DE-FLOCK OLMSTED TOWNSHIP
A Case Against Authorizing Flock Safety Cameras
in Olmsted Township, Ohio
A Resident Brief for the Board of Trustees and Fiscal Officer
Trustees: Riley A. Alton, Tom Cole, and Roberto “Bob” Perez
Fiscal Officer: Brian Gillette
Prepared by Nathaniel French, Olmsted Township Resident
Submitted in advance of the Board of Trustees Meeting, May 20, 2026
7900 Fitch Road, Community Room, Olmsted Township, Ohio 44138
Disclaimer:
This document was prepared by a resident of Olmsted Township based on a review of records produced by Olmsted Township in response to Public Records Request 014-2026. Every factual claim is attributed to a specific document cited in the Source Documentation Appendix. Where the author draws conclusions or interpretations from those documents, those conclusions reflect the documentary record available at the time of writing and may not account for verbal communications, meetings not reflected in the produced records, or documents not included in the FOIA production. The author is not an attorney. Nothing in this document constitutes legal advice or a formal legal finding. This document is submitted in good faith as a civic communication to elected officials regarding matters of public concern under the First Amendment's Petition Clause.
This brief argues that the Olmsted Township Board of Trustees should invoke the 60-day no-penalty cancellation clause in the Flock Safety contract before a single camera is installed, exercising the explicit contractual right that exists at zero cost to taxpayers while the window remains open.
This argument rests on five points grounded in national evidence and in Olmsted Township’s own public records.
These governance failures exist alongside a national record of Flock Safety misuse that includes at least 14 criminally charged officers [13], documented federal access without authorization [19], 51 hardware security vulnerabilities [11], and a wrongful detention case one hour from our community [24] . More than 30 cities have already canceled Flock contracts [18].. The Olmsted Township Trustees have the opportunity to make this decision before any of those consequences become local.
Sources in this section are drawn from Olmsted Township’s Public Records Request 014-2026 unless otherwise noted.
The Flock Safety contract did not arrive before this Board through normal public procurement. It arrived through four and a half years of persistent vendor pressure on the Police Department, a period of unauthorized software access that created a dependency the Township was then told it had to pay for, an artificial sales deadline that forced the administrator’s hand before the Trustees could act, and a governance process so compressed that the purchase order number on the signed contract simply said ‘TBD.’ Each of these facts is documented in the Township’s own records.
On January 21, 2021, Flock Safety sales representative Rick Lombardo presented to then-Chief Matthew Vanyo. Lombardo’s follow-up email was forwarded to the Trustees’ packet for the January 27, 2021 Board of Trustees meeting [35] . The January 27 meeting minutes record the event in five words: “Presentation: Flock Safety LPR Cameras, nice presentation.” [36]
No vote was taken. No contract was authorized. No MOU was approved. The item does not appear in New Business or Old Business. The Board heard the pitch and moved on. The Trustees present at that meeting were Jeanene Kress, Laurence Abbott, and Lisa Zver, a nearly completely different board from the one that approved the 2025 contract [36] .
Beginning in at least March 2023, Flock Safety Territory Sales Manager Logan Harrah began contacting Chief Mark Adam and Detective Howard Heathcoat directly [31] . Not a single Trustee was copied on these communications. Not the Township Administrator, not the Fiscal Officer. The elected governing body of Olmsted Township had no visibility into this relationship.
The email thread produced by the FOIA request documents at least nine separate contacts from Flock’s sales team between March and November 2023. They tell a clear story of a vendor who had been told, implicitly, that this was not a priority, and who kept calling anyway.
The Documented Sales Contacts: In Flock’s Own Words
March 23, 2023: Harrah emails Chief Adam and Detective Heathcoat following a call: “Thanks for jumping on today’s call! I have provided the updated map link below for Olmsted Township only, I believe these are the 3 locations you’d like to start with but please advise if I am wrong. When would you folks like to move forward in assessing this purchase?” [31]
March 28, 2023: No reply. Harrah follows up to Chief Adam: “I just left you a voicemail as I wanted to get an idea of when you might be interested in moving forward with Flock Safety. I am happy to provide a quote whenever you are ready.” [31]
April 10, 2023: Still no meaningful reply. Harrah again: “Would either of you be able to give me a call this week to provide an update?” [31]
May 17, 2023: Harrah continues contact even though there is no response documented in produced records. “Sorry to be a pest here, but I just would like to have an idea of when you want to start considering Flock Safety LPRs. Would anyone be able to notify me when a good time to follow up is? It seems as though it’s not a priority at this moment” [31]
July 28, 2023: Harrah pivots to success stories: “Hello, just wanted to send over a couple recent Ohio success stories with Flock. Have a great weekend!” [31]
August 22, 2023: Harrah again: “Hope all is well gentlemen, forwarding over various types of crimes being solved in Ohio with the help of Flock Safety cameras, thanks for all that you and your team do for the community.” [31]
Flock’s own sales representative acknowledged in writing that he was being a “pest” and that the purchase was “not a priority.” but he continued anyway. None of this was visible to the elected Trustees.
By September 6, 2023, Harrah’s language had shifted in a way that, in hindsight, signals that a trial agreement had been established: “Flock cameras assist law enforcement all over Ohio and I would love to assist you folks in getting the technology as well. Please call me if you’re interested in keeping Flock into the new year.” [31]
The word “keeping” is key. This is no longer a sales pitch for something new; it is a retention pitch for something already in use. A Memorandum of Understanding for a 90-day trial had been executed with the Police Department. According to the records provided in the FOIA request, no Trustee appears to have authorized it, and no Trustee appears to have known about it until Gary Yelenosky’s September 9, 2025, email, two years later. [32]
Gary Yelenosky’s September 9, 2025, email to all three Trustees states plainly: “According to Detective Heathcoat, the Township has had access to the Flock software for the past two years, despite originally being granted only a 90-day trial (through a Memorandum of Understanding). To continue our access, the Township must purchase at least one LPR unit.” [32]
This single sentence contains the entire story of how this contract was created. The department had been using Flock’s proprietary surveillance software for (approximately) 21 months beyond its authorized trial period. No Trustee votes authorized that continuation, no budget line supported it, and when it was finally disclosed to the Board, it was disclosed not as a problem to correct, but as a justification to buy.
What kind of company allows multiple years of unauthorized access?
Our Community deserves an answer for this. Flock Safety’s standard business practice, documented in multiple jurisdictions, is to establish trial access, allow the trial to expire, continue access informally to build dependency, and then present the bill. This is not a system malfunction or clerical error. This is the business model.
Allowing a police department to operate a surveillance network that monitors an entire community for two years beyond its authorized period, without the knowledge of the elected governing body, without budget appropriation, without public notice, is not a courtesy extended to a valued partner... It is a calculated strategy to make cancellation feel like loss.
The Olmsted Township Police Department was using a surveillance system to collect data on local residents, their movements, their vehicles, their daily patterns, for two years without documented authorization from the Board. The Township’s elected officials did not know... The Township’s residents did not know.... But Flock knew.
On September 9, 2025, nearly two years after the trial expired, Gary Yelenosky emailed all three Trustees with the subject line “Flock Safety <> Recap, Pricing and Next Steps.” [32] The email disclosed the unauthorized access, presented Flock’s proposal, and included a critical deadline:
THE DEADLINE
“Installation fees ($650 per camera) will be waived if the contract is signed by September 26.” [32] . The Trustees’ next scheduled meeting after September 9 was September 18, leaving only eight days before the deadline. After the meeting on September 18, their next meeting was October 2, six days after the deadline would be passed.
The structure of this timeline is important. Flock’s artificial September 26 deadline made Trustee deliberation structurally impossible. The Board could meet on September 18, but not vote before the deadline. Their next meeting was on October 2, after the window closed. The only way to meet the deadline was for the administrator to act without waiting for the Board.
At the September 18 meeting, with Trustee Tom Cole excused and absent, Trustees Alton and Zver voted to table the Flock Camera Proposal. [33] No authorization was given. No contract was approved. Item B in New Business was recorded: “B Table: RA LZ Yes / Yes.” [33]
A tabled item is not an approved item. The proposal was tabled with no authority behind it.
Seven days after the Trustees tabled the proposal, and one day before Flock’s installation-fee-waiver deadline, Township Administrator Gary Yelenosky signed the Flock Safety Law Enforcement Agreement. [30] The signature page records:
Dan Haley, Flock’s Chief Legal Officer, countersigned the same day. The contract was legally executed, but the Trustees had not voted.
A purchase order number of “TBD” on an executed contract is evidence that no budget appropriation existed at the time of signing. Ohio Revised Code §5705.41(D) requires that the fiscal officer certify available funds before any contract obligating public money is executed. The contract was signed on September 25. Township employee Traci Dietrich added the item to Detective Heathcoat’s budget on December 20, 2025, nearly three months later. [39]
Fiscal Officer Brian Gillette was copied on the September 9 proposal email and present at the October 2 meeting. The specific question that should be answered on the public record: did he issue an ORC §5705.41(D) certificate before September 25? If not, then according to the ORC “Every such contract made without such a certificate shall be void, and no warrant shall be issued in payment of any amount due thereon.”
At the October 2, 2025, Board of Trustees meeting, Item D, “Flock Safety Law Enforcement Agreement Annual $12,500.00”, was approved unanimously. [34] The agenda was amended at the meeting itself to change the dollar figure from $24,500 to $12,500.
The contract had been legally binding for seven days. The same meeting adopted Resolution 104-2025, the Township’s Cybersecurity Policy under ORC §9.64 (HB 96), requiring standards for “access control, system security, data protection, incident response, employee training, and vendor management.” [34] . Independent security researchers had already documented 51 vulnerabilities in Flock hardware, including 22 with assigned federal CVE identifiers, and evidence that Flock credentials were being sold on Russian cybercrime forums. The same Board that adopted a vendor-management cybersecurity policy ratified a contract with a vendor whose documented security failures directly contradict that policy.
On October 28, 2025, Lieutenant Scott Sonneborn emailed Administrator Yelenosky: “I spoke with Detective Heathcoat this morning and he advised they had a zoom meeting with Flock on October 16th where they were confirming the locations of the cameras and he was introduced to the project managers. Additionally, he advised that all of our permits have been approved and finalized.” [22]
On February 27, 2026, Cuyahoga County Department of Public Works Senior Project Manager June Gauss emailed Charlie Frick, copying Gary Yelenosky and Detective Heathcoat, with seven formal plan deficiencies: [37]
“Our legal counsel is currently finalizing the permit language. This will be provided after plans are found acceptable.”, June L. Gauss, E.I., Senior Project Manager, Cuyahoga County Department of Public Works, February 27, 2026. [37]
As of the date this brief was prepared, no corrected plans or finalized permits appear in the Township’s records. Cameras legally cannot be installed until these deficiencies are resolved.
This is not the first time Flock has misrepresented permit status to a local government. In Illinois, an IDOT official documented Flock submitting error-filled permit applications and threatening to send “about 30 police chiefs” to pressure DOT staff. [27] In Cambridge, Massachusetts, Flock installed cameras without authorization. In Eugene, Oregon, Flock reactivated a camera after the city ordered it disabled, the city found out only because a community member tipped them off. [38] [39] In Riverside County, California, 538+ cameras operated under three permits issued to the wrong permittee. [26]
Misrepresenting permit status to Olmsted Township while proposing to place cameras on locations not in the Township is consistent with Flock’s documented national conduct.
The signed contract contains the following language under the heading PROJECT PROVE IT: “Customer will have a 60 day opt-out period (‘Opt-Out Period’) after implementation of the first Flock Hardware to terminate this Agreement without penalty or fees. After the Opt-Out Period, Customer may not terminate the Agreement, and Customer will pay any invoice(s) for the remainder of the Term, Net 30.” [30]
No cameras have been installed in Olmsted Township, which means the opt-out period has not begun. The Township may cancel this contract immediately, before any hardware is installed, before any payment is made, at zero cost.
After the window closes, the contract auto-renews annually with only 30 days’ notice required to exit, with no cap on rate increases, and with the Township obligated to pay all remaining invoices for the full term if it attempts to cancel outside the opt-out period.
The question before this Board is simple: will you invoke the opt-out clause, while it costs nothing, or will you allow the first camera to be installed, start the 60-day clock, and risk being locked into a $24,500-per-year contract with no rate cap, auto-renewing indefinitely, for a vendor whose permit representations have already been contradicted by the County’s own engineers?
As of the date of this brief, no Flock Safety cameras have been installed in Olmsted Township. The Township Administrator confirmed this in May 2026. The Olmsted Township Police Department appears in Flock’s transparency portal as a network participant, meaning the data-sharing infrastructure is already anticipated [3], but no Township data is yet being collected.
The neighboring City of Olmsted Falls authorized its own Flock contract by Ordinance 14-2023 in April 2023, with cameras live since June 2023. [1] [2] Township residents who drive through Olmsted Falls are already being scanned by those cameras, and that data enters the same network the Township is preparing to join. Township residents do not vote for Olmsted Falls City Council. The democratic accountability for this Township’s participation in this surveillance network rests entirely with this Board and the Fiscal Officer.
The Trustees are not being asked to be the first board in Ohio to say no. Kent did. The decision is live, and the evidence has grown substantially since any neighboring jurisdiction made its choice.
Flock’s public messaging emphasizes that cameras only photograph rear plates, retain data for 30 days, and protect privacy. [28] Personal information, residents are told, is not captured.
At least 14 officers nationwide have been criminally charged for using Flock to track romantic partners, ex-partners, and private individuals. [13] These came to light through victim complaints, not internal audits.
Johnson County, Texas Sheriff’s Office ran two Flock searches with the note “had an abortion, search for female.” The second search probed 83,345 cameras nationwide. The woman had committed no crime. The case is now part of a federal congressional investigation. [16] Data captured by a camera in Olmsted Township can be queried in a search like this if statewide and nationwide lookup remain enabled in the Township’s contract settings.
Mountain View, California’s police chief shut down all 30 cameras after his own audit found the ATF, the Air Force (Langley AFB), and the GSA Inspector General had accessed city data without authorization. A ‘nationwide’ search setting had been enabled by Flock without the department’s permission. Over 250 unapproved agencies ran an estimated 600,000 searches. The city paid $154,650 before terminating. [19] [20]
Independent researcher Jon Gaines documented 51 security findings in November 2025, including 22 with assigned CVE identifiers. [11] Findings include a button sequence that opens an unsecured Wi-Fi access point, exposed USB ports allowing keyboard injection, hard-coded network names enabling man-in-the-middle attacks, cleartext credential transmission, and unencrypted image storage.
Approximately 60 Condor cameras were found streaming live video to the open internet without passwords, including footage of children at playgrounds and mental-health police calls. [9] [10]
Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Krishnamoorthi asked the FTC to investigate Flock for failing to require multi-factor authentication. [12] Stolen Flock credentials were being sold on Russian cybercrime forums. The DEA used a stolen officer password to run an immigration search without the officer’s knowledge.
This matters for Olmsted Township because Resolution 104-2025, the Township’s own Cybersecurity Policy adopted October 2, 2025, requires “standards for access control, system security, data protection... and vendor management.” [34] A vendor with 51 documented hardware vulnerabilities, credentials sold on criminal forums, and live footage exposed to the open internet does not meet a reasonable vendor-management standard under that policy.
In April 2024, Brandon Upchurch was driving his red Dodge Ram in Toledo, approximately one hour from Olmsted Township, when a Flock camera misread a 7 as a 2 on his plate and triggered a stolen-vehicle alert. [24] Police drew weapons. A K-9 bit his arm and threw him to the ground. His charges were dismissed. A federal judge approved a $35,000 settlement, paid by taxpayers, characterizing the case as “Flock Flocked up.” Upchurch lost two jobs, sold his truck, and was evicted.
Flock declines to publish specific error rates. [25] An independent IPVM test found roughly 10% state misreads. [40] With 100,000 cameras scanning 20 billion plates monthly, even a fractional error rate produces tens of millions of potential wrongful identifications (and potential arrests) per year.
Primary request: Invoke the Project Prove It opt-out clause immediately. Direct Chief Sonneborn to notify Flock Safety that the Township is exercising its contractual right to terminate without penalty. No cameras have been installed. No payment has been made. The cost to taxpayers of this action is zero.
Secondary request: Before considering any future surveillance camera program, hold a formal public hearing with at least 30 days’ advance notice.
Request regarding permits: Confirm in a public statement whether the Cuyahoga County Department of Public Works has issued finalized permits for all proposed camera locations, and whether any proposed locations have been confirmed to be within Olmsted Township boundaries.
Source Documentation Appendix
Sources 1 -29 are external public sources. Sources 30 - 39 are documents produced by Olmsted Township in response to Public Records Request 014-2026, filed by Nathaniel French. All FOIA documents are available upon request.
[1] City of Olmsted Falls: 2023 Legislation Index (Ord. 14-2023)
City of Olmsted Falls (official): 2023
URL: https://www.olmstedfalls.org/departments/legislation_-_2023.php
Official municipal record: Flock contract adopted April 11, 2023. Establishes date of authorization for the Falls Flock contract.
[2] Flock camera alerts Olmsted Falls police of person with felony warrant
Cleveland 19 News (WOIO): October 4, 2025
Confirms Olmsted Falls cameras went live June 2023. Documents the strongest pro-Flock anecdote the community will hear.
[3] Bellefontaine OH PD Flock Transparency Portal: Network List
Flock Safety: Continuously updated
URL: https://transparency.flocksafety.com/bellefontaine-oh-pd
Documents "Olmsted Falls OH PD" and "Olmsted Township OH PD" listed alongside Ohio AG's Office, OBCI, BMV, OSHP, and hundreds of other agencies.
[4] Central Ohio police departments have spent nearly $2 million on Flock license plate cameras
WOSU Public Media: April 28, 2026
305 Flock cameras across 15 Franklin County departments. ACLU Ohio: Ohio's ALPR environment is "the Wild West." Kent is the only Ohio city to have outright rejected a full Flock contract.
[5] Kent City Council rejects video surveillance contract with Flock
The Portager: November 10, 2025
URL: https://theportager.com/kent-city-council-rejects-video-surveillance-contract-with-flock/
Kent City Council formally rejected a Flock contract after extended community debate. The Ohio precedent for rejection.
[6] Flock Safety: Wikipedia (compiled reporting on capabilities and scale)
Wikipedia: Continuously updated, accessed 2026
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flock_Safety
"Vehicle fingerprint" capture, 5,000+ communities in 49 states, ~20 billion vehicle scans/month, Raven "human distress" product, EFF characterization of Nova as "dystopian panopticon."
[7] License Plate Reader Company Flock Is Building a Massive People Lookup Tool, Leak Shows
Penn State Digital Shred summarizing 404 Media (Joseph Cox): May 14, 2025
Leaked Flock Slack messages reveal Nova integrates plate data with up to 20 commercial sources to "jump from LPR to person" and surface relatives and associations.
[8] Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance
ACLU (national): October 17, 2025
URL: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup
Flock's integration into commercial data brokers, "jump from LPR to person" design, Palantir integration. Flock's claim of not collecting PII was never accurate.
[9] Douglas County's Flock camera compromised as company leaves it exposed on internet
9News Denver (KUSA): December 23, 2025
~60 Flock Condor PTZ cameras streaming live to open internet without password. Condor tracks people, not just license plates.
[10] Flock camera captured kids on a playground. A security failure exposed them online
Straight Arrow News (SAN): December 22, 2025
Children at a playground among live feeds visible without login. Researcher could perform administrative tasks and delete videos through the unsecured interface.
[11] Critical Security Vulnerabilities Exposed in Flock Safety Surveillance Cameras
Info by Matt Cole (analyzing Jon Gaines's white paper): December 11, 2025
51 distinct security findings, 22 with assigned CVE identifiers. Defense-attorney implications for chain-of-custody integrity of Flock-derived evidence.
[12] Lawmakers say stolen police logins are exposing Flock surveillance cameras to hackers
TechCrunch: November 3, 2025
Senators Wyden and Krishnamoorthi asked FTC to investigate Flock for failing to require MFA. Stolen Flock logins sold on Russian cybercrime forums. DEA used stolen officer password to run immigration search.
[13] Police Have Reportedly Used License Plate Readers to Stalk Romantic Interests at Least 14 Times
Institute for Justice (Plate Privacy Project): April 2026
At least 14 cases: Sedgwick KS (Chief Nygaard), Costa Mesa CA, Riverside CA, Orange City FL, Shelby County TN. Nearly all came to light through victim complaints, not internal audits.
[14] How Police Cameras Are Open to Officer's Abuse
The Marshall Project: March 7, 2026
URL: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2026/03/07/police-camera-wisconsin-california-colorado
Milwaukee Officer Josue Ayala criminally charged. Flock spokesperson acknowledged misuse cases. At least 30 cities canceled in first two months of 2026.
Lookout Santa Cruz: December 3, 2025
Braselton, GA Police Chief Ralph Steffman arrested on stalking/harassment charges. His Flock searches reached Capitola, California.
Electronic Frontier Foundation: October 2025
Johnson County TX Sheriff ran searches logged "had an abortion, search for female." Second search: 83,345 cameras nationwide. Woman could not be charged. Now part of federal congressional investigation.
[17] EFF's Investigations Expose Flock Safety's Surveillance Abuses: 2025 in Review
Electronic Frontier Foundation: January 2, 2026
12+ million Flock searches by 3,900+ agencies, December 2024–October 2025. Hundreds of searches related to political demonstrations. Formal congressional investigation launched.
[18] Why some cities are canceling Flock license plate reader contracts
NPR (Martin Kaste): February 17, 2026
"At least 30 localities" have deactivated or canceled since start of 2025. CEO Garrett Langley admitted Flock's prior denials of federal contracts were inaccurate.
[19] City Council Terminates ALPR Contract with Flock Safety
City of Mountain View, California (official): February 25, 2026
URL: https://www.mountainview.gov/Home/Components/News/News/1211/284
Unanimous Feb. 24, 2026 vote to terminate. Police Chief Mike Canfield shut all 30 cameras Feb. 2 after audit revealed ATF, Air Force, and GSA Inspector General accessed city data without authorization.
[20] City Council terminates Mountain View's license plate camera contract
Mountain View Voice: February 25, 2026
Public comment ran ~90 minutes. 250+ unapproved agencies ran ~600,000 searches over 17 months. Mountain View had paid $154,650 before terminating.
[21] Flock police cameras scan billions per month, sparking protests
NBC News: November 1, 2025
Cross-political-spectrum opposition. Jay Hill (conservative factory worker, TN): "It really is a tracking system for law-abiding citizens." ~75% of Flock agencies opt into the live national database.
[22] The Flock Rebellion: Cities Pull the Plug on License Plate Surveillance
State of Surveillance: February 2026
URL: https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/flock-safety-rebellion-cities-canceling-federal-access-2026/
Comprehensive cancellation list: Bend OR, Eugene OR, Flagstaff AZ, Cambridge MA, Mountain View CA, Staunton VA, and others. Mountain View Police Chief Canfield cited "false assurances about data sharing limits."
[23] Eugene cancels contract with Flock cameras over privacy, data concerns
KOIN-TV6 Portland: December 7, 2025
Eugene PD: "vulnerabilities and limitations that raise concerns about the system's ability to meet EPD's operational needs." Cancellation came after Flock reactivated a deactivated camera without authorization.
[24] The $7.5 Billion Death Trap: How Flock Safety's Glitches Are Ruining Innocent People's Lives
Gadget Review: March 18, 2026
URL: https://www.gadgetreview.com/when-smart-cameras-flock-up-the-35000-cost-of-one-misread-license-plate
Brandon Upchurch, Toledo, Ohio: Flock misread 7 as 2, K-9 attack, $35,000 settlement. Federal judge: "Flock Flocked up." IPVM test: ~10% state misreads.
[25] Dodge Ram License Plate Misread by Flock AI Leads to Shocking Police Dog Attack
MotorBiscuit: March 14, 2026
Independent confirmation of the Toledo Upchurch case. Flock declined to disclose specific misread rates.
[26] No Permit, No Problem: Riverside County's 500+ Unauthorized Surveillance Cameras
Have I Been Flocked?: March 30, 2026
URL: https://haveibeenflocked.com/news/riverside-permits
Only 3 encroachment permits for 500+ cameras. Permits listed Flock as applicant, not the Sheriff. One permit lapsed 13 months while cameras continued operating.
[27] Flock installed LPRs without permits and has now been banned from operating in two states
Quartz: 2024
URL: https://qz.com/flock-ai-license-plate-surveillance-startup-cameras-per-1851294024
Illinois DOT documented repeated error-filled permit applications by Flock. Flock representative allegedly threatened to send "about 30 different police chiefs" to pressure IDOT staff.
[28] Is Flock Mass Surveillance? Here's What 30 Courts Decided
Flock Safety (corporate blog): February 26, 2026
URL: https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/does-flock-enable-mass-surveillance
Flock's marketing piece arguing the technology is not mass surveillance. Cited for balance: Flock's full official defense.
[29] Granger trustees approve Flock cameras
Akron.com: January 29, 2026
URL: https://www.akron.com/articles/granger-trustees-approve-flock-cameras/
Granger Township (Medina County, OH) Trustees approved Flock cameras. Trustee Teri Berry: "another tool in our tool box." Counter-precedent: a recent Ohio township that approved Flock.
# | Document | Produced File | Key Content |
[30] | Flock Safety Law Enforcement Agreement | Signed 9/25/2025 by Gary Yelenosky. PO: TBD. 60-day opt-out clause. Auto-renewal terms. $24,500 annual cost. | |
[31] | Flock Sales Emails 2023 (Logan Harrah) | March–November 2023 contacts to Chief Adam and Det. Heathcoat. "Sorry to be a pest" quote. No Trustees copied. | |
[32] | September 9, 2025 Proposal Email | Gary Yelenosky to all Trustees. Discloses 2-year unauthorized access. "To continue our access, must purchase at least one LPR unit." Sept 26 deadline. | |
[33] | September 18, 2025 Trustees Minutes | Flock Camera Proposal tabled. Tom Cole absent. Public Comment: N/A. No Flock authorization given. | |
[34] | October 2, 2025 Trustees Minutes | Flock contract approved 7 days after administrator signed. Agenda amended at meeting. Resolution 104-2025 Cybersecurity Policy also adopted. Public Comment: N/A. | |
[35] | January 21, 2021 Flock Follow-Up Email | Flock rep Rick Lombardo follows up with Chief Vanyo after in-person presentation. Materials forwarded to Trustees’ packet. | |
[36] | January 27, 2021 Trustees Minutes | Presentation: "Flock Safety LPR Cameras, nice presentation." No vote, no contract, no action. Trustees: Kress, Abbott, Zver. | |
[37] | CCDPW Review Comments | 02_County & Permitting/Email Review Comments on Flock Safety.pdf | June L. Gauss, Sr. PM, Cuyahoga County DPW, 2/27/2026. 7 deficiencies. Stearns Rd and Columbia Rd "do not appear to be in Olmsted Township." Permits not finalized. |
[38] | Project Prove It / Permit Status Email | Lt. Sonneborn to Yelenosky, 10/28/2025: Det. Heathcoat told "all permits have been approved and finalized." Directly contradicted by CCDPW letter [37]. | |
[39] | Budget Line Item Email | Traci Dietrich to Det. Heathcoat, 12/20/2025: "Thanks. I will add this to your budget." Contract signed September 25. Budget entry December 20. |