Why Are Some Flock Cameras Being Removed by Cities?

Over the past year, there has been significant public discussion about cities reconsidering or removing Flock license plate reader (LPR) cameras. The coverage has often focused on misleading headlines, speculation, or political framing. The real answer requires us to be honest about what happened and what we're doing about it.

The reality is more nuanced than the reporting.

In some cities, including Denver, CO, the issue ultimately came down to trust. Not efficacy. Not results. Not whether the technology worked to solve crime. Trust.

When Technology Becomes Political

In Denver, both the Police Department and the Mayor’s office understood the effectiveness of Flock’s technology. The data was clear. The results were measurable.

The Denver Police Department credited Flock LPRs as a significant factor in the reduction in crime in 2025:

• The second-lowest homicide rate dating back to 1990
• A 81% homicide clearance rate, well above the national average
• A 33.5% decrease in non-fatal shootings, resulting in 71 fewer shooting victims
• Recovering 39 illegal firearms
• Making 352 arrests
• Recovering more than 250 stolen vehicles
• Arresting individuals suspected of sexual assault, murder, and fatal hit-and-runs
• Solving multiple child kidnappings
  ‍

Like many departments across the country, they had seen firsthand how LPR technology could help solve crimes, recover stolen vehicles, and locate suspects more precisely. But public safety technology doesn’t operate in a vacuum. It operates in a political environment.

Over the past year, media narratives around surveillance technology, immigration enforcement, and federal agency collaboration intensified. Even when those narratives did not accurately reflect how Flock’s system actually works, they shaped public perception.

By the time the issue reached City Council, the brand “Flock” had become entangled in a broader national debate about federal immigration enforcement and data sharing.

In that environment, the Council no longer trusted the brand, regardless of what the Police Department or Mayor knew about the technology’s performance, and regardless of the fact that Flock, and the way it is used in communities, has very little to do with the macro controversies driving the negative attention. And when trust erodes in the public square, facts alone often aren’t enough to restore it.

What Actually Happened?

From our perspective, part of the challenge stemmed from how data sharing configurations were initially understood. Whenever a city chooses to deploy Flock cameras, they control their own data. They also choose whether and how to participate in information-sharing networks with other agencies.

In Colorado, as in many states, some agencies opted into collaborative lookup networks. In one instance, a local Colorado agency worked with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to search for, according to the Chief of Police, a violent criminal suspect, not engage in immigration enforcement. But that event received media attention and sparked fear over what the impact of local Colorado agencies working with any federal agency could be.

Importantly, stories like this and the questions they engendered led many departments to reassess how their data-sharing configurations were structured. As immigration enforcement became an increasingly visible and politically charged issue nationwide, even routine data-sharing questions took on heightened public significance.

The city of Denver and the state of Colorado have a clear political perspective on immigration. The broader national increase in immigration-related enforcement over the last 10 months, independent of Flock, made the situation even more sensitive.

This culminated in what was, realistically, an almost impossible political position for the Mayor of Denver and city leadership:

• The Police Department valued the tool.
• The technology was working.
• But public trust had been shaken.
• And the City Council felt they needed a clean slate.
  ‍

In that moment, political dynamics outweighed operational outcomes. We should also say this plainly: the community concerns in Denver weren't irrational. Safety technology deserves scrutiny and positive iteration.

What Cities Control and What We’ve Built Since

One of the most important clarifications in all of this is simple:

With Flock, cities control their data and who they share it with. They always have. But we have worked extensively to make that control, and the decisions they make around their data, more visible, more explicit, and easier to audit.

As of early 2026:

• Federal agencies are not part of statewide or national lookup networks.
• Sharing with federal agencies is “default off” for every local police department.
• Local police agencies can disable all federal sharing with a single toggle.
• Immigration and reproductive-care-related searches are automatically blocked where required by law, and that Search Filter is available nationwide via administrator activation.
• Flock does not sell to or share data with ICE.
• Every search requires a standardized NIBRS-based offense type, ensuring consistent auditability.

Meanwhile, our product, engineering, legal, policy, and public affairs teams have worked continuously to build additional safeguards, compliance tools, and governance features to ensure cities can clearly see and easily manage how their systems operate. We are continuing to invest in transparency, auditability, and local control. But sometimes, once trust has been strained, technical controls are not enough in the short term to reset perception.

The Reality of Scale

There is another dynamic at play in these conversations: scale.

Flock is the largest LPR provider in the country. That scale creates a meaningful public safety impact, but it also invites scrutiny. Flock accepts that scrutiny, and we have chosen to maintain rigorous audit records, publicly available Transparency Portals, and continue to show up at hundreds of public meetings and City Councils across the country to answer questions. 

By contrast, other public safety technology companies have publicly acknowledged long-standing contractual relationships with federal agencies such as CBP, ICE, or other DHS entities. However, those same companies may operate very few LPR sensors in the field, and in some cases, those deployments are limited or not widely operational. Those companies also don’t have the same oversight and transparency tools that we have committed to from our company’s very beginning. 

From a city’s perspective, perceived risk often correlates with scale.

If a platform has minimal active infrastructure, policymakers may feel there is less to worry about. If a platform has a robust, operational network with meaningful coverage, the stakes feel higher, even when safeguards are strong.

And sometimes, the most scrutiny is paid to the technology that is most visible in the public eye. 

This creates an interesting paradox: the more effective and widely deployed a system is, the more scrutiny it receives.

The Broader Lesson

The removal of cameras in some cities is not a story about discriminatory technology. It is not a story about secret data sharing. It is not a story about a lack of results.

It is a story about public trust, political context, and the evolving expectations communities have for transparency in public safety tools.

We understand that trust must be continuously earned.

That means:

• Clearer communication about how sharing works.
• Stronger default protections.
• Easier auditing.
• Bright-line restrictions.
• Public accountability.
• Contractual commitments.

Technology alone cannot solve political tension. But technology built thoughtfully, and governed responsibly, can help cities balance safety with civil liberties.

What Hasn’t Changed

Despite the political shifts in some jurisdictions, what hasn’t changed is this:

• The technology works.
• It reduces broad discretionary stops.
• It increases precision.
• It helps recover stolen vehicles.
• It helps recover kidnapped children.
• It supports investigations.
• It provides more accountability for how and why police use technology.
• It provides local agencies with data they control.
  ‍

And thousands of cities continue to use it successfully every day.

Moving Forward

Public safety is one of the most challenging arenas in American civic life. It sits at the intersection of safety, privacy, immigration policy, federalism, race, and trust in institutions. In that environment, even highly effective tools can become symbols in larger debates.

We respect the decisions of city councils. We also remain committed to ensuring that any city that chooses to partner with Flock fully understands and fully controls its system.

Trust is built through clarity, accountability, and follow-through.

We are committed to all three.