City Solutions Blog

Whether in campaign ads, city council meetings, demonstrations, or the news, Flock cameras have become one of the most talked-about public safety issues in Ohio.

Flock Safety’s cameras are a type of automated license plate recognition (ALPR) system. They capture images of license plates and use software to turn those images into searchable data that can help law enforcement identify vehicles connected to crimes and investigations.

Some of the controversy surrounds Flock specifically, while some of the discussion is about ALPR technology more broadly and the legitimate questions policymakers should address: how long information is retained, who can access it, when searches are permitted, whether information can be shared with other agencies, and what the appropriate penalties are for misuse.

Flock is a public safety tool, but the technology needs rules

The Ohio Mayors Alliance views ALPR technology as a legitimate investigative tool. In communities that use Flock, the cameras have helped locate missing children and vulnerable adults, recover stolen vehicles, and close violent crime cases that might otherwise have gone unsolved.

That value shows up in high-profile cases, as well as in crimes prevented behind the scenes. A camera network that deters an offender does not generate a case number, but the crime it prevents provides a real benefit.

There should be clear rules and real penalties for misuse

What happens to the information collected by these cameras is an area where OMA mayors agree: misuse should carry clear, statewide consequences.

Mayors point to a model Ohio already has on the books: the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway, or OHLEG. State law establishes when and why law enforcement can access OHLEG data and provides penalties for improper access.

Mayors believe ALPR data deserves the same basic approach: clearly defined parameters for legitimate law enforcement use, meaningful restrictions on access and sharing, and real penalties when someone deliberately steps outside those rules.

Cities can establish their own policies governing retention and data sharing, but cities cannot create a new statewide criminal penalty for misuse of ALPR data. That requires action by the General Assembly.

Ohio’s Attorney General Andy Wilson has proposed doing exactly that, calling for Flock misuse to be made a fifth-degree felony, comparable to unauthorized access to OHLEG, with surrender of a law enforcement badge attached.

Importantly, accountability for misuse does not require eliminating the underlying technology.

A flurry of legislative activity

Recently, lawmakers introduced a wave of bills addressing ALPR technology, with proposals taking very different approaches to the same basic questions. One bill would restrict the commercial sale or sharing of ALPR data. Another would make it a fifth-degree felony to access, use, sell, or share captured surveillance data for non-law-enforcement purposes. A third would require ALPR data to be deleted within 10 days, restrict sharing, and mandate regular audits and reporting.

Other proposals go further. One would impose a one-year moratorium on ALPR use; another would prohibit most government use of the technology outright, preserving only narrow exceptions such as a warrant.

The distinction is important because the key disagreement is about who gets to decide whether to use the technology.

The two most restrictive proposals — the moratorium in HB 1011 and the prohibition in HB 1010 — expressly characterize regulation of ALPR systems, mass-surveillance technology, and the data those systems generate as a matter of statewide concern requiring uniform laws throughout Ohio. In other words, the bills treat this as a question for the state to answer, not the community.

Guardrails, yes. State-mandated deployment decisions, no.

OMA’s position is that the state should establish clear rules for how ALPR technology and the data it generates may be used, while locally elected officials should retain the authority to decide whether their communities deploy the technology in the first place.

Communities naturally reach different conclusions based on local circumstances. Some Ohio cities have paused or ended their programs following misuse concerns, others have added restrictions and oversight while continuing operations, and several have maintained programs with updated recordkeeping safeguards.

OMA supports statewide parameters on misuse and accountability. It does not support a one-size-fits-all dictate on whether individual communities may use this technology at all. That decision belongs with locally elected officials, who answer directly to the residents affected by it, and the authority of Ohio cities to do so should be protected.

Avoiding Déjà Vu

Ohio has been here before.

For more than a decade, the General Assembly and Ohio’s cities fought over automated traffic enforcement cameras, another technology that sits at the intersection of public safety and local authority. The state tried repeatedly to restrict or override cities’ ability to operate them, and cities pushed back on Home Rule grounds.

Resolving the issue required years of litigation and multiple Ohio Supreme Court rulings. Ultimately, the court affirmed that cities retain constitutional authority over deployment decisions, while the state may set procedural requirements.

That precedent is the model OMA asks the state to consider for ALPR technology.

The state should establish clear statewide accountability by defining appropriate law enforcement uses and penalties for misuse, much as Ohio already does with OHLEG. However, the decision of whether and how a community uses the technology should remain with its locally elected officials who are closest to that community. 

Ohio does not need another decade of Home Rule litigation to arrive at a conclusion it has already reached once. OMA mayors would rather get there by agreement now than by lawsuit later.