Which U.S. municipalities have publicly disabled or reviewed Flock Safety contracts after revelations of ICE access?
Executive summary
Municipal responses to revelations that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or other federal actors accessed Flock Safety license‑plate data have ranged from temporary suspensions and formal contract terminations to audits and council reviews; notable locales that publicly paused, revoked, reviewed, or ended Flock arrangements include Evanston (IL), Santa Cruz (CA), Woodburn (OR), Austin (TX), Denver (CO), and a scattering of other cities and towns reported nationwide [1] terminate-contract-with-flock/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Flock and its defenders counter that the company does not have a formal federal contract and that tools can be reconfigured — a point that local critics and oversight records dispute or find insufficient [7] [5].
1. Evanston: revoke, then controversy — a textbook of distrust
Evanston’s police department revoked out‑of‑state access to its Flock database after state auditors found at least seven searches tied to ICE, and the city moved to terminate the contract; critics later accused Flock of reinstalling cameras without local permission, forcing the city to cover cameras physically and issue a cease‑and‑desist, underscoring deep fractures between the company and municipal officials [1] [6] [8].
2. Santa Cruz: full termination after audits and public pressure
Santa Cruz’s city council voted to terminate its contract with Flock after local audits and grassroots group analyses showed thousands of outside searches of area camera data on behalf of federal agencies; council debate documented police success using the tool but the prevailing political judgment was that civil‑liberties risk outweighed those benefits [2] [9] [7].
3. Woodburn, Oregon: temporary suspension pending review
Woodburn’s city council opted for a 60‑day suspension of Flock cameras to assess whether the system could be used for immigration enforcement, even though the local contract specified that Flock data be used for law enforcement only and listed immigration enforcement as prohibited — a pause reflecting municipal caution in the face of national reporting about “side‑door” federal searches [10] [3].
4. Austin, Denver and other cities that declined renewal or reconsidered contracts
Austin officials publicly refused to renew the city’s Flock contract amid constituent protests and council scrutiny, while Denver’s city council unanimously voted to terminate its agreement though the mayor later extended the contract temporarily; both moves were explicitly linked to revelations about immigration‑related searches in Flock audit logs and to pressure from civil‑liberties groups [1] [5] [6].
5. A wider pattern: dozens of municipalities reacted, but records and tallies diverge
Reporting and advocacy tallies vary: civil‑liberties groups have said roughly 30 municipalities canceled Flock contracts, and state‑level reporting catalogues cancellations across multiple states (Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Washington), while some industry spokespeople told reporters the number of cancellations is small relative to Flock’s footprint and that fewer than 20 departments had fully shuttered or paused programs at one point [7] [5] [6]. This variance reflects differing definitions (pause vs. termination), the speed of council actions, and instances where cities considered limits or audits rather than outright cancellations [7] [6].
6. What Flock says and the core dispute over federal access
Flock executives have repeatedly argued the company lacks a formal Department of Homeland Security contract, that its software can be customized to local policies, and that municipalities control sharing parameters; opponents point to audit logs, state reviews, and reporting showing thousands of searches performed on behalf of ICE or federal actors — evidence that local controls proven inadequate or circumvented in some places [7] [10] [8].
7. Takeaway: clear local impact, ambiguous national tally
Municipal action is concrete and documented in multiple high‑profile cases — Evanston’s revocation and dispute, Santa Cruz’s termination, Woodburn’s suspension, and Austin and Denver’s public rejections or reconsiderations are confirmed by local reporting and watchdog organizations — but the total national count depends on definitions and evolving local decisions, with reliable sources noting a cluster of cancellations while also reporting disagreement over how many contracts were ultimately severed or merely reviewed [1] [2] [3] [5] [6].