University Heights, Ohio · Residents for ending the Flock contract
Don't let the Flock contract renew itself.
Eighteen cameras photograph every car that drives through University Heights and feed the plates into a national police network. The city's contract with Flock Safety renews itself for two more years unless the city gives notice first. We are asking Mayor Weiss and City Council to tell Flock we are not renewing. The police chief called the last payment "year two of a two-year agreement," so the original term is ending. That gives the city a natural off-ramp.[23]
Next chance to speak
Council meets Monday, Oct. 19 at 7:00 PM
Public comment comes near the start of every meeting, and each speaker gets up to five minutes. You do not have to use all five, and a few focused minutes from a resident carry more weight than any form letter.
Meeting dates and tipsBy the city's own numbers
What we pay for, and what we get
Portal figures are from the Flock transparency page for University Heights police, as last updated Nov. 2, 2025.
Why let the contract expire
Four reasons in one minute
The cameras track everyone, not suspects
The cameras record every passing car and keep the record for 30 days. Nearly all of those drivers are our neighbors going to work, school, shul, church or the doctor.
Our rules stop at the city line
University Heights prohibits using the data for immigration enforcement. Yet agencies far outside Ohio can search the data, and nearby cities with the same rule found hundreds of immigration searches in their logs.
The company has not earned trust
Flock ran pilot programs with federal border and homeland security agencies. The company's CEO later admitted Flock had "communicated poorly" about the pilots.
The payoff is unproven here
The city has published no count of cases solved, and the police department's 2025 annual report never mentions the cameras. Car thefts went from 31 in 2024 to 30 in 2025.[17] The strongest recent study of Flock found a modest effect on car theft that did not hold up across the study's own tests.
We are not alone
Our neighbors are asking the same thing
Residents across the east side and beyond have organized against Flock. Their research is the reason we know as much as we do.
Shaker Heights
Shake Off Flock used records requests to show outside agencies ran 273 immigration searches through Shaker's cameras in three months.
Cleveland Heights
Cleveland Heights for Immigrant Rights has packed council chambers and is pressing the city to cancel the Flock contract. The group's legislative proposal argues no local policy can reliably keep Flock data away from immigration enforcement. University Heights also planned one of its own cameras for a Cleveland Heights traffic pole at Cedar and South Taylor.[21]
Cleveland
Flock No CLE pushed council to cut a renewal down to six months and pull the city off the national lookup network.
Lakewood
DeFlock Lakewood is petitioning the city to suspend its 50-camera contract.
Oxford
Council voted 6 to 1 in 2026 to terminate, even after the city's police review board recommended keeping the cameras with guardrails.[8]
See the cameras
The volunteer-run DeFlock map shows reported camera locations in and around University Heights.
The case against Flock license plate readers
Why University Heights should not renew
This page lays out what we know, where each fact comes from, and what the city says in response. Every figure links to its source.
Background
How we got here
2022 to July 2024
The plan started with county cameras, not Flock. A July 2024 police memo says the city had been waiting almost two years for Cuyahoga County to supply grant-funded plate-reader cameras at Cedar and South Green and at Cedar and Warrensville Center. Flock suggested putting its own cameras at those two intersections "to get it functional as soon as possible," and moving them elsewhere if the county cameras ever arrived.[21] The Safety Committee heard about one other vendor, Leonardo, before recommending Flock.[25] A stopgap became the whole program.
September 2024
Council voted unanimously on what the agenda called a "purchase" of 18 Flock license plate reader cameras with installation, software access and cellular service for $57,700, plus $17,600 to Signal Service Company for electrical connections. Then-Vice Mayor Michele Weiss made both motions and, according to the minutes, said the deal "will make University Heights and all of the other cities safer."[20]
The police memo behind the vote described a 24-month contract costing $111,700, with $54,000 a year after the first year. Four of the 10 planned intersections sit on traffic poles owned by Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights and Beachwood. Under Flock's terms the cameras are not the city's. The hardware "is owned and shall remain the exclusive property of Flock," and Flock removes the cameras when the contract ends.[21]
December 2025
Council approved the Flock invoice for "annual ongoing services," not to exceed $54,000, on a 6 to 0 vote. Police Chief Dustin Rogers called the payment "year two of a two-year agreement." At the same meeting council approved a police drone program and more city-run CCTV cameras at intersections on Cedar Road.[23]
The next day, a member of City Council wrote to a resident who had raised concerns that the second year of the contract "will allow us time to review some of the issues that you noted over this year in making decisions for next year."[39]
Now
The Flock terms in the council packet say the contract renews itself for another 24 months unless either side gives notice of non-renewal at least 30 days before the term ends. The term starts when the cameras are first installed, a date the city has not published.[21]
If the cameras went live in late 2024, as the timing of the year-two payment suggests, the term ends around the end of 2026 and the notice deadline comes a month earlier.* Doing nothing is a vote to renew.
Missing the deadline would not lock the city in. The same terms let the city end the contract on 30 days' written notice, "without penalty or other cost," if council does not set aside the money to pay for the cameras. Council approves every Flock payment.[21][23]
By the police department's own reports
Little serious crime, and no reported payoff
The University Heights Police Department publishes an annual report with its crime counts. The 2024 report said "implementation of LPR cameras will begin citywide."[18] The 2025 report, covering the first full year after that, does not mention the cameras once.[17]
| Offense | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Homicide | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Robbery | 5 | 7 | 7 | 5 |
| Burglary | 8 | 11 | 13 | 8 |
| Vehicle theft | 24 | 49 | 31 | 30 |
| Larceny and theft | 118 | 183 | 178 | 129 |
| All Group A offenses | 376 | 532 | 424 | 388 |
- Car theft barely moved. Stolen cars are what plate readers are sold to catch. There were 31 vehicle thefts in 2024 and 30 in 2025, about one every 12 days.*[17]
- The scale is out of proportion. At the portal's rate of about 8,600 scans a day, the cameras log roughly 100,000 passing cars for every car stolen in the city in a year.*[2][17]
- Hundreds of dollars a search. The city pays up to $54,000 a year.[23] At the 17 to 25 searches a month the portal has shown, each search costs roughly $180 to $265.*[2][38]
- Violent crime is rare. The city had no homicides in 2024 or 2025 and five robberies in 2025.[17]
- Little time to act on a live alert. University Heights covers 1.83 square miles.[30] The police memo placed most cameras at the city line to catch traffic coming in, four of them on poles owned by Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights and Beachwood.[21] Cedar Road crosses the whole city in roughly two miles, a drive of about four to six minutes.* In one 30-day period the portal reported 1,468 alert-list hits, about 49 a day.*[2] The city has not said how many of those hits led to a stop.
The argument
What is wrong with these cameras
Mass tracking of people who did nothing
A license plate reader does not wait for a crime. The camera photographs every vehicle, logs the plate, time and place, and stores that record for 30 days. The University Heights portal reported 259,407 vehicles detected in a single 30-day period and 1,468 alert-list hits. In that same period, city police ran 17 searches.[2]
A month of those records shows where a person sleeps, worships, gets medical care and whom the person visits. The system the city pays for also searches cars by make, color, "bumper stickers, decals, and roof racks," not just plates.[21]
Courts are starting to agree. On Oct. 1, 2026, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled that a deputy's warrantless Flock search of a driver's travel history violated the Fourth Amendment, called the system "a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance," and threw out the evidence.[35]
A network no single city controls
The portal lists 940 organizations with access to University Heights data, more than 600 of them outside Ohio, in 27 other states and Washington, D.C. They include police in Texas, Florida, Georgia and California, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center.[2]
The sharing is lopsided. A volunteer-run network map counts 841 agencies that can search our cameras without sharing their own with University Heights, and only 41 that share theirs with us.[2][19]
Residents can no longer check who is searching. The portal still has a "Public Search Audit" heading, but as of Oct. 9, 2026 the section lists no searches.[2] A resident who followed the page noticed the log was gone, emailed a council member about the log on July 17, 2026, and did not get an explanation. Shaker Heights residents found immigration searches by reviewing exactly this kind of record.
When the log was public, the record was revealing. A resident's saved copy from late 2025 lists 25 searches by University Heights police in 30 days. Two single searches reached about 94,600 cameras nationwide, with only a case number as the stated reason. Other entries read "suspicion" and "test."[38]
Nationwide reach was part of the pitch. Safety Committee minutes record that the "FLOCK system gets access to other communities," and the contract includes state and nationwide plate lookups.[25][21]
Reporters at 404 Media found more than 4,000 searches that local police ran across the Flock network for federal agents or with an immigration focus. The reporters called this side-door access, because ICE has no contract with Flock.[11]
Misuse is already happening next door
Shaker Heights residents obtained search logs showing outside agencies ran 273 immigration searches through that city's cameras in three months.[5] Cleveland's cameras drew nearly 2,000 ICE and immigration-related searches in a year, according to reporting cited by Cleveland Scene.[6]
In Texas, a sheriff's office searched more than 83,000 Flock cameras nationwide with the logged reason "had an abortion, search for female."[13]
A vendor that asks for trust Flock has not kept
In August 2025 Flock acknowledged pilot programs with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations, then paused them. CEO Garrett Langley said, "We clearly communicated poorly," and conceded the company had not built separate permissions for federal users.[12]
On the day Cleveland's council voted, members learned that a regional fusion center could reach the city's cameras despite earlier assurances that outside access was off.[6]
Ending a contract has not always ended the cameras. Evanston, Illinois shut off all 19 of its Flock cameras and sent a termination notice in August 2025.[40] Flock then reinstalled the cameras, and the city sent a cease-and-desist letter.[41] In September 2026, Dayton, Minnesota found two cameras back in service after city officials told Flock to stop.[42]
Flock also hired gig workers in the Philippines through Upwork to review and label camera footage of people and vehicles in the U.S., according to exposed training materials.[43]
The contract gives Flock a "perpetual" right to use and distribute "anonymized" versions of our data, including to train Flock's machine learning systems.[21]
The hardware has security problems too. Independent researcher Jon Gaines bought Flock devices on the resale market, tested them in a lab, and reported 51 flaws, 22 with official CVE numbers. Nine were in the Falcon plate reader, the model University Heights uses. He found the Falcon runs Android Things 8.1, an operating system Google stopped supporting in 2022, and stores data without encryption.[21][26] Flock responded that the flaws can be exploited only with physical access to a device and do not affect customers' public safety work. Flock has not said every flaw is fixed.[27]
Flock is also moving from plates to people. Leaked materials show Flock building a tool called Nova to let police "jump from LPR to person" by linking plate reads with other data sources, initially including breached data.[36] After the leak, Flock said Nova would not use hacked data and would draw on public records, open-source intelligence and plate reads.[37] The 2024 quote in the University Heights council packet does not include Nova.[21]
A fair hearing
What supporters say, and our answer
People who back the cameras are our neighbors too, and they want a safe city. These are the strongest points we hear.
"Our policy bans immigration searches."
The policy does ban those searches. The city's portal lists immigration enforcement, traffic enforcement and harassment as prohibited uses, and says the system does not use facial recognition.[2]
The weak point is enforcement. An outside officer types a reason into a search box, and no one in University Heights reviews the search first. The public search audit that would let residents check is no longer posted. Shaker Heights and Cleveland had similar policies and still found immigration searches in their logs.
"We can just tighten the settings."
Cleveland Heights cut the agencies with access from more than 2,600 to about 130, and its mayor reports zero outside immigration searches since.[7] That is real progress, and University Heights should do the same today regardless of what happens next.
But sharing was a reason the city chose Flock in the first place. The Safety Committee was told a minimum number of cameras was "required to access data from other communities."[25] Settings can be changed back, outside agencies can still ask the remaining ones for favors, and Shaker residents report their data was still reached by agencies partnered with ICE after that city amended its contract.[5]
"The cameras solve crimes."
Sometimes the cameras do help. Police in other cities point to stolen cars recovered and suspects identified, and Cleveland's chief said Flock played some role in 25 of 53 homicide cases this year.[6]
University Heights has not published its own results. The police department's 2025 annual report does not mention the cameras, and vehicle thefts went from 31 in 2024 to 30 in 2025.[17] The research is thin as well. A 2026 study of 216 agencies that adopted Flock found an 11% drop in vehicle theft, but only under one of its statistical weightings, and thefts were already falling before the cameras went up.[14] Earlier randomized trials point the same way. In Mesa, Arizona, researchers found that "LPR use did not reduce crime" in the patrol areas tested, and a trial in Alexandria and Fairfax County, Virginia found no drop in crime generally or in auto theft.[34]
Council heard the pitch through a news story about Parma, which installed 12 cameras and made an arrest on a homicide warrant within days.[25] One arrest in another city is a sales story, not evidence for University Heights. The Flock software the city pays for includes "outcome reports," so the department could publish local results.[21] The city has not.
"Flock helps solve 10% of crime in the country."
That number comes from Flock. CBS News found that the 2024 white paper behind the claim was written by two Flock employees, relied on 123 agencies that were not randomly chosen, and does not contain the 10% figure. Flock's own footnotes call the company's numbers "directional estimates rather than audited totals," and Flock's CEO acknowledged there is "no peer-reviewed study" behind the national claims.[31]
Flock's local success stories have not held up either. Flock told customers the cameras cut crime in San Marino, California by 70%. Forbes found residential burglaries there went from 60 in 2019 to 63 in 2023, and the police chief said the claim was not accurate.[32]
"Most crime involves a vehicle."
Flock's media FAQ says "upwards of 70 percent of crime is committed with a vehicle" and cites no source.[33] The University Heights police report does not track how many local crimes involve a car. The largest category in 2025 was larceny and theft, with 129 offenses, and there were 30 stolen cars.[17] A plate reader only helps when a car was involved, the plate was captured, and an officer follows up.
"Our officers would never misuse the system."
Misuse usually comes to light only after a victim complains or someone reads the search log. In Sedgwick, Kansas, the police chief used Flock cameras more than 160 times to track his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend in 2023. He resigned, and Kansas later revoked his police certification.[47][48]
The safeguard against misuse is a public record of searches. University Heights has taken that record off the portal.[2]
"If you have nothing to hide…"
What counts as worth tracking changes with who holds the data. Plate readers were not a tool of immigration enforcement or abortion investigations until they were. A record that does not exist cannot be misused later.
Innocent drivers also pay for mistakes. In Aurora, Colorado, a plate reader alert matched a mother's SUV to a stolen motorcycle from Montana with the same plate number. Officers held her, her 6-year-old daughter and three other girls ages 12 to 17 at gunpoint, and the city later paid $1.9 million.[49][50]
Before any vote
Questions council should answer in public
- On what date did the current term start, and what is the last day to send Flock notice of non-renewal?
- How many arrests or closed cases in University Heights relied on Flock, and for which offenses?
- Why does the police department's 2025 annual report say nothing about the cameras, and will the next one report results?
- How many alert-list hits led University Heights officers to stop a car, and how many were handled by other departments?
- Which agencies can search our cameras today, and who approved each one?
- In March 2026 a resident asked council twice who has access to the data and what guardrails exist. When will those questions get a public answer?[24]
- Has the city audited outside searches of our data? Will the city publish the log?
- Why was the public search audit taken off the portal, who decided, and will the audit be restored?
- Will council adopt a surveillance oversight ordinance that requires public input before buying or renewing tools like Flock, as the ACLU of Ohio says Dayton and Yellow Springs have done?[28]
- Has Flock fixed the security flaws reported in its Falcon cameras in 2025, including the unsupported operating system?
- Will the city rule out Nova and any other Flock feature that links plates to people, unless council votes on that feature in public?
- What does the contract allow Flock to do with our data, including "anonymized" data, after the contract ends?
For the mayor and council, we offer eleven steps to limit harm while the cameras remain.
Momentum
Cities are walking away
- Oxford's council voted 6 to 1 to terminate the Flock contract. Pierce Township and Coshocton and Wyandot counties have ended contracts too.[8]
- Dayton switched off all 37 of its Flock cameras and covered them with bags in May 2026, after learning police use had gone beyond commission-approved guidelines. The mayor said the cameras will be removed.[29]
- Kent State ended its Flock pilot in spring 2026 after community members said the cameras made them feel less secure.[9]
- Cleveland's council split 9 to 6 and granted only six months. The extension expires Dec. 26.[6]
- Four Ohio House members from both parties asked ODOT to stop issuing new permits for plate readers on state rights of way.[10]
- A volunteer tracker counts more than 300 U.S. communities that have canceled, rejected, paused or removed Flock.[16]
Make your voice heard
Three ways to reach the people who decide
The mayor and seven council members decide whether University Heights renews. All seven council seats are at-large, so every one of them represents you. Pick one of these, or do all three.
Write
Email the mayor and council
Letters in your own words count for more than identical ones. Pick the reasons that matter to you, add a sentence of your own, and edit the result however you like.
council@universityheights.com
The city lists this address as reaching every council member and the mayor.[15] Individual addresses are below if you would rather write to each.
If the email button does nothing, copy the address, subject and letter into a new message.
Who decides
The mayor and City Council
City Hall's main line is 216-932-7800. Council members have voicemail extensions. The Safety Committee handles police matters, so its members are worth a personal note.
info@universityheightsoh.gov, jrach@universityheightsoh.gov, tmarshall@universityheightsoh.gov, ssax@universityheightsoh.gov, bking@universityheightsoh.gov, vstokes2@universityheightsoh.gov, wweizer@universityheightsoh.gov, mwiseman@universityheightsoh.gov
Roles and contact details are from the city's council and mayor pages, checked Oct. 9, 2026.[15]
Call
Leave a 30-second message
Call 216-932-7800 on weekdays between 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM and ask for the mayor's office, or dial a council member's extension and leave a voicemail.
"Hi, my name is ___ and I live on ___ in University Heights. I'm calling to ask you to tell Flock we are not renewing. I don't want every trip my family takes logged and shared with agencies across the country. Our two-year term is ending, so this is a natural time to stop. Please hold a public hearing before any vote. Thank you."
Be brief and polite, and say your street. Staff tally these calls.
Show up
Speak at a council meeting
Council meets on the first and third Monday of the month at 7:00 PM. "Comments from the Audience" is item 5 on the agenda, right after the opening business. The Safety Committee meets at 6:00 PM before the first meeting of the month.
| Date | Time | Meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Mon., Oct. 19 | 7:00 PM | City Council |
| Mon., Nov. 2 | 6:00 PM 7:00 PM | Safety Committee City Council |
| Mon., Nov. 16 | 7:00 PM | City Council |
| Mon., Dec. 7 | 6:00 PM 7:00 PM | Safety Committee City Council |
| Mon., Dec. 21 | 7:00 PM | City Council |
Recent council meetings were held in the City Meeting Room at 2181 Miramar Blvd. (the former Wiley Middle School library) and streamed on Microsoft Teams. Dates can change, so check the posted agenda for the room and the Teams link before you go.
- Say your name and street, then ask council to tell Flock we are not renewing.
- Give one reason and one personal detail. Skip the rest.
- Council gives each speaker up to five minutes, and you do not have to use all five. Write your comment down, time yourself, and aim for two or three.
- Bring a neighbor. A full room is its own message.
Keep going
More ways to help
Ask for the records
Under Ohio's public records law, anyone can request the Flock contract, the list of agencies with access, and the audit log of outside searches. Ask for the signed contract, the date the cameras were first installed, and the full search audit since then, because the public version is no longer posted. Send a request to the Clerk of Council or the police department. Neighboring campaigns built their cases this way.
Tell three neighbors
Most residents do not know the cameras exist. Send flockfreeuh.com to your block's group chat, your congregation and your PTA, and ask each person to send one email.
Stand with nearby cities
Our data flows through the same network as theirs. Follow Shake Off Flock, CH4IR, Flock No CLE and DeFlock Lakewood.
For Mayor Weiss and members of City Council
If the cameras stay, limit the harm
Our ask has not changed. Please tell Flock we are not renewing. The original two-year term is ending, which gives council a natural off-ramp.[23] Ending the contract is the only step that fully protects residents. Until the cameras come down, every step below is within your power, and each one reduces the risk to the people you represent.
The ACLU's Get the Flock Out toolkit sets the same order. Where cameras are already installed, the toolkit says to cancel the contracts and remove the cameras, and turn to strict regulation only if that fails.[44] The ACLU publishes a model resolution, which council could adapt, for canceling a local Flock contract.[45] The steps below draw on the ACLU's guardrails and on the terms of our own contract.
In December 2025, a member of City Council wrote to a resident that the second year of the contract would allow time "to review some of the issues" residents raised "in making decisions for next year."[39] We ask that review to happen in public, before the notice deadline.
1. Cut outside access to a short list council approves by name
Today the portal lists 940 organizations that can search University Heights data, more than 600 of them outside Ohio.[2] Cleveland Heights cut its list from more than 2,600 agencies to about 130, and its mayor reports zero outside immigration searches since.[7] End nationwide and out-of-state access, and approve each remaining agency in public. The ACLU recommends that no other government agency get access at all without a warrant for a felony under state or local law.[44]
2. Restore the public search audit
The portal's "Public Search Audit" section lists no searches as of Oct. 9, 2026.[2] Shaker Heights residents found immigration searches through Shaker's cameras by reading exactly this kind of record.[5] Restore the audit and publish every outside search each month, with the agency, the stated reason and the date.
3. Require a warrant to search a car's travel history
On Oct. 1, 2026, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled that a deputy's warrantless Flock search of a driver's travel history violated the Fourth Amendment and threw out the evidence.[35] A city rule requiring a warrant or court order before anyone searches where a car has been, except in a documented emergency, would keep University Heights ahead of the courts.
4. Keep less data, for less time
The order form sets retention at 30 days.[21] Flock's own FAQ says the governing body can set a different period.[33] Every day cut from retention is a day of residents' movements that no one can search, share or leak. The ACLU recommends keeping plate data for "hours or days," not weeks, and keeping individual plate records out of public-records release so no one can use them to stalk a neighbor.[44]
5. Limit what the cameras may be used for
The ACLU recommends allowing plate readers only for felony investigations, missing persons cases, finding unregistered or uninsured vehicles and narrow uses such as toll collection.[44] The city's portal lists uses that are banned, such as immigration enforcement.[2] A short list of permitted uses, written into city law, is stronger than a list of banned ones.
6. Turn off features council never debated
The city's Flock package includes Vehicle Fingerprint searches by make, color, "bumper stickers, decals, and roof racks."[21] Flock is also building Nova, a tool to "jump from LPR to person."[36] Nova is not in the 2024 quote. Require a public council vote before any feature beyond plate alerts is turned on.
7. Publish results every year
The Flock software the city pays for includes "outcome reports."[21] Publish the number of alert-list hits, stops, arrests and closed cases tied to the cameras, and the number of searches by outside agencies. The police department's 2025 annual report does not mention the cameras.[17] The ACLU also calls for annual public reports on how the cameras are used.[44]
8. Stop Flock from keeping our data
Section 4.3 of the Flock terms gives the company a "perpetual" right to use and distribute "anonymized" versions of our data, including to train machine learning systems.[21] Strike that clause, and require written proof that Flock has deleted all University Heights data when the contract ends. When the contract ends, require written confirmation that every camera is removed and stays off. Evanston and Dayton, Minnesota both found Flock cameras reinstalled after telling Flock to stop.[41][42]
9. Replace the automatic renewal with a yearly public vote
10. Adopt a surveillance oversight ordinance
The ACLU of Ohio says Dayton and Yellow Springs require public input before buying or renewing tools like Flock.[28] The ACLU says no agency should acquire or expand surveillance "without public discussion and debate," and publishes a local model bill for regulating plate readers.[44][46] An ordinance would make every safeguard on this page the law, not a setting someone can quietly change.
Safeguards reduce the harm. Ending the contract removes the harm.
Residents are asking council to tell Flock we are not renewing. These steps are the least the city owes residents while the cameras remain.
Sources
Where the facts come from
We link to city documents first, then news reporting, then advocacy groups, and we say which is which. If you find an error, email flockfreeuh@gmail.com and we will fix the error.
- City of University Heights, City Council agenda, Sept. 3, 2024, items HH and II. City document.
- Flock Safety, University Heights OH PD Transparency Portal. Figures as shown on the page last updated Nov. 2, 2025. Published by the vendor from city settings.
- Micah Maliskas, The UHrbanist Project, UH City Council Recap 12-1-25. Resident newsletter. The invoice, vote and two-year term are now confirmed by the Dec. 1, 2025 minutes [23].
- Citizen Portal, University Heights Council Approves LPR, Drone and CCTV Purchases for Police, Dec. 5, 2025.
- Shake Off Flock, Shaker Heights resident campaign. Advocacy group reporting its own public records findings, May to August 2026.
- Cleveland Scene, Cleveland City Council Warily Approves Flock Safety Renewal, July 16, 2026.
- WOIO 19 News, Cleveland Heights residents pack city hall to oppose license-plate cameras, Aug. 17, 2026, and Flock camera protest planned for Monday in Cleveland Heights, Oct. 5, 2026.
- The Ohio Newsroom, Ohio cities take different approaches to Flock camera privacy concerns, Sept. 2, 2026.
- Signal Ohio and Open Campus, Some Ohio universities keep using Flock surveillance cameras as cities consider a pause, July 15, 2026.
- Statehouse News Bureau, Bipartisan group of lawmakers asks for limits on Flock cameras throughout Ohio, Sept. 2, 2026.
- 404 Media, ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows, May 27, 2025.
- ABC, License plate camera company halts cooperation with federal agencies among investigation concerns, August 2025.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation, Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a Missing Person, Oct. 7, 2025. Advocacy group citing court and police records. Flock and the sheriff dispute the characterization and say the search was a welfare check.
- Institute for Justice, explainer on Mourtgos and Adams, "Automated License Plate Readers, Vehicle Theft, and Clearance", Sept. 17, 2026. Summary of a working paper by an advocacy group.
- City of University Heights, City Council, Office of the Mayor and meeting agendas. Checked Oct. 9, 2026.
- DeFlock the USA, The Cancellation Tracker. Volunteer-maintained advocacy list; counts include pauses and rejected proposals.
- University Heights Police Department, 2025 Annual Report, Group A offense table and arrest figures. City document.
- University Heights Police Department, 2024 Annual Report, Group A offense table and the note on LPR implementation. City document. All reports are listed on the department's annual reports page.
- DeFlock community, Don't Get Flocked network map, entry for University Heights OH PD, viewed Oct. 9, 2026. Volunteer-run advocacy map built from Flock portal data; source for the count of agencies that share back. The map's snapshot date is not stated, and the map's figures differ slightly from the portal page.
- City of University Heights, City Council minutes, Sept. 3, 2024, items II and JJ. City document.
- City of University Heights, Complete council packet, Sept. 3, 2024: police memo of July 19, 2024, Flock order form, terms and conditions, and deployment plan. City document. The copy in the packet is unsigned; the signed contract may differ.
- City of University Heights, Council packet, Dec. 2, 2024, estimated 2025 revenue, account 100-1110-43210, "State-County LPR Grants - Flock Cameras." City document.
- City of University Heights, City Council minutes, Dec. 1, 2025, items E through G. City document.
- City of University Heights, City Council minutes, March 4, 2026 and March 16, 2026, Comments from the Audience. City documents.
- City of University Heights, Safety Committee minutes, dated Jan. 13, 2025 on the document but describing the Flock contract that council approved Sept. 3, 2024. City document.
- Jon Gaines (GainSec), Examining the Security Posture of an Anti-Crime Ecosystem, version 1.2, Nov. 11, 2025. Independent security research on devices bought secondhand and tested offline; not peer reviewed. CVE numbers are assigned through MITRE.
- Flock Safety, Response to compiled security research on Flock Safety devices, Nov. 6, 2025. Vendor statement.
- Raegan Elliot, ACLU of Ohio, Our New Toolkit to Dismantle Dystopian Technology, Sept. 1, 2026. Advocacy group.
- WHIO, City covers all Flock cameras amid data sharing investigation, May 26, 2026.
- U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts: University Heights city, Ohio, land area and population, 2020. Federal data.
- Steve Reilly and Anna Schecter, CBS News, Flock's CEO claims its tech "solved" 1 million crimes last year. The company's own methodology undercuts that claim, Sept. 30, 2026.
- Cyrus Farivar and Thomas Brewster, Forbes, Flock Installed AI Cameras In This Small City And Claimed Crime Went Down. It Went Up., Feb. 29, 2024.
- Flock Safety, Media FAQs, as posted by the Town of Bristol, R.I. Vendor document.
- Bruce Taylor, Christopher Koper and Daniel Woods, Combating Auto Theft in Arizona: A Randomized Experiment with License Plate Recognition Technology, final report to the National Institute of Justice, Dec. 2011. Also summarizes Lum and colleagues' 2010 trial in Alexandria and Fairfax County. Research.
- Reason, Judge says warrantless Flock search violated driver's Fourth Amendment rights, Oct. 7, 2026, on a ruling by U.S. District Judge Sara Hill, Northern District of Oklahoma, Oct. 1, 2026.
- Joseph Cox, 404 Media, License Plate Reader Company Flock Is Building a Massive People Lookup Tool, Leak Shows, May 14, 2025.
- 404 Media, Flock Decides Not to Use Hacked Data in People Search Tool, May 30, 2025.
- Flock transparency portal for University Heights police, "Public Search Audit," a resident's saved copy (screenshot) from late November 2025, showing 25 searches with camera counts and stated reasons. The audit is no longer posted on the portal. Resident record; available on request.
- Email from a University Heights City Council member to a resident, Dec. 2, 2025. Resident record; available on request.
- City of Evanston, announcement on deactivating Flock cameras, Aug. 27, 2025. City document.
- Evanston RoundTable, City sends cease-and-desist after Flock reinstalls license plate cameras, Sept. 24, 2025.
- FOX 9, Flock cameras reinstalled in Dayton despite city officials telling them not to, Sept. 30, 2026. Dayton, Minnesota.
- Joseph Cox, 404 Media, Flock Uses Overseas Gig Workers to Build Its Surveillance AI, Dec. 1, 2025.
- ACLU, Get the Flock Out Toolkit, updated Oct. 2026. Advocacy group.
- ACLU, Model resolution for local Flock contract cancellation, June 1, 2026. Advocacy group.
- ACLU, Local automatic license plate reader privacy model bill, May 1, 2026. Advocacy group.
- The Wichita Eagle, Kansas police chief used Flock license plate cameras 164 times to track ex-girlfriend, 2024.
- AI Incident Database, Incident 1705, summarizing the Kansas certification order (resignation Oct. 20, 2023; certification revoked Aug. 12, 2024). Reference database.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation, The Human Toll of ALPR Errors, Nov. 1, 2024. Advocacy group.
- CBS Colorado, Aurora police settle with Colorado woman for $1.9M after video of her and kids held at gunpoint went viral, Feb. 5, 2024.
Our calculations
Figures marked with an asterisk (*) are our own arithmetic from the sources above. Here is how we got each one.
- 8,647 scans a day. 259,407 vehicles in 30 days, divided by 30. Source 2.
- $129,300 before council. $57,700 + $17,600 + $54,000. Sources 21 and 23.
- 99.4 percent matched no alert list. 1,468 hits divided by 259,407 scans is 0.57 percent, so about 99.4 percent were not hits. Source 2.
- One car theft every 12 days. 365 days divided by 30 vehicle thefts in 2025. Source 17.
- About 100,000 scans for every stolen car. About 8,600 scans a day times 365 days is roughly 3.1 million scans a year. Divided by 30 thefts, that is about 105,000. Sources 2 and 17.
- $180 to $265 a search. $54,000 a year is $4,500 a month. Divided by 25 searches a month that is $180, and by 17 searches about $265. Sources 2, 23 and 38.
- Four to six minutes across the city. Cedar Road from South Taylor to South Green is roughly two miles, measured from approximate intersection locations. At 25 to 35 mph with traffic signals, that takes about four to six minutes. This is an estimate, not a timed drive.
- About 49 hits a day. 1,468 alert-list hits divided by 30 days. Source 2.
- Term ending around the end of 2026. The contract term is 24 months from installation, and notice is due 30 days before the term ends. The city has not published the installation date. Council approved the year-two payment in December 2025, which suggests the cameras went live in late 2024. This is an estimate, not a published date. Sources 21 and 23.