Liberty Over Surveillance Recognition, On the Record
The Honor Roll
Saying no to these programs is a thing real departments, real councils, and real judges have done - and survived doing. This page names them, starting where this project started: Oklahoma.
Oklahoma
They Stood Up in the Founding Chapter
Norman: the city that said no
Norman's council rejected Flock's pitch multiple times - two presentations in three years. Flock cameras arrived in Norman anyway, via the Cleveland County Sheriff's Office and HOAs, outside council authority (404 Media; Reclaim The Net). The council's answer stands on the record, and so does the end-run around it.
Guthrie: a home-state win
Guthrie contracted with Flock, then dropped the contract; the cameras were physically removed as of roughly July 2025 (after reporting that they persisted past deadlines before removal). Oklahoma towns can and do walk this back (Sooner Sentinel; KOSU).
Oklahoma City: three no votes, and guardrails the crowd won
On August 18, 2026, after roughly seven weeks of delays, the Oklahoma City Council voted 5-3 to renew its Flock camera contract - the third renewal since 2023, $270,000 for a one-year term covering 90 cameras. Nearly 30 residents and advocates spoke against the renewal. Zero spoke in favor.
The vote: Yes - Mayor David Holt, Bradley Carter (Ward 1), Katrina Avers (Ward 3), Todd Stone (Ward 4), Matt Hinkle (Ward 5). No - James Cooper (Ward 2), JoBeth Hamon (Ward 6), Camal Pennington (Ward 7). Absent - Mark Stonecipher (Ward 8).
To Council members Cooper, Hamon, and Pennington: thank you for voting no. Pennington said the amendment "does not change my mind about us continuing this contract with Flock"; Hamon cited distrust of Flock as a company, pointing to Evanston, Illinois, where Flock reinstalled cameras after being told to remove them.
The renewal also carried first-time restrictions: default data retention cut from 30 days to 7 days, and Flock's automatic national data-sharing turned off, with the City (not Flock) holding sole, case-by-case authority over sharing with federal agencies. The 7-day retention and the federal-sharing veto exist because residents stood at the microphone. Guardrails won by pressure are proof the pressure works - and proof it is not yet enough.
Sources: KGOU, Sooner Sentinel, OK Gazette, Free Press OKC, KFOR.
The Oklahoma Ruling
Oklahoma Law Already Limits ALPRs
47 O.S. § 7-606.1 - the Uninsured Vehicle Enforcement Program statute - is the only Oklahoma statute authorizing law-enforcement ALPR use, and it restricts ALPR data to enforcement of the Compulsory Insurance Law. The data may not be sold, or used or shared for other purposes (Justia; OSCN).
In State v. Ifabiyi (McClain County District Court, September 2024), a judge suppressed ALPR-derived evidence in a drug case, holding that law-enforcement ALPR use beyond insurance enforcement violates Oklahoma law (Tulsa World; okhouse.gov).
Stated carefully: Ifabiyi is a district-court ruling in one case - not binding statewide precedent. What it shows is that Oklahoma's own statute gives every city council and every defense attorney a live question to ask: what state law authorizes this program's use of ALPR data beyond insurance enforcement? Ask it on the record.
The legislature's part of the record - interim studies and dead bills - is tracked on the Records page.
Nationwide
Not the First, and Not Alone
As of August 2026, communities in at least 23 states have rejected, canceled, non-renewed, or deactivated Flock camera programs in 2026 alone. Los Angeles declined to renew after an Inspector General audit; Redmond and Dayton suspended and deactivated; Oak Park and Evanston, Illinois canceled after the state found Flock had illegally let federal agents access local cameras; Sedona's council voted unanimously to remove all 11 of its cameras. The concerns cited were not partisan: privacy, data sharing beyond local control, federal access to local data, lack of transparency, accuracy problems, and erosion of public trust.
Every verified entry - jurisdiction, action, date, source - is in the Nationwide Tracker. Each row there is an honor-roll entry: a community that weighed this evidence and stepped back.
Deliberately not honored: Norfolk, VA kept its cameras and won at the federal district court (appeal pending). It belongs in the case record on Records, not on a list of communities that stepped back. Credit goes where the record supports it - that is what makes the credit mean something.
The Other Side of the Ledger
Edmond: 314,000 Scans, Two Hits
Recognition has a counterpart: the record that shows why the work continues. In one 30-day period (April 2024), Edmond's cameras logged more than 314,000 vehicle scans - and produced 2 hotlist hits. Records requests for camera locations were denied under the Open Records Act's public-safety exemption, and the city also declined to release the list of agencies with access to Edmond's data. The total number of active devices is unknown - even the count is not public.
Documented gaps: no disclosed search frequency, no reported measurable outcomes from alerts, no disclosed audit-review cadence or discipline records, and undocumented logging for the mobile trailer's deployments.
Source: Edmond Inbox. Everything in this box is why our records guide targets policies and audit logs, not just locations.
Where This Project Started
Roots: The Founding Chapter
This project began in Oklahoma - its founding chapter, and the ground where its standards were set: verify everything against primary records, state the law accurately, show up in person, and keep showing up. Surveillance contracts are signed in city halls and county courthouses, so that is where this project works: one national standard, carried by neighbors in every state.
Allies in Oklahoma: DeFlockOKC organizes locally on this issue; their leads are independently verified before we publish them.
How it started
While living in Oklahoma, I became aware of the Flock situation, and it made me more aware of the system and how it works. What opened my eyes: Flock happened without a public vote on a ballot. It was just up to officials - councils and the mayor - to make the call, and at most of the meetings, the public was not there. That is what started the drive.
Oklahoma is where it started. I made multiple private phone calls with officials across the country, asking questions and learning about the different systems. I talked with agencies that canceled their Flock cameras, and with agencies that got more cameras. Oklahoma is where I created the website and all the social media pages, and had custom signs made. I would regularly protest on the corner to bring awareness to mass surveillance, ALPR, and the Flock system.
- Aaron Mooradian
The questions we ask every jurisdiction
- Which agencies in this jurisdiction use ALPRs, and under what contracts?
- Who pays - which budget line, which grants, which private funders?
- How long is non-hit data retained, and who decided that?
- Can federal agencies or out-of-state departments access the data, and under what agreement?
- Is every search logged and audited - and has any audit ever been published?
- What Oklahoma statute authorizes this use of ALPR data beyond insurance enforcement (47 O.S. § 7-606.1)?
Answers, with documents, are archived in the Records library as requests come back.
Oklahoma officials & offices
- Oklahoma City Mayor's Office - (405) 297-2424
- Oklahoma City Clerk - (405) 297-2391, 200 N Walker Ave
- Council appearances - (405) 297-2397
- Oklahoma County Sheriff - (405) 713-1000
- Oklahoma House switchboard - (405) 521-2711
- Oklahoma Senate switchboard - (405) 524-0126
Find your own state legislators with the official lookup tool.
Start a Chapter
Carry It to Your State
Every chapter starts with one person who decides the tracking should be on the government, not the governed. A chapter works the local contracts, the local officials, the local record, and the local people. The launch process:
- Identify your jurisdiction and issue. Which city, county, or agency runs (or is considering) ALPRs where you live? Who signs the contract, and when does it renew?
- Build the state page and a verified fact sheet. Every claim sourced and dated to primary records, to the project's verification standard, before anything circulates.
- Announce an organizing meeting. Public, free, and open to everyone.
- Reserve an indoor public space. Public libraries are the best neutral first option - library meeting rooms operate under neutral rules, available to civic groups on equal terms, without the library endorsing anyone's viewpoint. Community centers, college rooms, union halls, faith-community fellowship rooms, veterans' and civic club halls, coffee-shop side rooms, and private homes (for small early meetings) all work.
- Take privacy-respecting sign-ups. Collect only what people volunteer, use it only to contact them, never sell or share it, delete on request - the same standard as our form.
- Find one or two dependable coordinators. Consistency beats charisma.
- Set a recurring schedule. A standing meeting people can plan around.
- Build the chapter's working tools. An official-contact directory, a records-request log, a bill tracker, and an action calendar.
- Adopt the conduct standards. Peaceful, lawful, factual, respectful. No threats, no harassment, no doxxing - ever.
The reservation script
Word for word works fine:
What a chapter is, legally: a volunteer civic-education and constitutional-privacy organizing group. A person may lawfully organize one without incorporating anything. Chapters never claim 501(c)(3) status, incorporation, or any official status unless it is actually true - and none of that is required to research, educate, meet, and speak. Every chapter carries the venue disclaimer wherever it meets: Independent civic-education and constitutional-privacy project. Not affiliated with or endorsed by any government agency, library, venue, police department, or political party. Meeting in a public room does not imply the venue's endorsement.