Flock Cameras in Loveland: What They See, What They Do and Why Some Communities Want Them Gone

lovelandoh.gov

If you have driven around Loveland in recent years, you may have noticed cameras mounted along roadways that look different from traditional traffic or security cameras. They are Flock Safety cameras, and they are already part of Loveland’s public-safety system.

The technology has become increasingly common across the country, but it has also become the subject of a growing national debate over privacy, surveillance and how law enforcement agencies use information collected by the cameras.

With that debate intensifying, what exactly are Flock cameras—and what do they do in Loveland?

What is a Flock camera?

Flock Safety cameras are automated license plate readers, commonly referred to as ALPRs. Rather than recording everything happening around them like a traditional video surveillance camera, the cameras are designed primarily to identify and record passing vehicles.

According to the City of Loveland, its Flock system creates what the city calls a vehicle "fingerprint." That fingerprint includes a vehicle's license plate, make, model, color and the number of times the vehicle has been detected.

Loveland Police Department says the cameras are intended to help officers identify vehicles connected to crimes and locate vehicles associated with missing persons or other alerts.

The city says the cameras do not use facial recognition, are not tied to personally identifiable information, are not used for traffic enforcement, and that the collected data is stored for 30 days before being automatically deleted.

The city's explanation of the system can be found on its Flock Safety Technology webpage.

How does the system work?

The cameras can be used in two primary ways. The first is real-time alerting. If a vehicle's license plate is associated with a stolen vehicle, a wanted person or certain missing-person alerts, officers can receive an alert when the vehicle passes a Flock camera. The second is retroactive investigation. If a crime occurs, investigators can search the database for vehicles matching information gathered during the investigation. For example, if witnesses report seeing a particular type or color of vehicle leaving a crime scene, investigators may be able to use Flock data to identify vehicles matching those characteristics.

Loveland Police describes this as a way to help investigators determine where a vehicle may have traveled after a crime occurred.

The cameras are not new to Loveland. The city's 2023 annual report said 10 Flock Safety automated license plate readers had been installed throughout the city. At that time, the city reported an average of approximately 145,000 vehicle detections in Loveland over a 30-day period. That number illustrates an important distinction about the technology: the system is not only recording vehicles suspected of crimes. It is capable of detecting ordinary vehicles as they travel through the city.

Why do police departments use them?

The argument in favor of Flock cameras is relatively straightforward: investigators have another source of evidence when trying to solve crimes.

Loveland's police department points to scenarios such as a missing senior citizen whose vehicle has left the area or a vehicle involved in a hit-and-run or property crime.

In one example provided by the city, a vehicle damaged more than $13,000 in city property and left the scene. Investigators had information about the vehicle's make, model and color. Flock data could potentially have helped identify the license plate quickly.

Supporters of the technology also argue that it can help police locate stolen vehicles and missing people without requiring officers to manually monitor hours of video footage.

Why are communities pushing back?

The national conversation surrounding Flock has changed significantly in 2026.

Privacy advocates and some elected officials argue that the technology creates a network capable of documenting people's movements even when those individuals have done nothing wrong. The concern isn't necessarily that a single camera knows who a person is. Instead, critics point to the ability to collect repeated vehicle sightings over time and potentially reconstruct where a vehicle has traveled.

There have also been documented cases of law-enforcement personnel misusing ALPR systems. Recent reporting has highlighted instances in which officers allegedly searched Flock databases for personal reasons, including one Georgia case in which an officer repeatedly searched for vehicles belonging to a former romantic partner and another officer. (WIRED)

Those incidents have intensified questions about who can access the information, why searches are conducted and what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse. Flock Safety has responded to the growing criticism by announcing additional privacy and accountability measures. Among the changes announced this year are shorter default data-retention periods, stronger auditing tools and requirements tying searches to specific case numbers. (AP News)

Some communities are canceling their Flock contracts

The debate has moved beyond public meetings and online discussions in some cities. More than 50 jurisdictions have ended their contracts with Flock, according to recent reporting, while other communities have rejected proposed installations or chosen not to renew existing agreements. (AP News)

In Texas, Kendall County recently voted not to renew its Flock contract after residents raised concerns about privacy and surveillance. A local petition opposing the technology reportedly collected more than 1,900 signatures. Law enforcement officials argued the cameras had been valuable investigative tools, but county commissioners ultimately decided that concerns about privacy and potential misuse outweighed the benefits. (Express News)

Other communities have taken different approaches.

Scottsdale, Arizona, is reviewing its Flock program rather than immediately eliminating it. City officials there are considering additional oversight and accountability measures, including audits and restrictions on how officers access the system. (Axios)

In Alabama, Gulf Shores officials have proposed a public "transparency portal" that would allow residents to monitor information about how the city's Flock cameras are being used. (Chron)

And in Florida, the state's transportation department recently ordered Flock and other ALPR cameras removed from state highways, citing concerns about privacy, accuracy and potential misuse. Several Florida communities have subsequently moved to discontinue their own programs. (Business Insider)

The response, therefore, has not been uniform. Some communities are eliminating the technology, some are reconsidering their contracts, and others are keeping the cameras while demanding stronger safeguards and greater transparency.

What does this mean for Loveland?

For now, Flock cameras remain part of Loveland's public-safety infrastructure.

The City of Loveland's published policy says information collected by the system is retained for 30 days and that the technology is not used for traffic enforcement or facial recognition. But as communities across the country reconsider how automated license plate readers should be used, questions about Loveland's system are likely to receive more attention.

The Loveland Daily has reached out to the City of Loveland for additional information about the city's current Flock program, including the cost of the cameras and any related maintenance and software expenses, and City Council action taken on approval of the cameras. We will update this article when the City of Loveland responds.