Police in Plymouth, Minnesota, physically disconnected the power to the city's Flock Safety cameras after the company did not promptly respond to instructions following a council vote to end the system's use. The step was intended to ensure the automated license-plate readers could no longer collect vehicle information while the equipment remained in place.
Plymouth's City Council voted on September 22 to discontinue the Flock program. Police Chief Eric Fadden said the city suspended all local user accounts the following morning and notified the company of the decision. Officials then sent a formal cancellation by email and US mail after consulting the city attorney's office. According to Fadden's account, the city received communication from a local representative but no reply from Flock's corporate or legal teams.
After more than a week without a substantive response, Fadden directed staff to unplug the cameras. The physical action gave the city a direct way to confirm the devices were neither operating nor recording plates, rather than relying on account controls or waiting for the vendor to remove them. The supplied report does not include a response from Flock about the delay.
The episode highlights a basic governance problem for cities that place networked surveillance equipment in public spaces: ending a service contract is not necessarily the same as immediately removing or disabling the hardware. Local authorities still need a clear process for controlling power, accounts, stored information and vendor access when a program ends. Plymouth's response addressed the operational question by cutting electricity to the devices.
Flock markets its units as automated license-plate readers, but the system can also identify vehicle characteristics such as make, model, color and visible markings. That wider capability has helped make the network useful to police while intensifying questions about the scope of vehicle tracking and how searches are authorized. Tom's Hardware reported that critics have pressed councils to remove the cameras on privacy grounds amid broader controversy around the technology.
A nearby Minnesota city, Dayton, had also paused its Flock program and disabled two devices, according to the same report. Dayton officials learned that replacement work was planned and instructed the company not to proceed, but the work reportedly went ahead. That separate dispute adds to scrutiny of how vendors execute local instructions once a municipality decides to pause or terminate a system.
Plymouth's action does not by itself resolve questions about equipment removal or any data already collected. It does show the city asserting immediate physical control over its infrastructure. For other municipalities using externally managed surveillance tools, the case underscores the need for contract-exit procedures that specify who disables devices, how quickly the work must occur and how officials can independently verify that collection has stopped.
