Cities Face Challenges in Ending Flock Safety Contracts

Contract Cancellations Pose Problems

Several cities across the country are working to terminate their agreements with Flock Safety, the provider of automated license plate recognition technology. However, the process has proven to be more complicated than anticipated in many instances.

Plymouth Takes Action

In September, the city council of Plymouth, Minnesota, officially voted to annul its contract with Flock Safety. Despite the council's decision, communication from the company was lacking, leaving the cameras operational for over a month. Concerned about the lack of action, Police Chief Eric Fadden decided it was necessary to take matters into his own hands.

“After hearing nothing for more than a week, I directed our staff to disconnect the power cords from the cameras in order to be sure that they are not functioning or recording plates,” stated Fadden in an interview. This decisive move ensured that the equipment would no longer capture any vehicle data.

Dayton's Struggles

Just a short drive away, the city of Dayton, Minnesota, faced its own challenges with Flock Safety. Although the company acknowledged receipt of the city's request to terminate the contract and stated they would take up to 60 days to remove the cameras, issues persisted. Flock inexplicably reconnected two cameras within city limits, despite explicit instructions from local authorities to halt all work.

The city government took to social media to clarify the situation, posting:

On September 17, 2026, the Police Department was made aware of a maintenance work order produced by Flock. The City notified Flock on September 18, 2026, that the program was on hold, and no work orders were to be completed. Unfortunately, the City’s direction was not followed, and the camera was placed back into service without authorization.

Flock's Response

In response to the ongoing challenges, Flock Safety's spokesperson, Andrew Smith, expressed the company's commitment to working with municipalities. He noted, “We are proud of the impact our technology has had in Plymouth. We respect the city’s decision and are working with the customer to have the cameras removed.”

Wider Implications

The difficulties faced by Plymouth and Dayton are not isolated. Similar situations have unfolded elsewhere, including in Illinois, where Flock Safety refused to dismantle surveillance equipment at Elgin Community College. The college had sought to end its contract, but even in this case, the company left the cameras operational.

Ultimately, as more cities attempt to navigate the complexities of their contracts with Flock Safety, the experiences in Plymouth and Dayton highlight the need for clear communication and cooperation between local governments and private technology firms.

As several towns and cities grapple with their agreements with Flock, it remains to be seen how these challenges will shape future relationships between municipalities and private contractors in the tech space.