Council was told in December 2024 that the contract runs two years and the equipment goes back if the city cannot pay.2 The city had "most of the funding for year 1."2 The $14,000 from the courts was a one-time sum.1 In November 2024, council discussed needing additional funds for the program alongside a proposed police levy.27

For scale: WOSU obtained records showing 15 central Ohio departments hold contracts for 319 Flock cameras totaling nearly $2 million.28 Cleveland's six-month extension for about 100 cameras was reported at $125,000.29

The exact dollar value of Deer Park's contract, and its precise expiration date, are not published anywhere we could find. Those are the two facts that matter most for a renewal decision, and residents do not have them. See what to ask for.

Where to go next

Sources

  1. Government record City Council Minutes, November 4, 2024. City of Deer Park, Ohio. November 4, 2024. www.deerpark-oh.gov/media/user/council-meeting-minutes/Nov%204th%20City%20Council%20Min.pdf ↑1↑2The city posts this document as a scanned image rather than as searchable text, so the quotations are transcribed from the page and checked word by word against the scan.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  2. Government record City Council Minutes, December 2, 2024. City of Deer Park, Ohio. December 2, 2024. www.deerpark-oh.gov/media/user/council-meeting-minutes/Council%20Min%20Dec%202%2C%202024.pdf ↑1↑2↑3The city posts this document as a scanned image rather than as searchable text, so the quotations are transcribed from the page and checked word by word against the scan.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  3. Government record City Council Minutes, February 3, 2025. City of Deer Park, Ohio. February 3, 2025. www.deerpark-oh.gov/media/user/council-meeting-minutes/City%20council%20Minutes%20Feb%203%2C%202025.pdf ↑The city posts this document as a scanned image rather than as searchable text, so the quotations are transcribed from the page and checked word by word against the scan.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  4. Government record Police Department Policy 5.40: Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR). Colerain Township, Hamilton County, Ohio. April 8, 2025. www.colerain.org/DocumentCenter/View/5107 ↑1↑2Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  5. Court record Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112, 609 U.S. ___ (2026) (slip opinion). Supreme Court of the United States. Decided June 29, 2026. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf ↑1↑2The opinion concerns a geofence warrant for Google Location History data. It does not mention license plate readers or automated license plate recognition anywhere.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  6. News reporting Are Flock cameras next? Supreme Court rules against police using sprawling cell phone location data. Ohio Capital Journal. July 8, 2026. ohiocapitaljournal.com/2026/07/08/are-flock-cameras-next-supreme-court-rules-against-police-using-sprawling-cell-phone-location-data ↑Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  7. Advocacy org. Deer Park Police Department — Automated License Plate Readers (OH0310700ALPR). Atlas of Surveillance, Electronic Frontier Foundation and University of Nevada, Reno. September 2025. atlasofsurveillance.org/a/OH0310700ALPR ↑1↑2Derived from a Flock Safety shared-devices list obtained by public records request from another agency.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  8. Government record Police Department. City of Deer Park, Ohio. www.deerpark-oh.gov/departments/police ↑1↑2Checked July 29, 2026 for any mention of ALPR, plate readers, Flock, or camera policy. None appears.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  9. Government record Ohio Revised Code § 149.43: Availability of public records for inspection and copying. Ohio Laws and Administrative Rules, Legislative Service Commission. Effective September 30, 2025. codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-149.43 ↑Current version effective September 30, 2025, latest legislation House Bill 96 of the 136th General Assembly. Division (A)(1)(yy) excludes from the definition of 'public record' any 'Images and data captured by an automated license plate recognition system that are maintained in a law enforcement database.' We verified this is absent from the April 9, 2025 version and present in both the current text and the version effective September 7, 2026. Divisions (B)(4) and (B)(5) bar a public office from conditioning access on the requester's identity or intended use. Division (C) sets out the mandamus route and its conditions, including the three-business-day cure period and the requirement that a written request be sent by hand delivery, electronic submission, or certified mail before statutory damages are available.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  10. Government record Automated License Plate Readers. City of Dayton, Ohio. www.daytonohio.gov/1087/Automated-License-Plate-Readers ↑1↑2Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  11. Government record Letter to Flock Group, Inc. CEO Garrett Langley. U.S. Senator Ron Wyden. October 16, 2025. www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden_letter_to_flock.pdf ↑1↑2↑3↑4Quoted directly from the Senator's published PDF. Reports that 75% of Flock's law enforcement customers had enrolled in the National Lookup Tool, and that in an EFF dataset of 11.4 million nationwide searches over six months, more than 14% of search reasons were the single word 'investigation' with no case number.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  12. Flock Safety Flock Safety Customer Terms and Conditions, December 2025 version. Flock Safety (mirrored by haveibeenflocked.com). December 20, 2025. haveibeenflocked.com/blog/trojan-contracts/dec-2025-terms.pdf ↑The immediately preceding version of Flock's terms, mirrored. We downloaded and read this PDF directly on July 29, 2026 and confirmed the presence of the clauses that the February 2026 version omits, including section 4.1's sentence 'Flock does not own and shall not sell Customer Data' and all of section 4.3, Training Data.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  13. Flock Safety Flock Safety Customer Terms and Conditions, last updated February 16, 2026. Flock Safety (mirrored by haveibeenflocked.com). February 16, 2026. haveibeenflocked.com/blog/terms-feb2026/feb-2026-terms.pdf ↑Flock's own contract text. Cited from a mirror because Flock's live terms page is rewritten in place each time the terms change and is not reliably archived; we downloaded and read this PDF directly on July 29, 2026 rather than relying on any third party's summary of it. Every quotation on this site from the February terms was verified against this file.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  14. Flock Safety Privacy and Ethics. Flock Safety. www.flocksafety.com/privacy-ethics ↑Flock's standing customer-facing privacy page, quoted for the assurances a council hears from the vendor. It carries no date and Flock revises it in place, so the date we retrieved it is the only fixed reference point.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  15. Flock Safety Setting the Record Straight: Statement on Flock Network Sharing, Use Cases, and Federal Cooperation. Flock Safety. June 19, 2025. www.flocksafety.com/blog/statement-network-sharing-use-cases-federal-cooperation ↑Signed by Flock's CEO. This is the statement we set against Sen. Wyden's October 2025 letter and the Illinois audit. Quoted from the live page on July 29, 2026. Flock revises its blog and legal pages in place and they are not reliably archived, so if the wording there has since changed, this note and the retrieval date are the record of what it said that day.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  16. Flock Safety Response to compiled security research on Flock Safety devices. Flock Safety. November 6, 2025. www.flocksafety.com/blog/response-to-compiled-security-research-on-flock-safety-devices ↑Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  17. Government record Update on Automated License Plate Reader Program. City of Mountain View, California. January 30, 2026. content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CAMOUNTAINVIEW/bulletins/406f640 ↑1↑2The city's own bulletin, distributed through its subscriber notification service. We link this copy because the identical page on mountainview.gov is not publicly readable without a browser session.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  18. News reporting City Council terminates Mountain View's license plate camera contract. Mountain View Voice. February 25, 2026. www.mv-voice.com/city-government/2026/02/25/city-council-terminates-mountain-views-license-plate-camera-contract ↑Local reporting on the termination vote. The city's own news release covers the same vote but is not publicly readable outside a browser session, so we cite the newspaper.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  19. Federal vuln. database Search for "Flock Safety" in the National Vulnerability Database. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Queried July 29, 2026. nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search/results?query=Flock+Safety ↑A search of the federal government's vulnerability database for "Flock Safety" returned 15 records on July 29, 2026. We counted them from the database itself, not from anyone's summary of it.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  20. News reporting Cleveland extends Flock contract for 6 months, but seeks transition to new provider. Matthew Richmond, Ideastream Public Media. July 15, 2026. www.ideastream.org/law-justice/2026-07-15/cleveland-extends-flock-contract-for-6-months-but-seeks-transition-to-new-provider ↑1↑2Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  21. News reporting 'Disappointing:' City of Dayton suspends Flock camera program amid data sharing investigation. WHIO-TV (Dayton). May 1, 2026. www.whio.com/news/local/disappointing-city-dayton-suspends-flock-camera-program-amid-data-sharing-investigation/5CY55BUXF5C7FLVCDXTXRZ4WG4 ↑1↑2The primary reporting on Dayton's suspension. Source of Chief Kamran Afzal's figure of roughly 7,100 immigration-related search requests, of the April 7, 2026 shutoff date, and of City Manager Shelley Dickstein's 'egregious violations of policy' quotation.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  22. News reporting Dayton mayor, commissioner say Flock data violation isn't 'isolated failure'. WYSO (NPR, Yellow Springs). May 3, 2026. www.wyso.org/news/2026-05-03/dayton-mayor-commissioner-say-flock-data-violation-isnt-isolated-failure ↑Public radio reporting on how Dayton's elected officials characterized the failure. Carries the 7,100 figure independently and states that the department did not enact the city's own restrictions on data sharing.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  23. News reporting Why are Ohio city workers covering Flock cameras with trash bags?. Fortune. June 3, 2026. fortune.com/2026/06/03/why-are-ohio-city-workers-covering-flock-cameras-immigration-enforcement-data-sharing-policy-violations ↑National reporting on the bagging of all 72 of Dayton's fixed-site readers. Also the source of Dayton's spending figures — $825,750 approved for 35 cameras in 2024, a $90,000 grant for 27 more in 2026, and $30,000 set aside to audit the data logs — and of Flock's statement in response.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  24. News reporting Cities Are Covering Flock Cameras With Trash Bags. 404 Media. May 28, 2026. www.404media.co/cities-are-covering-flock-cameras-with-trash-bags ↑Source of Deputy City Manager Joe Parlette's quotation to the Dayton commission and of the reason the bags went up: the city was not certain the cameras had stopped operating and was not clear whether its contract let it remove them. Also reports that Evanston, Illinois did the same thing in late 2025 while waiting for Flock to collect its hardware.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  25. News reporting LAPD ending agreement with surveillance company Flock Safety amid privacy concerns. ABC7 Los Angeles (KABC). July 11, 2026. abc7.com/post/lapd-ending-agreement-surveillance-company-flock-safety/19483200 ↑Original local reporting, and the source of the LAPD chief information officer's quotations. Notes that LAPD does not own the cameras — many belong to homeowners' associations and other organizations that gave the department access.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  26. News reporting Berkeley — the first U.S. sanctuary city — reconsiders surveillance expansion with Flock. The San Francisco Standard. May 11, 2026. sfstandard.com/2026/05/11/flock-safety-berkeley-sanctuary-city-contract ↑Source of the running national count of terminated Flock contracts that other outlets cite. The article states in its text that 80-plus jurisdictions in 28 states have terminated since 2025; the accompanying graphic tallies 82, of which 39 came between January and May 2026. We quote the sentence rather than the graphic, and we treat the count as a news organization's tally rather than an official register.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  27. Government record City Council Minutes, November 18, 2024. City of Deer Park, Ohio. November 18, 2024. www.deerpark-oh.gov/media/user/council-meeting-minutes/Council%20Minutes%20November%2018t%202024.doc ↑Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  28. News reporting Central Ohio police departments have spent nearly $2 million on Flock license plate cameras. Katie Geniusz, WOSU Public Media. April 28, 2026. www.wosu.org/politics-government/2026-04-28/central-ohio-police-departments-have-spent-nearly-2-million-on-flock-cameras ↑Based on public records requests to central Ohio police departments. WOSU notes its tally is likely an undercount because several departments did not respond and private businesses also contract with Flock.Retrieved July 29, 2026.
  29. News reporting Cleveland reverses course on Flock camera shutdown, approves extension. Cleveland 19 News (WOIO). July 8, 2026. www.cleveland19.com/2026/07/08/cleveland-reverses-course-flock-camera-shutdown-approves-extension ↑Retrieved July 29, 2026.