Quick Answer: When Flock Safety ignored a contract cancellation, Plymouth, Minnesota police chief Eric Fadden had staff disconnect the power cords on the city's cameras. To remove Flock cameras, a city needs a formal written cancellation, a removal plan with deadlines, and physical control of the hardware. A council vote alone doesn't turn the cameras off.
Cancelling a surveillance contract should be the end of the story. In Plymouth, it became the start of a standoff. The city council voted unanimously in September to end its Flock contract, sent formal cancellation notices, and then waited for the company to respond. The cameras stayed on their poles and kept reading plates. If you want to remove Flock cameras from your own city, this story shows exactly where the friction lies.
What Happened in Plymouth After the Council Vote
According to Tom's Hardware, which cited reporting from The Drive, the sequence ran like this:
- September 22: The council voted to discontinue its use of Flock automated license plate readers (ALPRs).
- September 23, morning: Staff suspended every Plymouth user account and notified Flock Safety of the decision.
- After consulting the City Attorney's Office: The city sent a formal cancellation letter by US Mail and email.
- The following week: Flock's corporate and legal teams didn't reply. The only contact was with the company's local representative.
- More than a week later: Chief Fadden directed staff to physically disconnect the cameras.
Fadden's explanation was blunt. He wanted to be sure the cameras were "not functioning or recording plates." That's a reasonable goal for any city that has already voted to stop surveillance. It's also a goal that software alone couldn't guarantee.
Why Suspending Accounts Doesn't Stop the Hardware
Most people assume cancellation is the finish line. In practice, it's only the handoff. Suspending a user account cuts off who can log in and search the system, but it doesn't prove that the camera hardware has stopped capturing images. Those are two separate control points, and only one of them sits on your side of the contract.
Here's the cause-and-effect chain that catches cities off guard. When the vendor controls the hardware and the network, a cancelled account only shuts the door on your staff. If the vendor doesn't act, the cameras keep running with the city's money already spent and the city's authority already withdrawn. That's the gap Plymouth closed with a pair of unplugged power cords.
The source doesn't say who owns the physical units or what the contract says about removal. Those terms decide how much leverage your city has, so read them before you vote. Here's the question worth asking your city attorney first: if the vendor stops responding, who is responsible for turning the devices off?
Why Flock Stayed Silent, and What Critics Read Into It
Tom's Hardware offered a plausible reading of the company's behavior. Removing cameras shrinks Flock's coverage area and costs labor to uninstall. Leaving them in place costs the company essentially nothing. Flock hasn't publicly explained its silence, so this is analysis, not a confirmed motive. But it fits the pattern: the vendor's incentives favor keeping hardware installed.
The table below compares the options a city has when it wants out. None of these actions is complete on its own.
| Action | What It Controls | Speed in Plymouth's Case | Key Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspend user accounts | Which staff can log in and search | Same day (September 23) | Hardware can keep running |
| Formal written cancellation | Contractual end of service | No reply after more than a week | Vendor can ignore it |
| Physically disconnect power | Whether devices can capture images | Done after the week of silence | Requires staff time and physical access |
| Legal action | Enforcement of contract terms | Not used; a commenter noted it would take time | Slow, and the outcome isn't guaranteed |
Each row addresses a different layer. Account suspension limits your staff's access. Written cancellation creates a record. Power disconnection stops capture. Legal action is the only tool that compels the vendor, and it's the slowest.
The Controversies Behind the Cancellation
Plymouth didn't act in a vacuum. The source lists a string of problems that have hit Flock in recent months:
- Officers were arrested for misusing the system.
- A car reviewer was mistakenly "ambushed" by Plymouth City Police in Minnesota because of an administrative error made in California.
- Reports describe motorists pulled over after an AI algorithm flagged their travel history as "suspicious."
- More than 300,000 Flock cameras are installed nationwide.
The capability question matters most. Many people still picture ALPRs as devices that read plates and nothing else. The source says Flock's system goes further, using AI to identify vehicles by stickers, paint color, and make and model. That's why critics frame the debate around ALPR privacy concerns rather than simple plate reading. A camera that can match a vehicle without a visible plate raises a different set of questions than one that only logs plate numbers.
Here's where it gets uncomfortable. The more a system can infer, the more a mistake costs. A single administrative error, like the one behind the Plymouth "ambush," can send an officer to the wrong car on the strength of data that looked authoritative.
Dayton Shows the Problem Isn't Limited to One City
Dayton, Minnesota, about 10 miles north of Plymouth, also paused its Flock program and disabled its two devices in the area. The sequence there is the one that should worry any city with a Flock contract. Dayton police told Flock not to proceed with a replacement work order. Flock moved ahead with the replacement anyway, according to the source.
The lesson is operational, not just legal. A verbal instruction or a single email can get lost once a vendor's installation crews are scheduled. Put every hold in writing, name a specific contact who must confirm it, and check the site after any scheduled work. Otherwise your instructions only exist on paper.
How to Remove Flock Cameras Without Getting Stuck
Here's the sequence that addresses the failures Plymouth and Dayton ran into. Treat it as a checklist to adapt with your city attorney, because state law and contract terms vary.
- Put removal in the vote. Include explicit language on decommissioning, hardware return or removal, and a deadline. A vote that says "discontinue use" leaves the physical question open.
- Send cancellation by two channels. Plymouth used mail and email, which created a dated record. Copy the vendor's local representative and its legal contact if you can identify them.
- Suspend accounts the same day. This blocks staff access immediately, and it's the fastest step you control.
- Set a response deadline and an escalation point. Plymouth waited more than a week before acting. Decide in advance how long you'll wait and what you'll do next, so you aren't improvising under pressure.
- Plan the physical step. If the vendor doesn't respond, you need staff, access, and a documented process for disconnecting or securing each device. Photograph each unit before and after.
- Document everything. Keep a log of every contact, reply, and missed deadline. This record supports any later legal action.
Most guides stop at step one. The vote feels like the victory, but the cameras only stop when someone with physical access acts. That's the part practitioners often learn the hard way.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Flock camera?
Flock cameras are fixed devices made by Flock Safety, used mainly by police and local agencies. They're marketed as automated license plate readers, but the source says they also use AI to identify vehicles by stickers, paint color, and make and model. More than 300,000 are installed across the United States.
How do I remove Flock cameras from my city?
Start with a council vote that includes removal and decommissioning terms. Send a written cancellation by mail and email, suspend all user accounts the same day, and set a deadline for vendor response. If the vendor stays silent, your staff should physically disconnect the devices and document each step.
Why did Plymouth disconnect the cameras instead of waiting for Flock?
Plymouth had voted to end the contract and notified the company, but it got no reply for more than a week. Police Chief Eric Fadden wanted assurance that the cameras weren't recording plates. Physical disconnection was the only step the city fully controlled.
Does suspending a Flock account stop a camera from recording?
Not necessarily. Suspending an account blocks user access to the system, but it doesn't prove the hardware has stopped capturing data. That's why Plymouth went further and unplugged the devices.
Stop Treating the Vote as the Finish Line
The most actionable takeaway is this: a council vote ends a contract on paper, but only physical control and written follow-through turn the cameras off. If you're trying to remove Flock cameras, plan for the vendor who doesn't answer before the vote happens. Pass this along to a council member or city attorney dealing with a Flock contract this month, and ask one question first: who physically turns the cameras off if the company goes quiet?