Toledo City Council Hearing on Flock License Plate Reader Renewal – June 22, 2026

The Toledo City Council held a special meeting on June 22, 2026, to discuss a proposed ordinance authorizing the mayor to amend the city’s agreement with Flock Group Inc. for portable automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) for one year at a cost not to exceed $14,000. The meeting featured presentations from the Toledo Police Department (TPD), the Lucas County Prosecutor’s Office, and representatives from Flock Safety, followed by extensive public comment.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Richard Arnold (speaking as a resident) supported the technology but urged civility in the debate, referencing an earlier contentious county commissioners’ meeting.
• Gwen Goldsbury opposed Flock, citing distrust of law enforcement, risks to transgender individuals, and the reactive rather than preventive nature of the system.
• Susan King (Northwest Ohio Peace Coalition) strongly opposed the contract extension, arguing that Flock contributes to mass surveillance, violates First and Fourth Amendment rights, and is open to unauthorized federal access, including ICE targeting immigrants and tracking women seeking abortions. She noted that 71 U.S. cities have rejected Flock as of June 22, 2026.
• Unnamed speaker expressed concern about federal overreach and asked how data would be protected against a rogue federal agency; Flock representative Trevor Chandler responded that Flock would redirect any subpoena for Toledo’s data back to the city, which owns the data.
• Sean Nestor (resident, cybersecurity professional) asked council to respect constitutional protections, warning that mass surveillance tools are prone to abuse and that while local benefits exist, long-term risks to civil liberties are unacceptable.
• Tom Pruss urged rejection of the contract, arguing that the system creates permanent records of innocent citizens’ movements, shifts the burden of proof, and treats every citizen as a potential suspect.
• Christina Rodriguez voiced concern about data being used to target women and immigrants, urging a no vote.
• Mike Ferner (Point Place resident) raised doubts about data deletion after 30 days, federal access despite filters, and the potential for future political misuse. He referenced UK laws labeling Palestine solidarity as terrorism.
• Michael Haynes (president of Toledo Police Patrols Association) spoke in favor of Flock, comparing it to everyday surveillance by phones and apps, emphasizing its value in locating missing persons and stolen vehicles, and stating that accountability lies with the council.
• Belinda Covarrubias (director of El Central Hub, community advocate) opposed Flock, describing how her family’s daily movements are tracked over 20 times per day. She argued surveillance disproportionately harms Black, brown, and immigrant communities, and cited Dayton, Ohio’s suspension of Flock after 7,000 immigration-related searches were found.
• Rebecca Bundy opposed Flock, warning of a growing surveillance state that threatens privacy and freedom, especially for immigrants and marginalized groups, despite local promises.
• Amanda Russell (local business owner) shared a personal case where TPD could not tell her if Flock cameras were working; she criticized the lack of cameras near strip clubs and questioned why trafficking is not being addressed.
• Russell Shackelford compared Flock to a panopticon, cited Forbes interview where the Flock CEO claimed the system would “eradicate nearly all crime,” and referenced documented abuses including tracking women for abortion and stalking by officers.
• Jessica Castellani (adjunct philosophy professor) raised concerns about chilling effects on civil liberties and the power dynamic between watchers and watched, recommending funding for social support instead.
• Kevin Bullier questioned city council’s knowledge of the contract and Flock CEO Garrett Langley, stating that data goes to Amazon Web Services and that no one knows who really has access.
• Another speaker highlighted a 2025 hack of 80,000 Flock cameras by a YouTuber, asked how many agencies are in the data-sharing agreement, and demanded that council set strict regulations before any renewal.
• Unnamed speaker argued Flock’s goal is fear-mongering, that the cameras do not prevent crime, and that citizens do not want constant surveillance.
• Mulat Kanan (Palestinian and second-generation immigrant) opposed Flock, drawing parallels to surveillance under occupation in Palestine, and urged funding for preventive measures.
• Final speaker opposed Flock, stating it tracks and listens, and agreed with the chief prosecutor that no one wants a surveillance state.

Discussion Items

• TPD Deputy Chief Braun presented the benefits of Flock, including its use in solving high-profile homicides (clearance rates of 81% vs. national 61.4%), locating missing persons, and recovering stolen vehicles. He stated TPD does not use Flock for immigration enforcement, does not share data with ICE, and the system has no facial recognition. He provided examples of cases solved with Flock.
• Flock Safety representative Trevor Chandler addressed concerns about federal access, data sharing, and privacy. He explained that after 2025, federal agencies are excluded from statewide and national lookup; any sharing requires a three‑gate opt‑in process. He stated that Toledo owns its data, Flock does not sell data, and retention is 30 days unless changed locally. He described audit logs as permanent and transparent, with tools to flag atypical searches. He noted filters for immigration and reproductive health searches are available and activated by the city.
• Council Member Gaddis posed detailed questions about backdoor access, the University of Washington audit, Dayton’s 7,000 immigration searches, changes to Flock’s terms and conditions (removal of “do not sell” language, perpetual licensing), the inability to force camera removal in other cities, misuse in Texas abortion cases, surveillance of protests, the city’s $35,000 settlement due to a false plate read, and crashworthiness of camera poles. Chandler responded that the terms changes were simplifications, that the data is hard‑deleted within retention periods, and that cameras can be turned off by the city.
• Council Member Driscoll clarified data retention (30 days), confirmed that other agencies (except ICE) can search Toledo’s data, and asked about legal recourse if data is misused. Chandler and the deputy chief noted that data use is for law enforcement only and internal policies are clear.
• Council Member Sarant confirmed that TPD controls data dissemination and that Flock is used for a wide range of crimes, including stolen vehicles, domestic abuse, and missing persons cases (e.g., dementia patients).
• Council Member McCrimer inquired about audit log permanence, council access to logs, and safeguards against misuse. Chandler stated audits are permanent unless state law dictates otherwise and that Flock provides transparency portals and proactive flagging of atypical behavior.
• Council Member Morris asked about variation in data‑sharing among agencies and how to identify misuse by neighboring departments. Chandler explained that each agency chooses sharing levels and that misuse is rare (about two dozen incidents among billions of searches) but can be caught through audit tools.
• Rebecca Facey (Toledo Chief Prosecutor) and Maggie Cook (Lucas County Deputy Chief, Criminal Division) spoke in support of Flock, describing its use in solving hit‑and‑runs, homicides, and other serious crimes. Cook emphasized that data abuse is taken seriously, with swift consequences (firings, charges) for violations.

Key Outcomes

• No vote was taken at the meeting; the session was informational, held to gather public input and answer council questions. The agenda item (ordinance to amend the Flock agreement) remains pending.
• The city council heard extensive testimony from Flock representatives, law enforcement, prosecutors, and numerous community members with opinions divided roughly along lines of support for crime‑fighting benefits versus opposition on privacy, civil liberties, and risks of mission creep.
• TPD and the prosecutor’s office reiterated that they rely heavily on Flock for investigations and prosecutions, with high clearance rates and many cases that would otherwise be unsolved.
• The meeting adjourned without a scheduled future date for a vote, though the ordinance is expected to be considered at a later council meeting.