You do not need a private investigator.
A surprising amount of local-government surveillance information is already public.
The trick is knowing where to look and what matters.
1. Start with the official government site.
Search the municipality’s own website before searching the whole internet.
Useful terms include:
- Flock;
- Flock Safety;
- ALPR;
- LPR;
- license plate reader;
- automatic license plate reader;
- automated license plate reader;
- Motorola;
- Vigilant;
- Genetec;
- Rekor;
- Condor;
- camera;
- public safety technology;
- vehicle recognition.
Try the government site’s search, but do not assume it is good.
Condor and Raven are separate video and acoustic product categories, not alternate names for plate readers. Use our product guide to recognize them in contracts and packets →
A normal search engine with site:citywebsite.gov can sometimes work better.
2. Search agendas and meeting packets.
This is often where the useful paperwork lives.
Look for:
- purchase approvals;
- contract renewals;
- bid recommendations;
- budget amendments;
- police presentations;
- grant acceptance;
- invoices;
- resolutions;
- and vendor attachments.
Packets often contain far more than the meeting minutes.
Do not search only the discussion section. Read the consent agenda and purchasing material too.
A surveillance purchase or renewal may be described as:
- a bid waiver or sole-source purchase;
- a cooperative-purchasing agreement;
- grant-funded police equipment;
- a lease, subscription or software service;
- a budget amendment or transfer;
- a contract extension;
- or a generic camera/public-safety item.
A consent agenda is not proof that anybody concealed the proposal. It does mean the final vote may happen as part of one block with little or no separate discussion. Trace the item backward through study sessions, work sessions, committees, staff memoranda and earlier packets.
Read the practical consent-agenda checklist →
3. Search older meetings too.
If you find a renewal, look backward.
The original purchase may reveal:
- what officials were promised;
- why they bought the system;
- initial camera count;
- original cost;
- retention promises;
- and whether the project began as a “pilot.”
Then build a timeline.
4. Check meeting video.
Minutes may say only:
Motion approved.
A video may reveal:
- what the chief told the board;
- whether anyone asked about privacy;
- how officials described sharing;
- what benefits were claimed;
- and whether the public raised concerns.
Take careful notes with the meeting date and approximate timestamp.
5. Follow the contract trail.
When you find one contract reference, search for:
- original agreement;
- order form;
- master services agreement;
- amendments;
- renewals;
- change orders;
- purchase orders;
- invoices;
- cancellation notices;
- successor contracts;
- and replacement vendors.
The agreement controlling the current term matters more than an old press release.
6. Follow the money.
Check:
- accounts payable;
- check registers;
- budgets;
- capital plans;
- grant records;
- ARPA or other special funding;
- procurement reports;
- and board packets.
A payment can prove a vendor relationship continued even when the contract itself is hard to find.
It may also generate the exact wording you need for a focused FOIA request.
7. Find the policy.
Search for policies governing:
- ALPR use;
- retention;
- hot lists;
- alerts;
- sharing;
- audits;
- search reasons;
- access control;
- misuse;
- and public-record retention.
Remember:
policy is not the same thing as actual use.
8. Research the vendor capability separately.
Once you know the product, look at the vendor’s own documentation.
That tells you what the product can do.
Do not immediately publish every capability as though your city uses it.
Label it correctly:
The vendor offers this capability. We have not yet established whether the municipality has purchased or enabled it.
9. Check the DeFlock map.
The shared DeFlock map can help identify mapped camera locations and clusters.
Treat it as one evidence layer.
If mapping updates require physical verification, follow DeFlock’s current rules.
10. Check local news.
Local reporting may identify:
- installation dates;
- police claims about results;
- public controversy;
- lawsuits;
- expansion;
- grants;
- or quotes from officials.
Then trace important claims back to primary records whenever possible.
11. Identify the decision makers.
Who actually controls the next decision?
Possibilities include:
- city council;
- township board;
- mayor;
- purchasing department;
- police department;
- county commission;
- public-safety committee;
- or another body.
Do not spend weeks lobbying somebody who cannot change the contract.
12. Find the next decision or deadline.
This is the most important step.
Look for:
- contract expiration;
- automatic renewal;
- required nonrenewal notice;
- termination clause;
- budget approval;
- expansion vote;
- or pilot end date.
Deadlines beat interesting trivia.
A renewal window turns general concern into something residents can act on.
Use confidence levels.
As you research, label information:
Confirmed - supported by strong primary evidence.
Well supported - strong evidence exists, but a perfect controlling record may still be missing.
Reported - credible reporting, underlying record not yet obtained.
Research lead - worth checking, not ready to publish.
Unknown - we do not know.
Preserve the evidence.
For useful findings, record:
- source title;
- government body or publisher;
- date;
- direct URL;
- relevant page number if a PDF;
- what the source actually proves;
- and when you verified it.
If you download a public document, preserve the original file.
Watch for old information.
A 2024 transparency page can be accurate for 2024 and wrong today.
A contract may have been amended.
A policy may have changed.
A camera may have moved.
Dates are part of the evidence.
Vendor lists are leads, not local proof.
A national vendor page saying a feature exists does not prove your police department enabled it.
Keep capability and local use separate.
Build a simple timeline.
A local timeline can often make the campaign obvious:
2023 - pilot approved
2024 - cameras expanded
2025 - renewal approved
2026 - current payment appears
2027 - possible next expiration, pending contract confirmation
Do not fill missing dates with guesses.
Keep a list of unknowns.
Good research creates better questions.
Examples:
- What is the current executed agreement?
- When can the city stop renewal?
- Which agencies can search the data?
- Which products are active?
- What is the current retention setting?
- How often is the system used?
Those unknowns tell you whether a FOIA request is actually needed.
Decide whether FOIA is worth it.
File a request when the missing record is important and cannot reasonably be found publicly.
Do not file ten broad requests because research feels productive.
One current contract may be more useful than ten thousand pages of email.
If you hit a wall
Do not immediately assume a conspiracy.
Try:
- another search term;
- another official repository;
- a narrower request;
- asking the records coordinator to clarify;
- another agency that may hold the same record;
- a formal appeal where appropriate;
- another set of eyes from DeFlock Metro Detroit;
- wider DeFlock guidance when useful;
- qualified legal help when the issue genuinely warrants it.
Submit concise findings.
When you send research back, do not make the next person reread your entire browser history.
A useful finding looks like:
Redford Board minutes dated March 25, 2025 approve six Flock renewals, three additional Flock cameras and two Condor cameras for $41,550. Motion 25:056. Source: [link]. The executed current agreement remains missing.
That is actionable.
See why Redford’s Condor cameras should be tracked separately—and as part of the connected system →
The point of research
Research is not about proving what we already believe.
It is about making the local decision visible.
The cameras may be easy to see.
The contracts, deadlines and permissions behind them usually are not.
Make the decision visible. Then organize around it.