August 10, 2026 09:00 AM PST
(PenniesToSave.com) – The Savannah Police Department terminated four sworn officers and two civilian employees on Aug. 7 after an internal investigation into misuse of the department’s Flock Safety license plate reader system, and referred all six cases to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for independent criminal review [5]. Two days earlier, a Mooresville, North Carolina officer was fired and charged after an internal audit found she had accessed the same kind of database 31 times for reasons police say had nothing to do with her job [4].
Those cases landed in the middle of something larger. More than 20 local jurisdictions either stopped using Flock cameras or began the process of doing so in July, the highest single month since the activist group DeFlock began tracking cancellations in 2021 [1]. The pushback is not confined to one party or one region. In Macon County, North Carolina, a Republican commissioner said the residents who packed the meeting to oppose the cameras arrived in work boots and Subarus alike [1].
This matters to your household for a plain reason. These are contracts your town signed and your local taxes fund, covering the roads you drive every day, and most residents never voted on them. The questions worth asking are the same ones you would apply to any recurring line in your own budget: what does it cost, what does it deliver, and who checks the receipts.
Here is what the cameras actually collect, why local officials across the spectrum are canceling contracts, what the recent firings revealed about oversight, what the company says in response, and what you can do in your own community.
Quick Links
- What Are Flock Cameras and What Do They Actually Collect?
- Why Are Local Governments Canceling Contracts Now?
- What Do the Recent Firings and Arrests Show About Oversight?
- What Does the Company Say in Its Defense?
- What Can You Do About Cameras in Your Own Community?
What Are Flock Cameras and What Do They Actually Collect?
Flock Safety builds solar powered automated license plate readers that photograph and log vehicles as they pass, then make that record searchable [3][6]. An agency with access can query the database by plate number, by vehicle make and model, or by identifying features on the car itself [6].
Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs, a Republican, described the process in an interview with NewsNation. He said the system uses artificial intelligence to build what amounts to a vehicle fingerprint, capturing distinguishing details such as make, model, color, bumper stickers and roof racks, and retaining that record in a searchable database for 30 days or sometimes longer [3]. His objection was not that the technology fails. It was that agencies are not looking for one specific vehicle. They are pulling in everything that passes and sorting through it afterward [3].
The company describes its product more broadly than a plate reader. Flock says its technology combines video, gunshot detection and investigative software to help law enforcement, schools and businesses locate vehicles, understand incidents and collaborate across jurisdictions, while maintaining clear privacy safeguards, local control and responsible data use [3].
How many of these cameras exist is harder to answer than it should be, and the two most recent accounts do not agree. Politico reported on Aug. 9 that Flock has more than 80,000 cameras installed across the country [1]. The Hill, publishing the same day, put the company’s figure at nearly 100,000 cameras across more than 6,000 communities in 49 states [6]. The partner counts differ as well. Politico reported more than 7,000 law enforcement agencies and more than 6,000 private sector customers, while The Hill reported more than 5,000 law enforcement agency partners across 6,000 communities [1][6]. Both outlets attribute their numbers to Flock itself. The company does not make a detailed list of camera locations publicly available [6].
Why Are Local Governments Canceling Contracts Now?
Jacobs framed his objection in constitutional terms rather than technological ones. He acknowledged that Americans have no expectation of privacy on public streets or in public places, and said police should have every tool they need to do their jobs effectively, so long as it stays within the confines of the Constitution [3]. What concerned him was warrantless tracking at scale.
“not supposed to surveil us and spy on us without a warrant”
Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs, describing the limit he believes the technology crosses [3]
In Macon County, North Carolina, the Board of Commissioners voted unanimously on July 14 to stop funding Flock cameras and terminate the county’s contract as soon as possible [1]. Commissioner Josh Young said his constituents view the cameras as an invasion of their privacy, and that opposition cut across the usual political lines in his community [1].
“work boots and Subarus in our parking lot”
Macon County Commissioner Josh Young, on the coalition that turned out against the cameras [1]
Not every objection is philosophical. Eric Couture, the Democratic first selectman in Killingworth, Connecticut, said the cameras did not help his town with anything, called them not useful from a utility standpoint and described the arrangement as a net negative [1]. That is a spending argument, and it is the same one worth applying to any expense that quietly renews without proving its value. In Rhode Island, South Kingstown, Narragansett and Glocester have all voted in recent weeks to end their contracts [2].
Much of the anger traces back to consent rather than crime. DeFlock founder Will Freeman said the group has been urging people to push back locally and that the effort is working, noting that few residents had heard of Flock until recently and are upset now that they know cameras were installed in their communities [1]. No single reliable national cancellation figure exists. One tally counted 23 jurisdictions as of Aug. 5, attributed to reporting by the Washington Examiner [3], while DeFlock’s own tracker counted more than 20 moves in July alone [1]. The two counts measure different things over different windows.
What Do the Recent Firings and Arrests Show About Oversight?
The Savannah Police Department opened its internal investigation on July 27 after a proactive review of system activity flagged searches that appeared unrelated to legitimate law enforcement work [5]. Six employees were placed on administrative leave, and the department announced their termination on Aug. 7 [5]. Investigators determined the employees violated department policies governing the authorized use of law enforcement technology and departmental resources, and found that employees had run searches on personal acquaintances and family members [5].
One finding deserves more attention than the rest. Investigators concluded that one officer gave a person from an outside law enforcement agency access to Savannah’s Flock system without authorization [5]. A single employee running personal searches is a personnel problem. Handing system access to an outside agency is a question about whether the network’s boundaries hold at all.
All six cases went to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for independent criminal review, which remains ongoing [5]. No employee has been charged. The city and the department have withheld the employees’ names, citing the criminal investigation and an employee appeals process still underway [5].
In Mooresville, Officer Elizabeth Snowman was charged with accessing computers after investigators said an internal audit found she used the department’s license plate reader system 31 times for personal reasons [4]. Police Chief Ron Campurciani said in a news conference that on at least two occasions she accessed the cameras while off duty, and investigators allege she denied personal use when questioned during the investigation [4]. Snowman was booked into the Iredell County Detention Center on a $5,000 bond [4]. Those are allegations, and the case has not been decided.
Both departments caught the activity the same way. Savannah credited its auditing and oversight of the system, including the Flock Safety Audit Assist program, which became available in April [5]. Savannah says every search on the platform is automatically logged with who ran it, when, and the reason given, alongside mandatory training, role based access controls and supervisory oversight, and the department has since added recurring weekly audits by its Office of Professional Standards [5]. The uncomfortable question is what the tool that surfaced these cases would have found had it existed before April.
What Does the Company Say in Its Defense?
Flock’s case for itself starts with why it was built. Founder Garrett Langley told a TED audience in April that he started the company out of frustration with crime in his home city of Atlanta, and that as an engineer his response was to build a license plate reading camera [6].
“Crime felt too easy to get away with”
Flock founder Garrett Langley, describing why he started the company [6]
Company spokesperson Courtney Terlecki argues that removing a tool actively helping solve violent crimes moves public safety backward, and that the cancellations represent a small share of Flock’s business [1]. She offered a counter statistic: so far in 2026, the company says roughly seven new cities have partnered with Flock for every city that chose not to renew [1]. That figure comes from the company and has not been independently verified in this reporting.
On data control, Flock says customers own their data and decide who else has access to it, and that its nationwide lookup and statewide sharing network is accessible only to local and state law enforcement partners, with agencies free to opt in or out [1]. On federal cooperation, the company says it briefly worked with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations on human trafficking and fentanyl distribution, that those pilot programs were paused amid the backlash, that it has run no federal pilots since August of last year, and that it holds no active contracts with ICE or DHS agencies [1].
One significant claim has drawn no company response in this reporting. The ACLU of Rhode Island wrote to the Cumberland Town Council urging cancellation, saying a federal lawsuit shows cameras there photographed not only plates but drivers and passengers, and that this capability was never mentioned when the cameras were approved for purchase in 2024 [2]. The suit, Pizzarelli v. Town of Cumberland, alleges a woman was falsely arrested after officers used a Flock image and a Facebook search to identify her, with a March 2025 officer report concluding the camera image matched her license photo [2]. The allegations have not been tested in court.
“This technology can do more than ‘just record license plates'”
Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island [2]
What Can You Do About Cameras in Your Own Community?
Start with an honest limitation. There is no authoritative public map, because Flock does not publish a detailed list of camera locations [6]. The widely circulated alternative is the crowdsourced map maintained by DeFlock, an advocacy group [7]. Read it with its limits in mind. DeFlock says locations come from volunteers and the OpenStreetMap community rather than any company or government agency, Nexstar reported it could not independently verify those locations, and the map includes cameras made by other companies, not only Flock [6].
The real lever is local. Every cancellation described here happened at a council or commission meeting, not in a courtroom or a statehouse [1][2]. The ACLU’s letter to Cumberland offers a useful set of questions to bring to yours: what are all the capabilities of the readers currently in use, at what point did any expanded use begin, how often has the system been used that way, and was any expansion beyond plate data ever disclosed to the public [2].
Then follow the money. Ask what the contract costs annually, when it renews, and what the department can show for it, which is the utility question Couture raised in Killingworth [1]. Contracts that renew on autopilot deserve the same scrutiny you would give a subscription you forgot you were paying for.
If you support the cameras but want guardrails, there is a middle path. San Jose, California limits data storage to 30 days and restricts where cameras can be placed, keeping them away from abortion clinics, health care facilities and places of worship [6]. Savannah’s new weekly audits by its Office of Professional Standards are another model worth asking your department about [5]. Audit frequency, retention limits and logged search reasons are where this fight is actually won or lost.
Final Thoughts
The strongest argument against these camera networks in the past month has not come from either party’s national leadership. It came from a Republican county mayor asking why the government needs a warrant to search your home but not to reconstruct where your car has been, from a Republican commissioner counting a room full of neighbors who agreed with him, and from a Democratic town official who simply concluded the equipment was not worth what it cost [1][3].
Supporting law enforcement and expecting warrants, disclosure and receipts for public money are not competing positions. Savannah’s own chief and mayor did the right thing by auditing their system, firing the employees who abused it and handing the cases to an outside agency [5]. That is accountability working. What remains unresolved is how many jurisdictions are auditing at all, and how much went unexamined before the vendor’s own audit tool arrived in April [5].
The cameras may well stay in most communities, and the company’s argument that they help solve serious crimes deserves a fair hearing. But the terms are set locally, in public meetings, by people who answer to you. That is where to ask what the contract costs, what it collects, who can see it, and who is checking.
Works Cited
- Cruz, Liset. “‘Work boots and Subarus’: Local officials say the backlash against Flock cameras is becoming bipartisan.” Politico, 9 Aug. 2026, www.politico.com/news/2026/08/09/flock-cameras-backlash-cancellations-01026242.
- GoLocalProv News Team. “After Flock Image Led to False Arrest, ACLU Urges Cumberland Council to Cancel Contract.” GoLocalProv, 8 Aug. 2026, www.golocalprov.com/news/after-flock-image-led-to-false-arrest-aclu-urges-cumberland-council-to-cancel-contract.
- Soriano, Ashley N. “Flock camera contracts canceled in 23 jurisdictions.” NewsNation, 5 Aug. 2026, www.newsnationnow.com/business/tech/flock-camera-contracts-canceled-23-states.
- Gunn, Jason. “Police officer arrested after using Flock cameras to track boyfriend’s ex-wife.” LiveNOW from FOX, 7 Aug. 2026, www.livenowfox.com/news/police-officer-arrested-after-using-flock-cameras-track-boyfriends-ex-wife.
- Swanson, Summer. “Savannah Police Department fires 6 employees over Flock Safety System misuse.” WTOC, 7 Aug. 2026, www.wtoc.com/2026/08/07/savannah-police-department-fires-6-employees-over-flock-safety-system-misuse.
- Martichoux, Alix, and Spencer Gustafson. “Flock camera map: How many are in your neighborhood?” The Hill, 9 Aug. 2026, thehill.com/policy/technology/6016998-flock-camera-map-how-many-are-in-your-neighborhood.
- DeFlock. DeFlock, deflock.org. Accessed 11 Aug. 2026.