Flock Safety is an Atlanta-based private company, one of the largest automated license plate reader (ALPR) vendors in the United States. Their system uses AI to build what Flock calls "vehicle fingerprints": the ability to track a specific vehicle by make, model, color, and visual characteristics even when no plate is visible.

What Sterling contracted for, and what's installed. The original order form was signed February 27, 2025 by then-Chief Alex Chavira and covered 10 Falcon LPR cameras and 2 Condor PTZ cameras at $36,000 per year over a 2-year term, with a $12,000 Illinois Attorney General grant offsetting part of Year 1. It was approved as a line item in the police department's budget on April 21, 2025 (Ordinance No. 2025-04-14), with no standalone council vote and no public hearing. The word Flock appears nowhere on that agenda. Installation of the first 7 cameras began April 10, 2025, eleven days before the vote, and was completed April 24, three days after it. Chief Bartel's January 14, 2026 memo to the Council later described the contract as 18 cameras, 16 ALPR and 2 PTZ. At the June 15, 2026 study session, Chief Bartel told the Council that 11 Falcon LPR cameras are currently in service — fixed plate readers, not the live-video Condor model — with the Condor unit(s) not yet installed. We take that at face value; we're simply noting that the contracted scope grew over time.

Four public descriptions, four different numbers. The signed order form lists 12 cameras: 10 Falcon LPR units and 2 Condor PTZ units. Chief Bartel's January 14, 2026 memo describes the contract as 18 cameras, 16 ALPR and 2 PTZ. Shaw Local's reporting in February and June 2026 described the package as 15 ALPR cameras and 3 Condors. And the city's written answers to resident questions state that 11 cameras are in service, all Falcon LPR models, with the department approved for 18. Each figure may have a reasonable explanation, and we take the most recent statements at face value. But as of today, a resident reading the entire public record cannot say with confidence how many cameras Sterling is paying for, how many are authorized, or how many of each model will ultimately be installed. One published, verifiable list of every camera, its model, and its location would resolve all four numbers at once, and we ask the Council to direct staff to publish it.

The two camera types are meaningfully different. Falcon LPR cameras are fixed units that photograph every passing vehicle and log the plate, timestamp, location, and vehicle description. Condor PTZ cameras are live-streaming pan-tilt-zoom units with AI-assisted tracking — active video cameras, not plate readers. That distinction matters mainly for what comes next: if Sterling's remaining Condor unit is ever installed, we'd want it held to the same standards as everything else on this page.

The $36,000 annual Flock contract was embedded in the Sterling Police Department's budget and approved as part of the larger city budget on April 21, 2025 (Ordinance No. 2025-04-14). The word Flock appears nowhere on that agenda. There was no separate public hearing, no standalone council vote, and no public notice that a surveillance system of this nature was being considered. Installation of the first 7 cameras began April 10, 2025, eleven days before that vote, and was completed April 24, 2025, three days after it.

This is a documented pattern. In Verona, Wisconsin, which recently canceled, officials noted that residents were unaware of the cameras until just before auto-renewal, because the system was purchased through the police department's regular technology budget. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, the city council paused the cameras over privacy concerns. Flock then installed two additional cameras without the city's knowledge or authorization. The city terminated the contract, calling it a "material breach of our trust." In Evanston, Illinois, Flock reinstalled cameras without permission after the city ordered them removed, prompting the city to physically cover them with plastic sheeting.

The Sterling contract auto-renews unless Sterling gives Flock 30 days written notice before the end of the term. Residents deserve to know when that deadline falls, and whether there will be a standalone public vote before any renewal.

At the July 6, 2026 City Council meeting, the Police Department announced a new $12,000 Illinois Attorney General grant. The Chief confirmed the funds are for the Flock system. This is the second $12,000 grant supporting Sterling's Flock program, from the same office; the first was awarded in September 2025. That is $24,000 in grant funding toward a contract that costs $36,000 per year.

Per Shaw Local's July 15, 2026 reporting, the grant comes from the Illinois Attorney General's Organized Retail Crime Grant program, which funds police responses to retail theft and can pay for surveillance technology, officer training, and overtime for retail theft investigations. Shaw Local also reported that the first grant was used in 2025 to help defray the cost of the original Flock contract. Notably, the city has been notified of the award but has not yet received the acceptance letter or formally accepted it. Chief Bartel told the council, "We haven't accepted it yet but it is there." Because acceptance has not yet occurred, there is a natural opportunity for the Council to discuss the grant's intended use on the record before accepting it.

We want to be clear: outside funding for public safety is a good thing, and we thank the department for pursuing it. Our concern is process. Neither grant has come before the Council for a standalone vote, and at the July 6 meeting no Council member asked how the funds would be used.

Update: Chief Bartel reached out directly to clarify that the second grant will not be used to expand the camera network. He stated the funds are intended to fulfill obligations under the existing contract rather than add new cameras or capabilities. We appreciate the Chief taking the time to clarify this directly, and we take him at his word.

In a July 22, 2026 interview on Shaw Local Radio's Talk Line, Chief Bartel described how Sterling's cameras are used day to day. He said the cameras capture the vehicle, not the driver, and log only the plate, vehicle description, timestamp, and location. He said the system is not monitored continuously, and that alerts are limited to specific cases: missing or endangered persons, stolen vehicles, and warrants for serious felonies. "If you're not doing anything wrong, we could really care less," he said.

We take the Chief at his word about how the Sterling Police Department uses the system today. That has never been our question. Our question is about the more than 1,500 entities beyond Sterling PD that can search this data with nothing more than a case number, with no independent audit of those searches, and a documented pattern in other departments, detailed below, of officers using this exact kind of access to track people who were never the subject of a case number at all. A department's own stated practice, however well-intentioned, is not a guarantee about everywhere the data travels once it leaves Sterling.

These concerns have been raised in active federal litigation and by respected civil liberties organizations. Courts are divided. This is an honest summary of where the law stands.

This section is not a reflection on the Sterling Police Department, which I respect. It documents a structural problem: when a powerful tracking tool requires no warrant to use, misuse is not theoretical. It is documented across departments in multiple states, including Illinois.

An April 2026 study by the Institute for Justice found that police have used license plate readers to stalk romantic interests at least 21 times in recent years, a running count the Institute has continued to update. Additional cases have come to light since, including one close to home.

The Institute for Justice attorney identified the structural cause: "The fundamental problem with these systems is that they place private information about people's movements in the hands of every officer. Without the constitutional safeguard of a warrant requirement, that predictably allows officers to abuse their access."

Per Government Technology's reporting, 82 Flock contracts were terminated in 28 states between August 2021 and May 2026, and 39 of those cancellations came in the first five months of 2026 alone. The pace is accelerating. Illinois and Wisconsin are particularly relevant since Sterling shares camera data with agencies in both states. South Portland, Maine voted to terminate immediately on June 11, 2026. A councilor put it plainly: "It's a data retention problem. This is not a camera company, this is a data company."

In Denver, the City Council President said: "I had an apology email from the CEO of Flock because he lied to my face." Flock's CEO had told council members the company had no federal contracts, which public records disproved. In Verona, Wisconsin, Flock ignored demands to remove cameras for months after the contract was canceled. The city covered them in black plastic bags.

Two more communities are in motion as of late July 2026, at different stages, and we want to be precise about which. In Harrisonburg, Virginia, the City Council reached a decision on July 15 to end its Flock contract, with formal action expected in late July; no vote has been taken yet. A council member said plainly that "the safest thing to do is just not use it at all." In Binghamton, New York, legislation to end the city's Flock contract was proposed at the July 13 council meeting; it has not yet been voted on.

Los Angeles joined the list on July 11, 2026. The LAPD, the third largest police department in the country and one of Flock's biggest customers, declined to renew its three year contract. Its chief information officer said the contract was not renewed because of "serious concerns around civil liberties and civil rights issues" tied to the data the cameras collect. Days earlier, the department's Inspector General reported that roughly one in three stolen vehicle alerts from the cameras during a two month review period was a false hit on a driver whose vehicle was not stolen. To be precise about the status: this is a non renewal, and the LAPD is renegotiating with Flock for stronger terms.

Update, July 2026: At the July 15 Police Commission meeting, LAPD officials confirmed the specific terms they are negotiating: legal ownership of all collected license plate data would vest in the City of Los Angeles, Flock would be prohibited from sharing or commercially using that data, and civil financial penalties would apply if those terms were violated. A virtual public listening session is scheduled for July 30, 2026 so LA residents can weigh in before any new agreement is finalized. The relevant point for Sterling is this: a department with far more negotiating leverage than any small city concluded that Flock's standard terms could not protect its residents, paused the program until the data ownership and sharing terms change, and is holding a public session before signing anything new. That is the standard we believe Sterling's own vendor research should be held to.

The council didn't cancel the contract on June 15, but it didn't dismiss the concerns either — it directed staff to research other ALPR vendors. That research, and whatever decision follows, is the live opportunity. The cancellation deadline is March 30, 2027.