Residents urge Pensacola City Council to cancel Flock surveillance contract; city attorney says mayor had authority

Residents filled the Leroy Boyd Forum on Feb. 26 to press the Pensacola City Council to terminate its police department’s contract with Flock, a private vendor that provides license-plate–reading and AI-powered vehicle-tracking technology.

“Counsel, I urge you, you did not approve this contract,” said Harper Cummings, a resident, after recounting searches of meeting records and a memo she said showed the contract was finalized without a public agenda item. Several other speakers said the contract was signed by the mayor and funded with opioid-abatement money without council approval.

The claims drew repeated examples from other jurisdictions: Alexandra Hatley pointed to cities that have ended Flock agreements and to a Milwaukee officer charged last week for alleged misuse of the system; Sam Epstein and others said Flock data has been shared with federal agencies in other locales and that the technology has contributed to wrongful arrests in Denver and Seattle. “Flock cameras do in fact collect our information for third parties to buy,” Hatley said. Several commenters referred to an online public registry of plate searches and warned the system could be used to track protesters or immigrants.

Speakers framed the controversy in two central allegations: that the mayor signed the contract without council review, and that funds derived from opioid-abatement settlements were used for the purchase. “We demand an immediate investigation into this contract and its implementation,” Pepper Wimmer said.

Administration and legal staff pushed back on some of the assertions. The city attorney explained that opioid-settlement funds come in two forms — a regional county-managed bucket and a direct payment to the city — and said the Flock contract was paid from an appropriated city fund on the city’s books. He also said, under the city’s ordinances, the mayor is authorized to enter a two-year services contract using appropriated budgeted funds without prior council approval. “This contract at issue got signed a couple years ago…It was paid for out of that appropriated fund that’s sitting on the books with the city,” the attorney said, adding he was not aware of any legal restriction preventing the use of those city-appropriated opioid funds for the contract.

Council members said they were taking the concerns seriously and asked for more information. Council member Baer said he has requested the master agreement and oversight details, including the number of cameras, a management and data‑sharing plan, and staffing oversight. Vice President Breyer said she was troubled by the use of opioid funds and proposed a workshop to address transparency about such expenditures and to consider new rules on how code-enforcement or settlement monies are handled.

Council and staff also clarified a procedural limit: a council vote to cancel the contract could not be taken immediately during public comment. A council officer noted a formal action of this type would require advance public notice — a minimum 10-day notice period under the council’s rules — before a vote.

What happens next: council members said they will seek documentation from the administration, including the contract master agreement, a management and oversight plan for Flock and the Pensacola Police Department, and a clear accounting of the funding source. Residents at the meeting said they will continue to press for an investigation and for the cameras to be turned off and uninstalled.

The meeting did not produce a formal vote to terminate the contract; the forum closed with an acknowledgment that immediate action at this session was not permissible under notice rules.