Flock Safety ALPR: contract provisions, court rulings, and the records request letter
This page contains the free records request letter template, contract provisions transcribed from public records releases in multiple states, and court language from active ALPR litigation. The compiled analysis of what those contracts revealed across more than twenty cities, the 50-state directory with response windows and appeal paths, and the full letter package are in the $5 dossier linked from the overview page.
Copy this letter exactly. Fill in the bracketed fields. Send it by email to the records custodian for your city or county police department and keep the confirmation. Most states require a response within 5 to 10 business days, though production of the actual documents can take longer. If your request is denied, every state has an appeal path.
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP]
[Date]
Records Custodian
[Police Department Name]
[Department Address]
Re: Public Records Request , Flock Safety Contract and Related Documents
Dear Records Custodian,
Pursuant to [YOUR STATE PUBLIC RECORDS LAW], I request copies of the following records:
1. The complete contract, agreement, or memorandum of understanding between [CITY/COUNTY NAME] and Flock Group, Inc. (also known as Flock Safety), including all amendments, addenda, renewals, and change orders, currently in effect or in effect at any time since January 1, 2020.
2. All purchase orders and invoices for Flock Safety cameras, software, or services paid by [CITY/COUNTY NAME] since January 1, 2020.
3. Any data-sharing agreements or memoranda of understanding authorizing third-party agencies to access license plate reader data collected by Flock Safety cameras operated by [CITY/COUNTY NAME].
4. Any policies, procedures, or guidelines governing the use of Flock Safety cameras, including camera placement criteria and data retention schedules.
I request that any fees be waived on the grounds that this request serves the public interest by documenting the use of public funds for public surveillance infrastructure. If you require clarification, please contact me at [YOUR EMAIL/PHONE] before incurring any costs.
I expect a response within the time required by law.
Respectfully,
[Your Name]
[Contact Information]
Your state public records law goes in the first sentence. California: California Public Records Act, Gov. Code 7920. Texas: Texas Public Information Act, Gov. Code 552. Florida: Florida Public Records Law, F.S. 119. New York: Freedom of Information Law, Public Officers Law 84. For all other states, the full 50-state directory with exact citations, response windows, fee caps, and appeal paths is in the dossier below.
Five provisions have produced the most significant findings across contracts obtained in multiple states. Data retention window: how long does Flock retain plate reads before automatic deletion, and can law enforcement extend retention without judicial authorization? Network access: which other agencies can query your jurisdiction's data without a separate agreement? Placement authority: who can approve a new camera location, and does that require city council approval or can the police department add cameras at parks and apartment lots at its own discretion? Federal access clause: does the contract restrict sharing with immigration enforcement agencies? Audit log access: can a resident request a record of who searched their plate and when?
The contracts obtained in Bloomington Indiana, Oklahoma City, and Benicia California all showed language in at least one of these five areas that was not disclosed to city councils when the contracts were approved.
The Oklahoma City contract specifies a 30-day default retention window before automatic deletion. Law enforcement may extend retention on specific plates without judicial authorization. The contract grants access to Flock OS, the national network, allowing officers to query plates collected by cameras in other jurisdictions without a separate bilateral agreement with those agencies.
Contract renewals were processed as sole-source procurements, bypassing competitive bidding on the grounds that Flock's proprietary national network is not available from alternative vendors. This locks the city into Flock's pricing without a bidding process.
From Wendy Stratton-Monahan, Benicia Police Department, September 26, 2024: "I received our annual bill for FLOCK cameras, and am wondering why we are being charged for service for the camera that has yet to be installed?"
From Graham Carter, Flock Safety, September 26, 2024: "The contract is actually set up for the first camera to be validated and was a 5 year Co-term merging all the contracts together."
Flock billing is triggered by the first camera in a contract, not by each installation. Benicia was charged for a camera that had not been installed because Caltrans denied the required encroachment permit. Billing continued anyway.
Benicia's public-facing Flock transparency portal displayed a "system down" notice on the audit page during the period residents were attempting to access it. Flock's support response confirmed the notice was editable by the agency. Who posted it and how long it was visible is not established in the released documents.
The City of Bloomington denied public records requests for its Flock Safety contracts citing Indiana Code 5-14-3-4(b)(19), claiming release would "have a reasonable likelihood of threatening public safety by exposing a vulnerability to terrorist attack."
The withheld documents were an order form and invoice for a standard Flock Falcon model camera. No security-sensitive specifications were present. The first records request was filed October 25, 2024. Six more followed. The city denied them all. Documents were produced in early 2026.
A trial court evaluating a constitutional challenge described a Flock network as functioning as a dragnet over the entire city, comparing it to placing GPS trackers on every vehicle, citing United States v. Jones (2012).
Federal District Judge Mark Davis ruled that Norfolk's Flock network did not yet constitute a Fourth Amendment violation, while writing that ALPR surveillance "could become too intrusive and run afoul of [constitutional privacy standards] at some point" as the technology expands. The ruling allowed an Institute for Justice lawsuit to proceed.
Before Virginia's data-sharing restriction took effect in July 2025, federal agencies attempted to access Virginia Flock data thousands of times for immigration enforcement, according to the Virginia Center for Investigative Journalism. Cambridge, Massachusetts removed sixteen Flock cameras over sanctuary policy conflicts with Flock's federal sharing terms. The ACLU and EFF sued Marin County, California for sharing ALPR data with ICE and CBP without a lawful basis.
The Interference begins with a patent. US3951134, filed in 1974, describes a device for remotely monitoring and altering human brain waves without physical contact. The patent is real. The USPTO granted it. The documents on this site are what precedes it.
The fiction begins exactly where the public record stops answering questions.
The Interference Mars book series written by William Ray Brown begins here: williamraybrown.com →
This site costs real money to run. If it's useful to you, you can help keep it going →