Flock surveillance contract

Thanked the city for limiting data access but urged seeking alternatives to Flock, noting the contract runs to 2029 and Flock retains a data license.

Read from the contract's license terms allowing Flock to share data on a 'good faith' basis and asked what Flock does with non-judicial ICE warrants; urged finding a different provider.

Asked the council to cancel the Flock contract, arguing tweaks cannot fix a system fundamentally designed for mass tracking.

Acknowledged the changes made but argued the 130 remaining agencies can still run off-the-books searches and that contract Section 5.3 leaves workarounds; urged cancellation.

Appealed to council members' values and asked whether informal searches, non-287G agencies, and federal access through local departments can be prevented; said only ending the contract ensures data protection.

A Shaker Heights resident and Forest Hill Church elder cited Shaker's post-guardrail data showing continued problematic searches and an ACLU report, urging cancellation.

Raised three technical concerns — encryption keys, shared AWS infrastructure, and AI accuracy — and asked the city to end, not amend, the contract.

Cited a 2021 California study finding only 0.05% of plate scans relevant to active investigations, arguing the civil-rights cost outweighs the crime-solving value.

Argued the cameras violate Fourth Amendment privacy rights by tracking movements without warrant or consent.

A community organizer who reframed the question — asking what infrastructure actually creates safety and what the $50,000 a year could build instead.

Asked the council to redirect the $50,000 a year toward a legal defense fund for immigrants, citing the federal cut-off of legal representation for unaccompanied children.

Cited a Plain Dealer report that Cleveland's Flock cameras were searched 2,000 times for immigration enforcement in 2025 and said the city should not continue with Flock.

Argued the question is not efficacy but what civil liberties are sacrificed, and pressed whether any of the 130 remaining agencies hold 287(g) agreements.

Spoke with Cleveland Heights for Immigrant Rights and Cleveland DSA, criticizing the council and warning of electoral consequences if the contract continues.

Spoke IN SUPPORT of the cameras, citing the Noble Food Deal homicide case where Flock data identified a suspect, and urged council to keep the system with its guardrails.

Warned that ALPR data can be used to track women crossing state lines for reproductive care, and urged cancellation of the contract.

Detailed Flock investors' ties to the Trump administration, arguing the data could feed the same enforcement apparatus residents fear.

A 53-year resident and prostate cancer survivor who supported both proclamations and urged council to keep the cameras for crime, trafficking, and missing-child cases while continuing to improve safeguards.

Argued the cameras make vulnerable community members less safe and urged cancellation, support for a legal defense fund, and the nine-point CHIR proposal.

Cited a June 25 Cleveland.com article showing 1,700 immigration-related searches of the city's Flock data and urged ending the contract.

Said the cameras make her feel less safe and urged the council and mayor to end the contract as soon as possible.

Challenged the audience to imagine their own movements logged in a searchable database and asked where the proof is that Flock delivers what it promises.