Kentucky Cities Split Over Flock Cameras as Privacy Concerns Clash With Crime-Fighting Goals

October 27, 2026/in Culture, Gov & Politics/by Mary Callaway LeBus

27Dozens of law enforcement agencies in Kentucky use Flock cameras to help them solve and deter crime. But as concerns over privacy and data security grow, many municipalities are asking whether to continue using the surveillance technology.

Flock cameras can do more than the average security surveillance camera. Using an automated license plate reader, often referred to as ALPRs, the camera takes a photo of every passing vehicle that it can see. The ALPR records when and where it saw a vehicle, its make and model, and even obscure details like a bumper sticker or a dent on the side passenger door.

Even if a vehicle is not believed to be involved in a crime, Flock cameras still take a picture and keep that information in a database, such as one owned by a police department or a business.

That does not mean that data cannot or will not be shared with others.

Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley wrote that owners can share data with others one-on-one or choose to join Flock’s National Lookup Network, which allows officers to search for a full license plate number across department cameras nationwide. This is where residents and city leaders become hesitant.

Multiple Kentucky municipalities have chosen not to renew their contracts with Flock following residents’ concerns about potential misuse and privacy violations. Some of these cities include Cynthiana, Hartford and nearly a dozen Northern Kentucky law enforcement departments. The city of Frankfort joined the growing list on Monday, Oct. 12.

“I see the true benefit of the technology for a department and how it can be used for good,” said Frankfort Commissioner Kelly May. “Unfortunately, I believe that we’re just not living in a world where we can trust the parameters that another company puts in place for us to use in our community.”

Commissioners in the city unanimously voted not to renew the city’s contract with Flock once it ends Jan. 1, 2027. Currently, Frankfort has 19 Flock cameras.

Commissioner Rob Richardson, a supporter of Flock, called the surveillance technology one of the “most valuable tools for law enforcement” when it comes to solving crimes. However, he said he would like to see more rules and regulations in place at the state and federal levels.

This story exists because of readers like you. Give $5 a month to keep Queer Kentucky free.

“I, if I am sitting in this seat, would want to bring back Flock with those parameters because I do believe it keeps our city safer,” said Richardson.

Lexington resident Bobby Stinnett holds a similar view and said he would like to see legislative action at the state level when it comes to who can access Flock data.

“I agree with law enforcement having that tool to utilize those to solve crimes, but at the same time, I also agree that law enforcement should have a warrant to access the information,” Stinnett told Queer Kentucky. “All officers really need to access our phone is a warrant. I would think that it would be the same for Flock data.”

While some cities are ending agreements or plans with Flock, others are continuing to stay with the company, including the Louisville Metro Police Department.

Matt Mudd, a spokesperson for Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg, said Flock tools have helped police solve multiple violent crimes, including the recent shooting of Kentucky State Police Trooper Hayden Phillips.

“Rapidly apprehending individuals who have committed horrific crimes makes our city safer,” Mudd told Queer Kentucky. “At the same time, Mayor Greenberg shares the community’s concerns regarding personal privacy. Just like with any technology, safeguards must be in place to make sure it is only used in a way that is constitutional and appropriate.”

Every search or search request in LMPD’s Flock database must include the following:

An incident report, a computer-aided dispatch report, a warrant, a case number, or other recognized identifying number. If no number exists, a detailed explanation will be required.
The case or investigation type.
A narrative explaining the investigation, the vehicle’s connection, and why the search is necessary.

Outside agencies, such as the Lexington Police Department or KSP, are allowed to search LMPD’s data but only if they meet the city’s internal requirements.

Other department policies that are being enforced at LMPD:

Only assigned members in analytical or investigative positions can conduct independent searches.
Before an officer can access the data, they must go through department-approved training, which will require recertification every two years.
LMPD’s Audit Unit will flag any suspicious activity or search patterns within the system. Audits will change from occasional/random reviews to mandatory audits by the Audit Unit at least every 90 days.
Any suspicious activity must be reported through the chain of command.
LMPD does not assist with immigration enforcement

“We also worked with Rep. John Hodgson on House Bill 58, which sets safeguards for how law enforcement agencies can use and store data from technology like Flock cameras, including that data on the cameras can’t be kept for more than 90 days unless it’s being used to investigate a crime,” said Mudd.

H.B. 58 went into effect in July 2026. As Mudd said, the bill addresses how long data can be saved, who can access it, and what the technology can be used for. Even so, the law does not require law enforcement to acquire a judicial warrant to access ALPR data.

“The only thing that’s keeping you having privacy is a warrant,” said Stinnett. “That is a separation from abuse. That’s how you prevent these officers who have been caught misusing Flock.”

Under the new law, violators could face up to one year in jail, plus up to $2,000 in fines.