Why more Wisconsin communities are ending contracts with Flock license-plate cameras

# What happened

# Why officials are acting now Local decisions follow a string of developments documented by reporting and by court actions:

• Prosecuted misuse: Four Wisconsin officers have faced charges tied to improper Flock searches. Named cases include Josue Ayala (Milwaukee Police Department), Cristian Morales (Menasha PD), and former Kenosha County deputy Frank McGrath. Another officer, Tehrangi Chapman, who worked internal affairs, was charged for alleged misuse and is in court proceedings.

• Audit discoveries: Supervisors or audits have uncovered suspicious searches. McGrath was caught after an audit spotted problematic queries. In other places, open-records requests revealed audit logs and searches that departments had considered confidential.

• Hidden or unexpected capabilities: Police departments discovered analytic features that weren't clearly disclosed. For example, Oshkosh's police chief learned the cameras could produce heatmaps of vehicle movement after being told they could not. Investigative reporting has shown the cameras can also recognize human features, raising additional privacy worries.

# What the technology does Flock's cameras capture images of vehicles and license plates on public roadways. Law enforcement can search that data to trace where a vehicle has been. By late 2025, more than 5,000 agencies had contracts with Flock, creating a network of tens of thousands of cameras that can be queried together. Departments report using the system for serious crimes — carjacking, kidnapping, homicide, drug trafficking and gun violence — as well as for traffic enforcement and other local policing needs.

# Why trust broke down Trust deteriorated for several distinct reasons:

• Misuse by officers. Multiple confirmed misconduct cases involved officers using the system to track current or former partners or other non-investigative targets.

• Lack of transparency about features and data collection. Officials were surprised by capabilities like heatmapping and by the extent of data being collected.

• Data handling and commercial actions. At least one city reported Flock tried to sell traffic data it hadn't told the municipality it was collecting.

• Public scrutiny through records requests. Journalists and citizens increasingly used public-records avenues to obtain audit logs, forcing departments to confront internal uses that had been obscure.

# What communities are doing now Actions vary by place: covering cameras while contracts are reviewed, canceling contracts, or placing tighter restrictions and audits on access. Some law enforcement leaders who still see value in LPRs have nevertheless said they can no longer recommend Flock specifically because of how the company handled data and disclosures.

# What to watch next Expect more local votes and public-records disclosures. State-level responses are possible: officials have discussed statewide privacy or oversight solutions. Departments that keep LPRs are likely to adopt stricter access controls, more frequent audits, or different vendors.

# Bottom line