Open Records Reveal Morehead’s Flock Camera Network: 13 Locations, Tens of Thousands in Costs, and Data Sharing With Thousands of Agencies

After receiving questions from readers about the City of Morehead’s use of Flock Safety cameras, The Morehead Minute submitted an open records request to the City of Morehead seeking documents related to the acquisition, installation, operation, policies, costs, and data sharing connected to the city’s automated license plate reader system.

The city has now provided records showing that Morehead Police Department uses a 13-camera Flock Safety network, located along several major corridors in and around the city. The records also show that Morehead’s Flock system is connected to a much broader law enforcement data-sharing network involving thousands of agencies and organizations across the country.

Flock Safety cameras are automated license plate reader, or ALPR, cameras. They are designed to capture images of vehicles and license plates, then compare that information against law enforcement databases, hot lists, stolen vehicle reports, missing person alerts, and other investigative tools.

According to Flock’s own materials, the system can capture or identify more than just a plate number. The company describes its technology as being able to identify vehicle make, model, color, type, and certain unique vehicle features such as roof racks, bumper stickers, and other visible characteristics.

The city’s records describe the system as a law enforcement tool used for official public safety and investigative purposes.

According to the city’s response, there are 13 total Flock Safety cameras in Morehead.

The locations provided by the city are:

Those locations place cameras on several of Morehead’s primary entrance, exit, and high-traffic routes.

Records show the Morehead City Council approved Municipal Order No. 14:2023 on October 9, 2023. That order updated the Morehead Police Department’s standard operating procedures to add a policy governing automated license plate readers.

The council minutes from that meeting show the order passed with a brief discussion regarding the use of Flock cameras and training for the system.

The vote recorded in the minutes was:

The Morehead Police Department’s ALPR policy states that the technology is intended to provide guidance for the capture, storage, and use of digital data obtained by automated license plate reader technology.

The policy states that ALPR data is for official law enforcement purposes and may not be used for unauthorized personal reasons.

The policy also says officers should not take enforcement action based solely on an ALPR alert unless the information has been verified. In other words, an alert alone is not supposed to be the only basis for stopping someone.

The policy includes prohibitions against using the system for:

The policy also states that ALPR data is retained for a maximum of 30 days unless a longer period is required by Kentucky Records Retention Schedule requirements or applicable records schedules.

The records include multiple Flock Safety invoices and payment authorization forms.

The documents show:

The records also include Flock order forms showing contract totals in the tens of thousands of dollars over multi-year terms.

According to the city attorney’s response, the city did not identify any grant documents or outside funding sources responsive to the request. That means, based on the records provided, the Flock costs appear to have been handled through city police budgeting rather than grant funding.

One of the most significant records produced by the city was a Flock sharing spreadsheet.

That spreadsheet lists 2,849 organizations.

According to the spreadsheet:

This is a major finding because it shows Morehead’s Flock system is not simply a local camera network. It is tied into a much larger Flock information-sharing system involving agencies across Kentucky and across the United States.

The spreadsheet includes a wide range of law enforcement agencies, public safety agencies, universities, and other organizations.

Examples include:

The spreadsheet also includes agencies from numerous other states, including sheriff’s offices, city police departments, university police departments, state police agencies, airport authorities, prosecutors’ offices, and public safety agencies.

The spreadsheet does not necessarily mean every agency is actively looking at Morehead’s camera data every day.

However, it does show that Morehead’s system is configured within a broad Flock sharing network.

That means vehicle detection data can potentially be shared between participating agencies for law enforcement purposes, depending on access settings, user permissions, and Flock’s platform rules.

For residents, that may be one of the most important revelations in the documents.

The cameras are local, but the network is not.

The city also noted that not all Flock cameras visible in Morehead necessarily belong to the City of Morehead or Morehead Police Department.

According to the city attorney’s response, other companies and government entities may also have purchased Flock license plate readers, including Rowan County, the Rowan County Board of Education, and private businesses.

That means the 13 cameras listed by the city should be understood as the city-related camera network, not necessarily the total number of Flock cameras that may exist in the broader Morehead or Rowan County area.

Flock’s own sole-source documentation describes a system with capabilities beyond simple plate reading.

The company says its technology can:

The documents also reference FlockOS, mobile app access, real-time alerting, map-based viewing, recent LPR image searches, and integration with third-party video.

Supporters of Flock cameras argue that ALPR systems help law enforcement quickly identify stolen vehicles, locate suspects, find missing persons, and respond to serious crimes.

The city’s policy states the system is to be used for legitimate law enforcement and public safety purposes.

Flock’s materials also highlight use cases involving stolen vehicles, wanted persons, missing persons, Amber Alerts, and other public safety matters.

At the same time, the records raise legitimate public questions.

A system that records vehicle movement across the city and shares data through a nationwide network is not the same as a traditional security camera outside a building.

Even if the system does not use facial recognition, it still captures where vehicles are seen, when they are seen, and in which direction they are traveling.

That kind of information can be useful to police, but it also deserves transparency, oversight, and public understanding.

The city’s policy contains safeguards, including access restrictions, login requirements, audit provisions, data retention limits, and prohibitions on improper use.

Still, the scale of the sharing network is likely to surprise many residents.

The records answer many questions, but some remain.

Among them:

Those are questions The Morehead Minute may continue pursuing.

The documents obtained through the Kentucky Open Records Act show that Morehead Police Department operates 13 Flock Safety cameras at specific locations across the city.

They also show that the system has cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, is governed by a written police policy, and is connected to a much larger data-sharing network involving thousands of agencies and organizations.

For some residents, that will be reassuring. They will see the cameras as a tool to help police solve crimes and protect the community.

For others, the same records will raise concerns about privacy, oversight, and how widely local vehicle data may be shared.

Either way, the public now has a much clearer picture of what the system is, where the cameras are located, what it costs, and how far beyond Morehead the information-sharing network may reach.

This article brought to you by Fresh Start Health