Subscribe!
Flock Cameras: A Sign of the Times on Roads Throughout the Land
Cranston says its 29 readers have helped locate 17 missing people and make more than 200 arrests. They find missing people, catch violent criminals, recover stolen cars—but Rhode Island is deciding whether the public-safety benefits outweigh the surveillance concerns.
by RINewsToday Team
Someone recently tried — and failed — to disable one of Cranston’s Flock Safety cameras.
The incident brought a national fight over automated license-plate readers home to Rhode Island. A few weeks ago, in Houston, four Flock camera poles were precisely sawed through and the equipment was placed on the ground. Cameras have also been damaged or cut down in New York, Connecticut, South Carolina and Georgia.
Whatever one thinks about the technology, vandalism is not a public-policy process. Rhode Island cities and towns are now having that policy argument in council chambers — and reaching very different conclusions.
The strongest local argument for keeping the cameras may be found in Cranston itself.
The city operates 29 Flock cameras at an annual cost of approximately $81,000, according to figures supplied by Police Chief Michael Winquist earlier this year. Since the program began, Cranston police say the cameras have helped officers locate 17 missing people, make 89 warrant arrests, 104 stolen-vehicle arrests and 28 stolen-property arrests. Police have also used them in homicide, drive-by shooting, carjacking and other major investigations.
Those are measurable results, not a general claim that the technology is merely “helpful.” They also build substantially on the results RINewsToday reported in January 2024, when Cranston extended its contract for five years.
What the cameras do
Flock cameras are automated license-plate readers, commonly called ALPRs. They photograph vehicles traveling past fixed locations and record such details as the plate, time, location, vehicle color, make and body style. Police can compare that information with a “hot list” of vehicles connected to a stolen-car report, missing or endangered person, wanted suspect or other investigation.
The cameras do not, by themselves, identify the driver or prove that the owner of a vehicle committed a crime. They produce a lead that officers must investigate. That distinction matters both when the system works and when it points police toward the wrong vehicle.
The speed can be extraordinary.
In Southington, Connecticut, police said a person left a suicide note and drove away. Officers entered the plate into Flock and received a camera hit about one minute later. They found the person at a storage facility before the threatened suicide and brought the individual to a hospital.
In Ohio this past weekend, authorities said a sheriff’s deputy used Flock data to identify a travel pattern involving a missing girl. An alert then helped officers find her in less than 30 minutes, along with an 18-year-old man who was allegedly carrying a loaded handgun.
In the Denver area last December, police credited a Flock alert with locating a stolen vehicle carrying a 14-month-old child before an AMBER Alert could be issued. The child was recovered in less than 10 minutes. Aurora’s police chief later told the PBS NewsHour that the technology saved the baby’s life.
Atlanta police also said license-plate readers helped them locate a stolen car with a 2-year-old girl in the back seat in under 15 minutes. The child was rescued and a suspect arrested. Police, however, identified the tool only as “license plate readers” and did not name the company that produced the hit. It is a dramatic example of ALPR technology.
Rhode Island’s patchwork of decisions
The ACLU of Rhode Island estimates that at least 295 Flock cameras are operating across the state and scanning more than 2.8 million vehicles a month, although it says the exact number is difficult to determine.
Rhode Island State Police has entered a three-year, approximately $597,000 contract for 39 cameras.
On July 27, the South Kingstown Town Council voted 5-0 to terminate its Flock contract and requested that seven cameras be removed. As of the following day, the cameras had not been physically taken down; they remained on their poles, but had been deactivated.
Warren and Portsmouth rejected requests to allow State Police Flock cameras in their communities.
Little Compton did not move forward with a proposed installation.
Tiverton, by contrast, approved four cameras, subject to legal review and the addition of a contract-termination clause.
Narragansett, which had four cameras in operation, voted unanimously at last night (Aug. 3) meeting to pay a penalty to break their contract with the camera company and end if now, regardless of the local police chief speaking to its benefits. One member sited the “low crime” flavor of the town. discuss and potentially act on its contract this week.
These communities have not all taken the same action. Some rejected proposed installations. South Kingstown voted to end an existing contract, but its deactivated cameras had not yet been removed. Other municipalities continue to use and expand the technology.
The map of the network
A searchable network spanning communities is already somewhat in place – certainly so in Rhode Island.
The open-source DeFlock map plots known automated plate readers around the country. It is crowdsourced, includes brands other than Flock and should not be treated as an official or complete inventory. Eyes on Flock uses information from official Flock transparency portals to show participating agencies and some of their data-sharing relationships.
Together, those maps make the scale of the technology visible. A plate captured in one town may be searched by an agency a distance away, depending on the permissions and sharing arrangements selected by the participating departments.
Known automated license-plate reader locations in United States and in Rhode Island. Locations are crowdsourced and may be incomplete or outdated. Source: DeFlock/OpenStreetMap contributors:
Critics are not only asking what the Cranston Police Department does with Cranston’s cameras. They are asking who else can search the data, for what purpose, for how long and with what oversight.
There are reasons for concern, and mistakes do happen. In Colorado, a woman was wrongly charged with stealing packages after a Flock-based lead pointed police toward the wrong vehicle. The charge was dropped after she produced evidence showing she could not have committed the crime.
A few other departments around the country have investigated officers accused of using plate-reader systems for personal or unauthorized searches.
Immigration enforcement has become another flashpoint. Flock says it does not provide direct system access to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and ended broad federal access to its national network. Investigations have nevertheless found instances in which federal agents sought information indirectly through local police departments. Flock says individual agencies control those local sharing decisions.
Changing camera companies does not necessarily disconnect a community from wider plate-reader networks. Flock, Motorola, Axon and Genetec maintain different systems, but police agencies can connect them through software integrations, common command-center platforms and direct information requests. Different brands may also check the same national and state hot lists. The important question is therefore not simply which company supplies the camera, but whether the contract allows outside searches, data exports, API connections or uploads to shared repositories.
Systems can talk to one another
Here are several ways the systems can “talk”:
| Connection | What happens |
|---|---|
| Common hot lists | Flock, Motorola/Vigilant, Axon and other readers may all compare plates against the same NCIC, AMBER Alert, stolen-vehicle and state police lists. Each system generates its own alert. |
| Same-vendor networks | Flock agencies can share within Flock; Motorola’s VehicleManager provides access to shared detections within its participating network. Those remain separate vendor databases. |
| Software integrations | APIs can send alerts and other information into police command-center platforms. Flock lists integrations with Motorola CommandCentral Aware, Axon Fusus and Genetec, among others. Flock’s API description |
| Third-party hubs | Genetec, for example, documents a plugin that can ingest Flock ALPR hits alongside information from other systems. Genetec documentation |
| Police-to-police requests | An officer can ask another department to search its system, even when the departments use different companies. An agency may also subscribe to more than one network. |
By the Numbers
From the RI ACLU, as of February of 2026:
Advocacy — and a real policy vacuum
The ACLU’s national “Get the Flock Out” toolkit is an advocacy campaign, not a neutral review of the technology. It calls the devices “creepy cameras” and supplies organizers with model resolutions and other material intended to persuade communities to cancel contracts or impose restrictions.
That language largely leaves out the documented recoveries, arrests and missing-person cases cited by police. But the campaign also points to a genuine Rhode Island problem: the state has no comprehensive law governing every municipal ALPR system.
State Police do have a written policy with meaningful limits. It generally requires deletion after 30 days, a case number and reason for each search, written approval before data are released, and quarterly audits. It prohibits use for routine traffic enforcement, civil fines and immigration-status enforcement.
Municipal policies and sharing settings, however, are not necessarily identical.
The choice therefore does not have to be unrestricted use or no cameras at all.
Salem, Massachusetts, offers one possible middle course. The city said Flock readers played a principal role in nearly every recent major investigation, including arrests connected to shootings, rapes, stabbings, armed robberies and the bombing of The Satanic Temple.
Salem nevertheless chose not to renew with Flock. It plans to replace the cameras with another ALPR system that city officials say will provide greater local control of the data.
Cambridge is another caution against oversimplifying the debate. The city shut off 16 Flock readers and terminated the contract after Flock technicians installed two additional cameras without the city’s knowledge. Cambridge called it a material breach of trust.
The city has expressed interest in considering a different plate-reader vendor, and in bringing back the technology, but perhaps with a different vendor.
The evidence says automated plate readers can work — sometimes with life-saving speed. Cranston’s results alone make a serious case for their value. The national network, the potential for misuse and the lack of a single statewide rulebook make the case for limits.
The central question for Rhode Island is no longer whether the cameras can solve crimes. It is whether the state can write enforceable rules strong enough to preserve that public-safety value while controlling who may search the system, what constitutes a legitimate search, how long information is retained and where the data may go.
That is a harder question than simply voting the cameras in or out. It is also the question Rhode Island now has to answer.