Remove Flock from Apex.

There is no independent research proving ALPRs reduce crime. Flock's own claim that 10% of U.S. crime is solved using their technology was conducted by two Flock employees. One of the academic researchers listed as an overseer has since expressed concerns about the study, as reported by 404 Media. Independent research in the Journal of Experimental Criminology found no significant deterrent effect. A separate study found less than 0.3% of ALPR hits in Piedmont, CA translated into a useful investigative lead.

Companies making ALPRs have a documented history of poor security:

• In November 2025, a security researcher found Flock logins for sale on Russian hacking forums. Flock does not require multi-factor authentication.
• In January 2025, Motorola Solutions' ALPR system was found to have a critical flaw allowing anyone to access live data, including plate numbers, vehicle details, and camera feeds.
• In July 2025, Flock exposed a misconfigured demo site revealing internal search tools and a live ArcGIS API key with access to over 50 private data layers.

A study of ALPRs in Piedmont, CA found less than 0.3% of hits might translate into a useful investigative lead. Over 99.7% of plates recorded belonged to people not on any hot list. Flock's own transparency portals confirm this: the vast majority of scans are of people not suspected of anything.

• Texas police tracked a woman who had an abortion across state lines using Flock.
• A Kansas officer used Flock to stalk his estranged wife.
• An Ohio officer used ALPRs to stalk his ex-girlfriend.
• California agencies kept data longer than policy allowed and shared it with unauthorized agencies.

• A San Francisco woman was pulled from her car at gunpoint because of a plate reader error.
• Police in Colorado terrorized a Black family, including children, over a misidentified vehicle.
• A Denver woman had to prove her innocence after detectives used Flock cameras to accuse her of a $25 package theft.

The EFF reviewed Oakland PD's ALPR data and found cameras disproportionately scanned communities with higher densities of Black and brown residents. In Oak Park, IL, 84% of drivers stopped because of Flock cameras in the first 10 months were Black. After 9/11, the NYPD used ALPRs to monitor Muslims visiting mosques.

Police agencies routinely share ALPR data with ICE, even in jurisdictions where it is prohibited. 404 Media reported that ICE taps into Flock's nationwide camera network. Pasadena and Long Beach police shared data with ICE despite pledging not to.

No. This is about public accountability for a specific surveillance technology, not policing itself. Police had investigative tools before Flock and will have them after. The question is whether mass, warrantless tracking of every vehicle is necessary, proportionate, and subject to adequate oversight.

Seeing a plate on the road is different from logging it in a searchable database. The distinction is between incidental observation and systematic, aggregated tracking of movement patterns across agencies over time.

Flock's own study was conducted by employees and has drawn concern from an academic overseer. Independent research found no significant deterrent effect and less than 0.3% of hits translated into useful leads. The question is whether mass collection is justified by the evidence.

Thirty days is enough to reconstruct commute patterns, identify associations, and track visits to sensitive locations. The concern is not just retention length. It is that mass collection occurs without individualized suspicion, a warrant, or meaningful oversight.

No. Police have always had methods to obtain location information for suspects: cell phone records, surveillance warrants, informants. Those methods require establishing probable cause. ALPRs skip that step by collecting on everyone, all the time, and searching without oversight.

No. ALPRs record every vehicle that passes, regardless of whether the driver is suspected of anything. Your plate, vehicle description, location, and timestamp are captured and stored whether you are on a hot list or not.

No. The data is treated as owned by the police department. Officers can search it without a warrant. Many agencies have opted into Flock's national sharing network, meaning thousands of other agencies can search the data too.

Very little. Some departments have policies, but they are often weak and poorly enforced. Flock offers transparency portals, but they allow agencies to cherry-pick what's shown. Boulder's portal listed about 90 agencies with access; a records request revealed over 6,000.

Flock's CEO told Denver 9News the company had no federal contracts. Weeks later, 9News found Border Patrol had access. A Boulder records request confirmed Border Patrol was searching over 6,000 agencies. Flock has been caught misrepresenting their practices multiple times.

Targeted investigations with warrants. Improved infrastructure. Community policing. Any future surveillance technology should require public notice, privacy impact review, competitive procurement, independent audits, and a Council vote.

Show up at council meetings, email officials, file public records requests, build a coalition of neighbors, and put the question on the public record. In April and May 2026, both Chatham County and Pittsboro voted to end their Flock contracts after sustained resident advocacy.