Documented Incident
Upper Arlington Council Debates Warrant Rules for Flock Camera Searches, Adjourns Without Vote
First reported: October 13, 2026 · 4 sources
Upper Arlington, Ohio, City Council spent close to two hours on a Monday night debating proposed restrictions on how police may search data from the city's 20 Flock license plate reader cameras, then adjourned without voting. Draft Ordinance No. 38-2026, written by City Attorney Darren Shulman and Police Chief Keith Hall, would create a tiered system: queries of scans from the prior 48 hours without added oversight, supervisor or CIB approval for days three through eight, and a Mayor's Court magistrate or judge's approval under a probable-cause warrant standard for data nine or more days old. Police told council the cameras help solve crimes, while at least one resident objected to data collection and processing by a for-profit surveillance company. A city spokesperson said the discussion is expected to resume at the Nov. 9 council meeting.
The proposal would place judicial review between officers and older ALPR records in a state whose law exempts that data from public records disclosure and sets no comprehensive retention or search-authorization limits. How Upper Arlington resolves the question offers a template — or a cautionary example — for other communities weighing local rules in the absence of state guardrails.
Key facts
- Upper Arlington's Flock contract covers 20 cameras from 2024 through 2029 at $54,500 annually after the first year; the city can end it with 30 days' notice if funding isn't appropriated, but Flock could contest an early exit, potentially leaving roughly $50,000 owed per remaining year.
- The police division launched a Flock Camera Safety Transparency Portal in July publishing ALPR policies, usage statistics and privacy safeguards.
- Columbus suspended its 66-camera network in September and relieved an officer of duty after data showed more than 270 searches of one plate for non-official reasons; a Franklin County Sheriff's detective was fired the same month over Flock use to track a private citizen.
- Monroe's council voted unanimously in September to end its Flock contract and deactivate 23 cameras; a Sharonville police lieutenant was indicted on a fifth-degree felony unauthorized-computer-use charge over 29 reported personal searches — an indictment, not a conviction.
- Ohio Revised Code 149.43 exempts ALPR images and data from public records release; House Bill 725, introduced in March to limit commercial use and sale of ALPR data, remains a proposal.
Timeline
- October 13, 2026Upper Arlington Council Stalls on Flock Camera Rules as Privacy Fears Mount
- October 13, 2026Upper Arlington Weighs New Rules for Flock License Plate Cameras
Sources
This summary was written from the published reporting below and links to it; BlockFlockNow does not reproduce article text.
- Upper Arlington Council Stalls on Flock Camera Rules as Privacy Fears Mount (Hoodline, October 13, 2026)
- Upper Arlington City Council is considering new rules for the city's 20 Flock cameras (Headtopics, October 13, 2026)
- Upper Arlington City Council is considering new rules for the city's 20 Flock cameras (WSYX, October 13, 2026)
- Upper Arlington Weighs New Rules for Flock License Plate Cameras (Hoodline, October 13, 2026)
More from Ohio
Everything we have documented in Ohio, or search every Ohio article in the archive.
About this record
BlockFlockNow documents reported incidents involving Flock Safety cameras and automated license plate readers: council votes, contract decisions, misuse by authorized users, lawsuits, audits, and community response. Every record is reviewed by a person before publication. New to the topic? Start with What is Flock?, find meetings near you, or learn how to request your town's camera records.
Updated October 17, 2026. Corrections: blockflock@bytebunny.io. See all documented incidents or search the full article archive.