Since well before its short-lived Policy Pulse blog series, where Flock assured its users it would help them with the “burden of compliance”, Flock has been waging war on transparency. It does so not only by removing information it does not want disclosed, but also by inserting itself into legal public records (“FOIA”) processes, and offering “guidance” on public records processes.

State and local governments aggressively resist open records requests related to Flock. They will apply any exemption, no matter how non-sensical. Part of that is simply the government’s mindset— the less accountability to the public the better. Part of that is Flock.

The Guide

Flock issues informal guidance to its customers on how to handle open records requests. A document, “Guide to Flock Safety Data for Open Records Law” (last updated September 2025) opens by telling the reader that they do not have to create records.

The guide offers wildly incorrect legal advice.

Generally limited disclosure [for ALPR data] across most states. Some states exempt all data captured by or derived from any automatic license plate reader system from disclosure either by express statute or per case law

Rather than there being “generally limited disclosure”, few states have express protections for ALPR data. This is self-evident from Flock’s wholly unregulated status as a provider of “photos taken on public roadways where there is no expectation of privacy.” Those same photos are not “generally” exempt from open records requests.

Agencies should consider whether to redact license plates, search reasons, and case numbers from these logs, as well as other potential fields that may be deemed sensitive

Similarly, the open records laws that I am aware of do not permit redaction of “fields that may be deemed sensitive.” Rather than relying on a clerk or a cop to subjectively deem something to meet an unspecified standard of sensitivity, open records law tends to only permit redaction of items that meet specific objective criteria defined by statute.

Flock’s document goes through every category of public record related to its system to identify possible exemptions, suggesting ones for police investigations, security exceptions, and privacy reasons. Throw exemptions at the requester and see what sticks.

When all else fails, Flock suggests in its suppression manual dressed up as customer support, its government customers should not disclose the record, like the law requires, but “consider negotiating a narrowed timeframe” and charging fees.

We’ve since seen other guidance, where customers are instructed to keep searches “as vague as permissible” come from FBI agents in Flock’s hometown of Atlanta.

In recent months, there has been a marked uptick in audit logs submitted to haveibeenflocked.com in garbled PDFs—including from states that require public records to be produced in their original electronic format.

One agency in Arizona did the FOIA-thing and printed out the CSVs to scan them right back in. Another delivered them to the requester on paper. Perhaps Flock updated its guidance.

Contractual Obstruction

Flock does not restrict itself to advising customers on their open records process, it inserts itself. Some, but not all, contracts create a duty for customers to notify Flock and delay open records responses.

If a request is made pursuant to the Iowa Open Records Act, Iowa Code chapter 22, to examine Confidential Information identified herein, the Customer will notify Flock. Flock will be given not less than ten (10) calendar days within which to file an action in the Iowa District Court… seeking the entry of a declaratory order or injunction to protect and keep confidential the information identified as confidential herein.

This is clearly problematic from a transparency perspective, and, raises serious legal questions in Iowa. The Iowa Open Records Act does not set fixed timelines for responses—it requires governments to respond "promptly."A mandatory minimum ten-day response delay is not “promptly.”

In Grafton, WI the language is a bit softer; there, Flock requires “reasonable prior notice.”

That’s not the only problem with this clause though. It is the vendor assuming a decision-making role in the non-delegable public records process. While a government may delegate some of its functions to third parties, the duty to respond to open records requests “promptly” lies exclusively with the custodian, and delegating such decision-making authority to a private party is likely unconstitutional.^[1]

It’s the same reason we can’t hire mercenaries to police our cities—government employees must be accountable to the people. At least on paper.

Nothing the Public Can Gain

Then there are the “transparency” portals. Flock has stripped functionality to hide essential information, but cities often still refer people who request access to log files to the portals. In public, Flock sells it as a transparency tool “to promote trust, accountability, and citizen privacy in policing.” In private, Flock tells its customers the truth: it’s useless transparency theater.

Take a look at this sample Transparency Portal and let me know if you’d like anything changed. All fields can be edited, deleted or added to. Any of the fields in grey indicate information that will be pulled directly from your Flock account. The only other thing worth noting is the Search Audit…I have attached an example. There is nothing the public can gain from this report, as it only provides the search date, camera and search reason.

If you are inclined toward charitable interpretation, you could see this as an unfortunately-worded email hastily typed by a customer service rep with an inflationary “Senior” title. Fair.

Except the same email Libby Landers sent to a California police department in 2024 shows up nine months later, word for word, in Prosser, WA, with someone else’s signature (Danica Pierce, Flock’s Local Customer Success Manager I).

Someone at Flock approved the message for use as a form email.

The next sentence in the form email is also worth highlighting:

However, if you find your department’s users are not consistently searching off of incident/case numbers, that may be a reason to hide the Search Audit. It is entirely up to you but just like to point this out.

It relates to another email, where Flock cites the CJIS Security Policy:

Per legal: A case number and/or call for service number listed for the search reason is a Flock Requirement + Best Practice and required under Criminal Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy as promulgated by the FBI.

4.2.5.1 Justification In addition to the use of purpose codes and togging information, all users shall provide a reason for all all inquiries whenever requested by NCIC System Managers, CAs, local agency administrators, or their representative

— Email from Kyle Turner, Senior Customer Success Manager, Flock to Ridgecrest, CA Police Chief Groves (Feb 2025) (emphasis in original)

In a form email, Flock tells its customers to hide the evidence if its customers plan to violate their contracts with the US Department of Justice and federal rules and regulations (and, in many cases, parallel state law).

Ridgecrest, CA PD has disabled case numbers in the Transparency Portal.

The Lawyers Know

The government, or, at least, its lawyers, know that their legal justifications for denying requests are thin. In an email exchange between Prosser, WA, city officials and (presumably) their attorney, sparked by a records request from MuckRock user Rose Terse, the attorney expresses some frustration with Flock’s relationship to public records.

Emily Guildner of Thompson, Guildner & Associates, writes to her partner, Nikki Thompson:

i think it is a better argument that its not a record yet but i really just want all of our clients to stop using flock cameras.

She attempts to come up with a justification but comes up short:

I guess the question is whether it is “a writing” already out there but in an illegible format or not. Cities do have to pull data from a data base if requested, I just don’t know what form this is in, or if its in no form until there is an inquiry run?

She settles on the poorly-fleshed out theory regardless:

well our position on these is that they are a little different in that the pictures etc are records that are out there, the audit logs are not a record yet. so its not about access its about the fact that we would have to create a record to respond to the records request. but i think we’re on thin ice…

Thompson finally sends a proposed response to city staff, denying the request for it being “creating a record” and asking staff:

Thoughts? Are you sure you don’t want to turn [the Flock cameras] off? Remember that attorney fees are mandatory, if a City loses in public records litigation.

Two months later, in January 2026, Prosser turned them off.

Flock industrialized existing government hostility to public records with guides, form emails, contract clauses, and a “transparency portal” engineered to disclose nothing of value.

Prosser’s attorney asked the right question. More cities should answer.

Cross-posted from Footnote 4A, where I cover Flock, privacy, and public-private surveillance infrastructure more broadly. Flock-specific posts live on haveibeenflocked.com.