Residents Demand Pensacola End Police Contract with Flock Over Privacy, Misuse Concerns

Dozens of Pensacola residents told the City Council on Jan. 15 that the city should cancel a recently signed contract with Flock, an AI-powered license-plate–reading and vehicle-tracking vendor, saying the system threatens residents’ privacy and could be misused by federal agencies and local officers.

"This technology presents a serious risk to all of our privacy and civil liberties," said Sarah Brummet, a Pensacola resident, during the Leroy Boyd public comment forum. "Pensacola can and should terminate its contract with Flock."

Speakers across multiple public-comment periods described cases from other cities in which Flock data was reportedly shared with federal immigration authorities or used to search for sensitive movements. D'Shawn Mackenzie said license-plate readers had been used elsewhere to track people seeking abortions and protesters, and that turning over movement data to agencies such as ICE places immigrants and others at risk.

Advocates asked the council for transparent disclosures about what data the city shares, how long it is retained, who can query it and whether searches require judicial process. "What guardrails are in place to prevent misusing the information that this system collects?" asked Paloma, a member of Defense of Gulf Coast. "How are false positives accounted for?"

City staff did not present the contract terms during the Leroy Boyd forum. In the regular meeting earlier, Chief Kristen Brown and other staff confirmed the police department has responsibility for the traffic and camera programs but did not provide specific answers about Flock’s data-sharing agreements during the public-comment period. Mayor John Reeves said the administration would respond through appropriate staff channels and that some questions require reviewing the contract and the state and federal rules that apply.

Supporters of the cameras are not prominent in the public record at the meeting; the discussion centered on opponents and their concerns. Several residents cited high-profile errors and misuse reported in other jurisdictions, including wrongful identifications and cases in which officers used license-plate systems for personal surveillance.

Advocates pressed the council to act quickly. "Decisions like this were not plainly communicated with the community before it was decided on," Jasmine Brown said. "We demand you terminate the police department’s contract with Flock."

Councilmembers did not vote on the Flock contract at the Jan. 15 meeting. Council President Patten and other members scheduled the item for follow-up through council correspondence and public requests; several councilmembers asked staff to prepare materials that describe contract terms, data-retention practices and whether third parties can access the data. A separate set of speakers during the meeting’s second Leroy Boyd forum reiterated the demand for termination and said they will continue to monitor council action.

What happens next: Council members asked staff to compile contract details and legal constraints and to respond at a near-term agenda or workshop. The council did not take formal action to change the contract during the Jan. 15 meeting.