Last reviewed: October 20, 2026
Flock systems are not inevitable infrastructure. A local government can decline renewal, terminate an agreement when its terms allow, stop using the system, revoke access and require the hardware to be removed.
The examples below are not a complete national count. They are documented cases showing several different routes to the same basic result. The reasons vary, but recurring concerns include data sharing beyond local expectations, immigration-enforcement exposure, weak oversight, cybersecurity and vendor-trust problems, unclear public benefit and sustained resident opposition.
Westland, Michigan: residents changed the local decision
Westland allowed its Flock arrangement to end in July 2026 after months of resident questions and criticism. The police chief did not bring a renewal contract to City Council, where support was divided. Local reporting identified privacy, government surveillance, transparency and oversight as central concerns raised by residents.
September reporting documented a city worker physically removing a Flock installation. That confirms removal activity began, although it does not yet prove every Flock camera is gone. Westland’s separate Axon ALPR capability also remains an unresolved part of the broader surveillance picture.
That matters here because Westland is not a distant hypothetical. It is a Metro Detroit example of residents attending meetings, asking questions and speaking before the next contract term became automatic.
Detroit News report republished by AOL: physical removal underway ↗
Eastpointe, Michigan: documented misuse preceded a 4-1 termination vote
Eastpointe City Council voted 4-1 on September 15, 2026 to terminate its Flock agreement. Police discontinued using the system while the city worked through termination.
The next day, Police Chief Corey Haines said an internal investigation found two employees had misused Flock: one for a personal purpose and another in a policy violation. The first employee received severe discipline; the second matter remained under investigation when announced.
This is not evidence that every Eastpointe officer acted improperly. It is direct evidence that local misuse occurred and that council had lawful authority to end the relationship. Physical removal, data disposition and contract closeout still need verification.
CBS Detroit: chief confirms two employee-misuse findings ↗
Independence Township, Michigan: termination included removal and data-deletion demands
Independence Township trustees voted 7-0 on September 8, 2026 to terminate the agreement and remove all eight reported cameras. Reporting says the board also directed staff to seek reimbursement for unused credits and require Flock to eliminate township-related data through an affidavit.
That makes the action useful as a closeout model. A strong termination does not stop with a press release: it addresses hardware, money, access and retained information. Completion of those steps still needs verification, so the township is not yet labeled fully DeFlocked.
WXYZ: Independence Township termination and closeout direction ↗
See the Independence Township dossier →
South Lyon, Michigan: a 5-2 nonrenewal vote stopped use immediately
South Lyon City Council voted 5-2 on September 28 not to renew its Flock agreement. Council also ordered police to stop using the system immediately and directed that camera lenses be covered until removal.
This is a useful sequence: decide against renewal, stop collection, then verify physical removal, account closure, sharing revocation and data closeout.
Local 4: South Lyon ends the contract and covers the cameras ↗
Milford, Michigan: a unanimous nonrenewal after sustained organizing
Milford Village Council voted 7-0 on October 5 not to renew the remaining 10-camera contract. Reporting described weekly protests and a petition with more than 600 signatures. The police chief recommended ending the relationship after camera outages, vandalism and poor vendor responsiveness, while residents emphasized privacy and surveillance.
The remaining cameras were expected to come down after the contract expired at the end of October. Reporting also indicated that another ALPR vendor could be considered, so the broader vehicle-tracking question is not necessarily finished.
Local 4: Milford votes 7-0 not to renew ↗
Lincoln Park, Michigan: collection stopped while the contract is reviewed
Lincoln Park ordered its remaining cameras covered and turned off on September 28, and the police chief said Flock decommissioned them the next day. Two city commissions are reviewing whether to continue the five-year agreement before council makes a final decision.
This is a meaningful operational pause, not a verified termination. It shows why status labels matter: off does not necessarily mean contract ended, and covered does not prove removed.
Local 4: Lincoln Park cameras decommissioned during review ↗
See the Lincoln Park dossier →
St. Clair Shores, Michigan: residents won a six-month collection pause
After residents repeatedly raised privacy, sharing and misuse concerns, St. Clair Shores City Council directed officials on September 21, 2026 to cover all 12 Flock cameras for six months and revisit the contract in March 2027. Local reporting confirmed that all 12 had been covered.
This is not yet termination or removal, so St. Clair Shores is not classified as fully DeFlocked. It is evidence that organized public comment can move a council from a staff recommendation to receive and file an update toward an immediate operational pause and a new contract decision point.
Local 4: St. Clair Shores covers 12 cameras after resident objections ↗
See the St. Clair Shores evidence and next records →
Evanston, Illinois: an audit and federal-access failures broke trust
Evanston deactivated all 19 of its Flock ALPR cameras in August 2025 and issued a termination notice. The city’s own statement cited an Illinois Secretary of State audit and Flock’s admission that it had not created distinct permissions and protocols needed to ensure local compliance while operating a pilot involving federal users. Evanston said it would stop collecting and providing plate-reader data to the network.
This example shows why written policy is not enough by itself. A municipality also needs evidence that technical permissions, sharing and vendor operations actually enforce that policy.
Read Evanston’s official termination statement ↗
Santa Cruz, California: outside access and immigration concerns
Santa Cruz City Council voted 6–1 in January 2026 to terminate its Flock contract and discontinue use. The approved direction said any future ALPR proposal would need stronger local controls, transparency, civil-liberties protections, cybersecurity safeguards, strict data-access and sharing controls, and independent auditability.
Reporting on the vote described loss of trust after local plate data was accessed by outside agencies on behalf of federal law enforcement, including immigration enforcement. The council did not pretend that technology can never help an investigation; it concluded that this vendor and arrangement did not meet the community’s standards.
Read the official City Council agenda packet and motion ↗
Read Santa Cruz Local’s report on the 6–1 vote ↗
Austin, Texas: the pilot expired instead of becoming permanent
Austin’s Flock pilot ended in June 2025 after the proposed continuation did not proceed to a council vote. A city audit had identified a conflict between Austin’s intended local limits and contract language that could allow Flock to retain data for use by other law-enforcement entities. Council members and residents also raised concerns about mass surveillance and risks to immigrant communities.
The lesson is procedural as well as substantive: a pilot does not have to become permanent. An expiration date is a decision point, and a government can require the case for continuation to be made in public instead of treating renewal as routine.
Read the City of Austin’s proposed continuation resolution and audit finding ↗
Read KUT’s report on the program ending ↗
Asheville, North Carolina: council ordered termination and a broader review
In August 2026, Asheville City Council voted 5–2 for immediate termination, requested removal of all associated hardware and directed city employees to suspend access, searches and sharing through Flock. The city also ordered a wider review of surveillance policy, oversight and privacy safeguards.
That sequence is important. Ending a contract is stronger when the city also addresses accounts, searches, sharing, retained data, physical equipment and any replacement proposal.
Read the City of Asheville’s official action summary ↗
Madison Heights, Michigan: all three city cameras deactivated and set for nonrenewal
Madison Heights first reversed one especially sensitive camera placement at JARS Cannabis in August. The city then deactivated and covered all three city cameras on September 23.
On October 11, the city announced that the cameras would not come back online. It said Flock had not provided the clear, reliable safeguards the city sought concerning access and sharing, so the city would disconnect the system and let the agreement expire without renewal. The decision does not eliminate privately operated Flock cameras.
Spectrum News: Madison Heights ends its city Flock relationship ↗
See the Madison Heights dossier →
Arlington County, Virginia: the county completed removal of 41 leased devices
Arlington County’s board directed the manager in September not to renew Flock and to remove county-leased technology after the vendor could not provide assurances the county considered adequate about access, data use and privacy. By early October, the county said all 41 leased devices—26 Falcon ALPRs and 15 Condor video cameras—had been removed. Privately owned devices may remain.
Arlington County’s official discontinuation statement ↗
ARLnow: county confirms physical removal complete ↗
Henrico County, Virginia: 122 cameras ended over network-level risk
Henrico announced in October that it would end a recently renewed Flock relationship covering 122 cameras. County officials said they were confident local police used the system appropriately but could not ignore the potential for misuse of system data by others.
That distinction matters: a community does not need to prove local misconduct before deciding that a network’s structural risk is unacceptable.
Axios Richmond: Henrico ends the 122-camera contract ↗
What these decisions have in common
No single argument ended every program. Communities acted through different lawful mechanisms:
- residents spoke repeatedly before a renewal or vote;
- audits and records exposed gaps between policy and technical reality;
- officials treated vendor trust and outside data access as public-safety issues, not side questions;
- councils used contract expiration, nonrenewal or termination authority;
- some required immediate deactivation while physical removal was pending; and
- decision makers demanded public review before any similar system could return.
The work is not complete if a city cancels Flock and quietly installs an equivalent mass-tracking network from another vendor. Our goal is removal and nonrenewal of the covered surveillance system, not a logo change.
Read the decisions above as a sequence:
A resident asks what the city bought.
A contract, audit or sharing record gives the concern something concrete.
More residents show up, officials ask harder questions and renewal stops being routine.
Someone with lawful authority says no—and installed infrastructure becomes removable.
No one step guarantees the outcome. Together they explain why finding one record, telling one neighbor and attending one meeting are not symbolic gestures. They can change the conditions under which the next decision is made.
Bring the lesson home
Do not wait for a national ruling or for every disputed capability to be used locally. Find the current agreement, renewal date, termination language, number of devices, sharing settings, audit history and the officials who can say no to the next term.
One useful action: ask your clerk, council and police department when the current agreement expires and what public vote or administrative decision would be required to prevent renewal.