Two Minnesota cities have reported difficulties cancelling contracts with Flock Safety, with Plymouth’s police chief disconnecting cameras himself after hearing nothing for more than a week, and Dayton saying the company reinstalled cameras without authorisation after being told to stop.
Plymouth, Minnesota’s city council voted to terminate its contract with Flock Safety in September, but for over a month the cameras remained up and the city received no acknowledgment from the company, The Verge reported. Police Chief Eric Fadden told The Drive he directed staff to disconnect the power cords from the cameras “in order to be sure that they are not functioning or recording plates.”
About 20 miles away, Dayton, Minnesota, is having its own issues. The company acknowledged the city’s cancellation request and said it would take up to 60 days to remove the equipment, but later reconnected two cameras within the city limits without authorisation, and after a specific request from local police not to complete a maintenance work order. On September 17, 2026, the police department was made aware of a maintenance work order produced by Flock. The city notified Flock on September 18 that the program was on hold and no work orders were to be completed, but the direction was not followed and a camera was placed back into service without authorisation.
Flock spokesperson Andrew Smith told The Verge: “We are proud of the impact our technology has had in Plymouth. We respect the city’s decision and are working with the customer to have the cameras removed.”
The incidents follow a similar ordeal in Illinois, where the company refused to take down cameras and uncovered cameras at Elgin Community College after the administration sought to cancel its contract.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- Cities that decide to end Flock Safety contracts may face delays or unauthorised reactivation, raising questions about control over surveillance equipment.
- The incidents highlight potential challenges in municipal oversight of private automated license plate reader (ALPR) networks.
- Other local governments considering contract termination may need to plan for physical removal of equipment.
Background
Flock Safety sells automated license plate recognition cameras to law enforcement and community groups. As more cities review or cancel these contracts over privacy concerns, some have reported difficulties with the company’s response to termination requests.
Key Perspectives
Plymouth Police Chief Eric Fadden: After more than a week of no response from Flock, he directed staff to physically disconnect the cameras to ensure they were not functioning or recording plates.
Dayton, Minnesota, city officials: The company reconnected two cameras without authorisation after receiving a specific request not to complete any work orders while the program was on hold.
Flock spokesperson Andrew Smith: The company respects the city’s decision and is working with the customer to have the cameras removed. Smith also said they are proud of the impact the technology has had in Plymouth.
What to Watch
- Whether other cities report similar difficulties with Flock contract terminations.
- Potential regulatory or legislative responses at the state or local level regarding ALPR equipment removal procedures.
- Any legal action between the cities and Flock over unauthorised reactivation or contract disputes.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 11 supported.
Show each claim
- Partly supportedCities say Flock Safety ignores contract cancellations.The Verge: “Plymouth, Minnesota’s city council voted to terminate its contract with Flock in September, but failed to respond to the city’s request.”
- SupportedFlock reinstalled cameras without approval.The Verge: “Despite this, Flock reconnected two cameras within the city limits without authorization”
- SupportedPlymouth’s police chief physically disconnected cameras after more than a week without a response.The Verge: “So, Police Chief Eric Fadden took matters into his own hands and physically disconnected the cameras. “After hearing nothing for more than a week, I directed our staff to disconnect the power cords”
- SupportedDayton says the company reactivated cameras despite the city’s direction to halt work.The Verge: “The City notified Flock on September 18, 2026, that the program was on hold, and no work orders were to be completed. Unfortunately, the City’s direction was not followed, and the camera was placed back into service without authorization.”
- SupportedTwo Minnesota cities reported difficulties cancelling contracts with Flock Safety.The Verge: “Roughly 20 miles up the road, Dayton, Minnesota, is having its own issues with Flock.”
- SupportedPlymouth’s city council voted to terminate its Flock contract in September.The Verge: “Plymouth, Minnesota’s city council voted to terminate its contract with Flock in September”
- SupportedPlymouth’s cameras remained up for over a month, and the city received no acknowledgment from Flock.The Verge: “For over a month, the cameras remained up, and the city had received no acknowledgment from the company.”
- SupportedChief Eric Fadden directed staff to disconnect the cameras’ power cords to ensure they were not functioning or recording plates.The Verge: ““After hearing nothing for more than a week, I directed our staff to disconnect the power cords from the cameras in order to be sure that they are not functioning or recording plates,” Fadden told The Drive.”
- SupportedFlock acknowledged Dayton’s cancellation request and said removal could take up to 60 days.The Verge: “In this instance, the company acknowledged the city’s request and said it would take up to 60 days to remove the equipment.”
- SupportedFlock reconnected two Dayton cameras without authorization after local police specifically requested that it not complete the work order.The Verge: “Flock reconnected two cameras within the city limits without authorization, and following a specific request from the local police not to complete the work order.”
- SupportedThe police department learned of the maintenance work order on September 17, 2026, and the city told Flock on September 18 that the program was on hold and no work orders should be completed.The Verge: “On September 17, 2026, the Police Department was made aware of a maintenance work order produced by Flock. The City notified Flock on September 18, 2026, that the program was on hold, and no work orders were to be completed.”
- SupportedFlock spokesperson Andrew Smith said, “We are proud of the impact our technology has had in Plymouth. We respect the city’s decision and are working with the customer to have the cameras removed.”The Verge: “Flock spokesperson Andrew Smith told The Verge, “We are proud of the impact our technology has had in Plymouth. We respect the city’s decision and are working with the customer to have the cameras removed.””
