Flock’s 100 cameras may be remaining in Cleveland after all, Cleveland City Council’s Safety Committee decided in a 5-2 vote following a marathon, four-hour meeting on Tuesday. The six-month renewal will go before full Council next week.
Michael Polensek, Charles Slife, Richard Starr, Joe Jones and Kevin Conwell voted yes—Conwell switching his vote from a previous hearing in which the commitee voted against renewal. Council members Nikki Hudson and Stephanie Howse-Jones remained opposed.
Public pressure to scrap Cleveland’s ties with Flock Safety was front and center as Council heard testimony and case data from Cleveland police, two dozen public commenters, five pastors and Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Mike O’Malley.
Testimony that led some to a middleground.
“The issue is not the license plate readers,” Safety Committee Chairman Michael Polensek said. “The issue is Flock; that’s the issue.”
Cleveland’s $250,000 a year contract with Flock for 100 license plate readers has become a target of activists in recent months. Many like Flock No, and other groups in the suburbs, contend that the surveillance tech presents widespread privacy concerns as well as a tool for immigration enforcement efforts. Council has proposed a shorter renewal term of six months at $125,000.
Despite previous assurances otherwise, 2,500 immigration-related lookups were made of Cleveland’s Flock cameras last year, Cleveland.com reported this week. A city spokesperson said they were “unaware” of any arrests by ICE due to those lookups.
Cleveland police, meanwhile, say that Flock is a vital investigative tool. Some 20 individual criminal cases were solved or nearing prosecution mostly due to how quickly Flock LPRs allowed officers to catch perpetrators, Council was told. The murder of Officer Shane Bartek, the 2024 shooting of 10-year-old Kaden Coleman in his driveway, the dart gun shooting spree in Clark-Fulton in June—all were prosecuted primarily due to Cleveland having those cameras.
As did Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Michael O’Malley, who argued his office would see fewer convictions without precious video evidence to use in court. Councilman Conwell hinted that a visit to O’Malley’s office, and seeing camera footage used for prosecuting criminals, is what helped nudge his vote Tuesday to a yes.
“Without LPR technology, you can rest assured that your neighborhood will be more dangerous, more violent individuals will not be apprehended and the overall safety of this community will plummet,” O’Malley told the table.
“It’s your job to provide police with the tools to do their job,” O’Malley said. “It’s my job to prosecute those cases when they come to me.”
As for immigration concerns, Cleveland’s 100 Flock cameras have been inaccessible to ICE agents since November and off limits to any outside officers since June, Chief Todd said. (Flock flags any “concerning” searches.) Internal audits of the entire system are carried out annually; a restructuring of how officers are trained to use Flock will commence in October, she said.
Assurances that weren’t enough to convince activists present that the safety perks of those 100 Flock cameras outweighed the Big Brother encroachment on Clevelanders. Flock No members present were quick to point out that storing license plate data for 30 days was, so to say, 30 days too long.
“You are not simply buying a crime reduction tool,” activist Bishop Chui, who wore a Flock No T-shirt, said. “You are consenting on behalf of every Cleveland resident to the permanent collection of their movements.”
At one point during her testimony, Flock No head Bryn Adams picked up two boxes of black trash bags from the floor and stacked them on the table in front of her.
It was a “gift,” she said. She nodded to a case in Texas: Flock cited a missing persons investigation that turned out to be a look-up of an abortion patient.
“I would like you to cover up these unlawfully operating cameras immediately vote against renewing this contract,” Adams said, “and protect us, your constituents, by bagging the LPRs and banning mass surveillance in our city.”
A handful of amendments were proposed on Tuesday, including forcing the city to administer a request for proposal for a Flock replacement in about six months’ time. Other council members suggested a public reporting tool and steep fines if Flock—or any future LPR contractor—misuses Clevelanders’ data.
Council is set to meet next Wednesday, July 15, to revisit the Flock renewal dialogue.
Subscribe to Cleveland Scene newsletters.
Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed
