See the facts. Then make it easy to act.
Use these examples when someone says, "what's the harm?"
Misuse by officers
Personal searches, stalking cases, and sensitive investigations.
No warrant required. Any officer with system access can search a plate history without judicial oversight under current Texas law.
One officer ran his ex-girlfriend's plate 69 times, her mother's 24 times, and her father's 15 times over several months.
A police lieutenant used plate-reader data to track his estranged wife. In another case, a police chief searched his ex-girlfriend's plate 228 times over four months.
A deputy searched 83,345 cameras to locate a woman in an abortion investigation, while the public explanation described it as a welfare check.
Most misuse cases only surfaced after conduct became serious enough to trigger termination, arrest, litigation, or public records scrutiny.
False hits and dangerous stops
What happens when a plate reader gets it wrong.
San Francisco: Denise Green was pulled from her car at gunpoint after an ALPR misread one digit on her plate. The city paid $495,000 to settle.
Aurora, Colorado: a mother and children, including a 6-year-old, were forced at gunpoint to lie face down on hot pavement after a stolen motorcycle plate was mismatched to their vehicle. The city settled for $1.9 million.
Sherwood, Arkansas: a Flock camera misread a plate and officers detained an innocent couple at gunpoint while their six-week-old baby sat in the car.
Denver area: Chrisanna Elser received a court summons after Flock footage was cited as proof she stole a $25 package. She spent weeks proving her innocence before charges were dismissed.
Effectiveness claims deserve scrutiny
Vendor claims are not the same thing as public proof.
Flock says its cameras help solve 10% of U.S. crime, but that study was written by two Flock employees, and reporting later found a researcher raised concerns about its integrity.
A Journal of Experimental Criminology study found license plate reader patrols in crime hot spots generated no deterrent effect.
Independent Institute research found no meaningful correlation between ALPR deployment and stolen vehicle recoveries across 16 years of data.
Transparency and security failures
Access gaps, exposed systems, and policy failures.
Public records in one city showed 90 agencies listed in a portal, while 6,000+ actually had access.
An audit found 7,100 immigration-related searches where local policy prohibited that use.
Flock has faced reports of exposed credentials, exposed cameras, and a misconfigured demo site containing internal source code and a live ArcGIS admin API key.
In Evanston, Illinois, Flock reportedly reinstalled cameras after the city canceled its contract and ordered removal.
Bottom line: Denton residents should not have to accept vendor claims on faith. If the city keeps or expands ALPR surveillance, it should first publish the contract, retention settings, audit logs, sharing partners, usage counts, and camera-level activity.
Ask Denton officials to remove Flock cameras.
The most useful message is local, specific, and direct. Ask for removal or non-renewal, full transparency, and a public vote before any future ALPR expansion.
Not sure which district you're in?
Enter your address in the City of Denton district map below.
Map source: City of Denton GIS · Download PDF version
Contact City Council
Tell elected officials you oppose Flock cameras and want the contract ended or not renewed.
Open council pageSpeak at a meeting
Public comment shows this is a Denton issue, not only an online privacy debate.
Meeting infoFile a records request
Ask for contracts, retention settings, audit logs, sharing partners, and camera-level activity reports.
File a request