Lakewood Public Safety Committee Meeting on Flock ALPR Contract - October 7, 2026

Note on Meeting Date: The meeting agenda and transcript record the meeting date as October 12, 2026. The required date for this summary is October 7, 2026.

The Public Safety Committee convened to discuss a communication from Councilmembers regarding the City of Lakewood's contract with Flock Safety for an Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) surveillance program. Chief Matthew Fisher and Law Director Ernie Vargo presented an overview of the program's history, current operations, and policy updates. Councilmembers raised questions about data sharing, privacy, and contract terms. Members of the public provided testimony expressing concerns about civil liberties and the trustworthiness of the third-party vendor.

Consent Calendar

• The committee unanimously approved the minutes of the July 20, 2026 Public Safety Committee meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Anthony: Expressed full support for not renewing the Flock contract, citing concerns about the company's honesty regarding data collection patterns, the fallibility of ALPR AI (referencing Wired articles and Oshkosh incidents), and the inability to prevent Flock from sharing data with agencies like ICE despite local policies.
• Edriand: Urged the city to discontinue its contract with Flock, specifically requesting an immediate halt to data sharing with 287(g) agencies and fusion centers. Questioned why the policy allows immigration searches with prior approval, and asked for public disclosure of external agency audits and safeguards against policy changes by the Mayor.
• Corey Morris: Expressed general concern about the technology and the lack of answers regarding data tracking.
• Colin Crawford (Rocky River resident): Advocated against the ALPR technology, distinguishing between raw data and metadata. Expressed worry that Lakewood's metadata could be used to train Flock's AI models or track individuals across jurisdictions. Proposed an in-house ALPR system as an alternative to maintain local control.
  • In response to a question from Councilman Bullock, Crawford stated his concern was not specific to the current federal administration but pertained broadly to the private nature of the data holder.

Discussion Items

• Chief Fisher's Presentation:
  • Provided the history of the ALPR program, starting around 2012, with the Flock contract beginning in 2021 (40 cameras) and expanding to 50 cameras.
  • Noted the current annual cost is $125,000, with a contract running through July 2028 (auto-renewing for 24 months if not terminated 30 days prior).
  • Highlighted successes in solving the Don Gibson murder case and a recent aggravated robbery directly linked via Flock to a subsequent shooting.
  • Stated the department has turned off sharing with federal agencies and the nationwide network, but still shares with 939 agencies (408 in Ohio, 531 out of state).
  • Described updated policies: no facial recognition, 30-day data retention, multi-factor authentication, requirement of a CAD number for searches, appointment of an ALPR coordinator, and a prohibition on searches related to immigration or reproductive rights.
  • Asserted that data ownership belongs to Flock unless downloaded into a case file, though Law Director Vargo later argued that strong contractual restrictions prevent Flock from sharing the data.
• Councilmember Hamilton Steiner (Chair): Focused on the list of agencies sharing data and the potential for "backdoor" access through fusion centers. Requested clearer audit logs and quarterly reports to Council.
• Law Director Vargo: Clarified that the contract strictly prevents Flock from sharing city data. Acknowledged questions about ownership and contract terms that would need to be explored during renewal.
• Vice President Baker: Characterized the issue as a data security problem rather than a local misuse problem. Framed Flock as a private third-party vendor, contrasting it with government-controlled tools. Demanded stronger auditing rights and contract analysis to ensure the vendor's fidelity to the city's rules, analogizing the city's liability to the permanent responsibility for radioactive waste.
• Council President Kepple: Highlighted the broader national context of big tech and AI. Suggested the city review the Shaker Heights contract as a model for more restrictive terms. Noted the inability under the current software to search by "bumper stickers" but confirmed the system can generate movement patterns. Asked about what checks exist to prevent officers from conducting unrelated searches.
• Councilmember Bullock: Stated there was no motion to defund the toolset and sought a middle ground between scrapping a valued public safety tool and risking misuse of data. Raised the concept of Council passing a "super policy" resolution that would bind administrative policy changes regarding the technology.
• Councilmember Bixenstine: Confirmed the ALPR reads license plates only, not faces. Asked how policing would change without Flock, with the Chief stating it would severely hinder efficiency.
• Councilmember Strebig: Asked about the legal boundaries of data ownership by Flock and the application of ALPR technology to Amber Alerts and missing persons.

Key Outcomes

• The communication regarding the Flock contract was formally received and filed unanimously. No vote was taken to approve, deny, or modify the contract itself.
• Council expressed a commitment to continued dialogue with the community and the administration.
• Multiple councilmembers requested further information on the specific legal language of the Flock contract, especially regarding data ownership, third-party liability, and audit rights, intending to use the findings in preparation for the 2028 contract renewal.
• The Police Department agreed to work with Council on establishing regular audit reporting and exploring the feasibility of quantitative metrics (e.g., cases solved using ALPR) when the new CAD system goes live in April/May 2027.
• Councilmember Kepple pointed to the newly signed Shaker Heights contract as a potential template for future negotiations.