A second Flock contract was signed and never put to a Council vote.
Flock quote Q-193589 was signed by the Chief of Police on March 24, 2026. It adds video cameras and gunshot-detection audio for $120,000 over 24 months, and it carries a 90-day opt-out window that may close before the July 28 vote. See the breakdown or read the signed contract (PDF).
Relief requested: Do not table this. Do not pause this. Vote no on S-26-05-10, disable Fort Wayne Flock access, stop outside-agency access to Fort Wayne data, remove the cameras, and require written data-disposition confirmation from FWPD and Flock.
The Second Contract the Council Never Voted On (Q-193589)
While the public debate was about renewing 36 cameras, a separate Flock contract was already signed. Quote Q-193589 was executed by Chief of Police Paul Smith on 03/24/2026 (DocuSign envelope 1B4E4761-88B5-49DD-BD22-5CD7B68AD6BD). It was never presented to the Common Council for a vote. It expands the system beyond license plates into video and gunshot-detection audio.
| Item | Record value | Why Council should care |
|---|---|---|
| Quote / signer | Q-193589, signed by Chief Paul Smith, 03/24/2026 | A second active Flock contract the Council never debated or approved. |
| What it adds | 8 license-plate cameras, 8 Condor solar video cameras, 1 Raven gunshot-detection unit | This is not "another year's lease" on the same 36 cameras. It is new video and audio surveillance. |
| Term | 24 months, auto-renews 36 months | Auto-renewal locks in the expansion unless the City gives 30 days' notice of non-renewal. |
| Contract total | $120,000 ($60,000 per year, after a $20,400 discount) | A second six-figure commitment stacked on top of the $240,500 renewal in S-26-05-10. |
| Opt-out window | 90-day opt-out ("Project Prove It") from first hardware install | After the window closes the City cannot cancel and owes the full term, Net 30. The window may close before the July 28 vote. |
| Retention | 30 days | Council should confirm the actual active retention setting across both contracts in writing. |
The Raven device is gunshot-detection audio licensed by coverage area. The Condor unit is described in the contract as a "law enforcement grade solar-powered video fixed camera." That directly contradicts the statement that the system is "an image, not a video."
The Paper Trail: Three Signed Flock Contracts
In two years the program grew from license plates to video and gunshot-detection audio, and the price climbed with it. The signed contracts are in the source register below.
| Contract | Date signed | What it added | Cameras | Contract total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 04/26/2024 | License-plate reader platform | 8 LPR | $49,200 |
| 2025 | 06/27/2025 | Expanded plate readers, extended data retention up to one year | About 36 | $92,995 |
| 2026, Q-193589 | 03/24/2026 | Adds solar video cameras and gunshot-detection audio | +8 video, +8 LPR | $120,000 |
Quote Q-193589 was never presented to the Common Council for a vote. Separately, a renewal quoted at $240,500 over 24 months (quote Q-201201) is the subject of S-26-05-10, which was tabled to July 28, 2026.
Docket Entries
This page is organized as a public record docket because the issue is not aesthetic. The issue is what the packet, the public data, and the May 26 council Q&A already show.
| No. | Date | Filed by | Entry |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2026-05-08 | City / Packet | Special Ordinance S-26-05-10 packet posted.Includes Flock Safety budgetary quote and product/services pages. Local and official packet links are in the source register. |
| 2 | 2026-05-08 | Flock quote | Quote lists 24-month subscription term and $240,500 contract total.This conflicts with the "another year's lease" framing used in the May 26 Q&A. |
| 3 | 2026-05-26 | FWPD Q&A | Chief P.J. Smith describes request as "$120,250 for another year's lease" on 36 cameras.The local camera count is not the only issue; the network, sharing, audit, and data-custody layers are the issue. |
| 4 | 2026-05-26 | FWPD Q&A | Detective John Greeley states sharing is "roughly about 2,800" agencies and says that number may be low.Public Fort Wayne data from Have I Been Flocked reports max_networks_searched of 6,899. |
| 5 | 2026-05-26 | FWPD Q&A | Council asks whether Fort Wayne can control outside agencies' internal use policies. Answer: "No, we cannot."This is a governance problem, not a technical footnote. |
| 6 | 2026-05-26 | FWPD Q&A | Councilwoman Booker asks whether a fake or random control number can still access information. Answer: "Yeah, and consequences will follow."A consequence after a search is not the same as preventing unauthorized access. |
| 7 | 2026-05-26 | FWPD Q&A | Chief Smith states there is no audit yet.Public data also shows 98,685 empty case fields out of 116,301 searches. |
| 8 | 2026-05-26 | FWPD Q&A | Detective Greeley states scans are stored on Flock servers.That makes vendor custody and data-disposition terms central to Council's review. |
| 9 | 2026-05-26 | Council vote | Do-pass vote fails 5-4.Against do-pass: Booker, Ensley, Hartman, Jehl, Myers. For do-pass: Bender, Chambers, Freistroffer, Paddock. |
| 10 | 2026-06-03 | Resident file | Resident requests Council obtain full search-data export directly.Council can save residents from paying hundreds of dollars in public-records fees just to analyze data FWPD and Flock can provide. |
| 11 | 2026-03-24 | Flock contract | A second Flock contract, quote Q-193589, was signed by Chief Paul Smith on 03/24/2026 and never brought to Council for a vote.It adds 8 license-plate cameras, 8 Condor solar video cameras, and a Raven gunshot-detection unit, with a 24-month term and a $120,000 total. It carries a 90-day opt-out window that runs from the first install. See the 2nd Contract section. |
| 12 | 2026-06-16 | FWPD Q&A | Council is now told audits are conducted monthly.On May 26 the Chief said "there is no audit yet." Both cannot be true. If monthly since the 2024 contract, roughly two dozen audit reports should already exist and should be entered into the record. |
| 13 | 2026-06-16 | FWPD Q&A | Council is told the cameras capture "an image, not a video."The Q-193589 contract buys 8 "Solar Video Camera" (Condor) units, described by Flock as "solar-powered video" cameras. Flock also markets AI video analytics. |
| 14 | 2026-06-16 | Council | Vote on S-26-05-10 tabled to July 28, 2026.The do-pass motion had already failed 5-4 on May 26. The opt-out window on the unvoted Q-193589 contract may close before that date. |
Data Summary
| Item | Record value | Why Council should care |
|---|---|---|
| Contract total | $240,500 | The packet quote lists a 24-month term, not a one-year maintenance-only request. |
| Local cameras | 36 | FWPD described the local deployment as 36 cameras. The real question is the network layered on those cameras. |
| Networks searched | 6,899 max_networks_searched | Public Fort Wayne data appears far above the roughly 2,800-agency figure discussed during Q&A. |
| Devices searched | 100,157 max_devices_searched | This is the scale of the search network Council should ask FWPD and Flock to explain. |
| Empty case fields | 98,685 of 116,301 searches | Empty case fields weaken oversight, especially when random control numbers can still allow access. |
| Audit completed | None stated in Q&A | Policy promises cannot substitute for actual audit results before renewal. |
| Retention | 30 / 180 / 365 days in different records | Council should require Fort Wayne's actual active retention setting in writing. |
| Data storage | Flock servers | Vendor custody requires written answers on access, deletion, backups, metadata, affiliates, and subcontractors. |
Vendor Claims vs. the Record
Each assurance below was given in support of the contract. Each is contradicted by Flock's own documents, the signed contracts, or the department's own prior statements.
| Claim made | What the record shows | Source |
|---|---|---|
| "It's not our data." | Terms of Service Section 4.1: the City keeps title but grants Flock an "irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide license to use and disclose" the data, and Flock "retains the exclusive right to determine and control the method, timing, format, and medium" of access. | Flock Terms 4.1 |
| "It can't identify who owns the vehicle." | Flock's Nova product advertises searching "RMS, CAD, LPR, jail records, public records, and approved open sources" in one interface; the Indiana BMV sells driver data, so a plate becomes a name and address. | Flock Nova; WRTV: BMV sells data |
| "It's an image, not a video. It doesn't track people." | The Q-193589 contract buys 8 Condor "solar-powered video" cameras; Flock markets AI video analytics for 24/7 coverage; its patent describes classifying people by attributes including "male, female, race." | Contract Q-193589; Flock video analytics; Patent 11,416,545 |
| "It can't be hacked. There's a bug bounty." | Flock's cameras were left accessible on the open internet, which it called a "configuration issue." Federal lawmakers asked the FTC to investigate, citing 35+ Flock accounts stolen by malware and sold on a Russian cybercrime forum, and no required multi-factor authentication. | Flock "configuration issue"; Sen. Wyden to FTC |
| "We do monthly audits." | On May 26 the Chief said "there is no audit yet" and the detective called the audits "random" and was unsure if "quarterly." Both accounts cannot be true. If monthly since the 2024 contract, roughly two dozen audit reports should exist. | Fort Wayne Common Council hearing on S-26-05-10, May 26, 2026 (city meeting video) |
| "South Bend and Michigan City love it; it's a big success." | South Bend reports its cameras only "assisted" 247 investigations in two years, with private companies able to pay for access. Michigan City shares data "throughout the state of Indiana and throughout the United States." Bloomington, Indiana ended its Flock contract in April 2026. | ABC57: South Bend; Rep. Mrvan: Michigan City; IDS: Bloomington ends contract |
| The presentation was independent. | Flock markets a law-enforcement webinar, "How to Speak to City Councils," with a "Chief-to-council guide" and an "objection-handling playbook." Several assurances given here track that playbook. | Flock council webinar |
The Homicide Clearance Claim
The department's argument that ending Flock will leave murders unsolved is not supported by its own clearance figures. The homicide clearance rate stayed in the same high band before and after the cameras. It did not step up when Flock arrived.
| Year | Reported homicide clearance rate | Flock status that year |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | About 90%+ (department's own reported figure) | No Flock contract. A pre-Flock year already in the 90s. |
| 2024 | About 91% | First Flock contract signed April 2024 (8 cameras); cameras live by summer. |
| 2025 | 97% as of December 18, settling to about 94% at year-end | 36 cameras in service. |
The department says Flock "helped solve a homicide," but "helped" is not "solved," it is a single case, and no case number or charging affidavit citing a camera hit has been produced. The 2023 and 2024 figures are the department's own reported numbers and should be confirmed on the record. Sources: Journal Gazette; WANE 15.
Transcript Excerpts
These quotes come from the May 26 council Q&A. They should be quoted back because no additional hypothetical is needed.
Would you like to tell us a little bit more before we open up for questions?
So, we're asking for $120,250 for another year's lease on our Flock system, which is 36 cameras throughout the city.
How many other agencies are we sharing our data with from the Flock cameras?
It's going to be roughly about 2,800.
Throughout the United States, yes.
I think it's low because I've seen, like I said, the detective bureau, we've got access to cameras.
So we can't really control what their internal policies are on the usage of the data from Fort Wayne's Flock cameras?
No, we cannot.
I could put a fake control number in there, right?
I could put a random control number and put the description of what I was searching for and still access information?
Yeah, and consequences will follow.
Have you already done the audit?
No, because we don't have the policy in place to be able to do the audit yet.
There is no audit yet.
What is it that makes people upset, believe that their civil liberties are being violated specifically by the Fort Wayne Police Department, but apparently trust the sheriff and trust the state?
I would only be guessing. I don't have an answer for you on that one.
Who actually stores the data that's collected on these? Is this stored on Flock servers? Is this stored on Fort Wayne Police Department servers?
Those are stored on Flock servers, and that's part of the maintenance that we pay for.
Fort Wayne PD has access to those servers. And Fort Wayne PD is the only one who has access to those servers.
Flock has access of all the data that is stripped of anything, date, time, anything else on the vehicle.
Is there any way to track whether any officer has used this for any purpose other than what it's supposed to be used for?
I don't have an answer for you right now on that one.
Requested Relief
- Vote no
Reject S-26-05-10 and any renewal, extension, replacement funding, or substitute agreement that keeps the Flock program alive.
- Disable access
Disable Fort Wayne user access and outside-agency access to Fort Wayne data immediately.
- Remove cameras
Require a public removal timeline and written confirmation that devices are no longer collecting scans.
- Preserve records
Preserve all search logs, audit logs, user lists, sharing settings, hot-list settings, retention settings, and feature settings.
- Release export
Obtain the full machine-readable search-data export directly and release a privacy-preserving version for public analysis.
- Identify sharing
List every agency Fort Wayne shared with, every agency network searched, whether federal access was enabled, and what FlockOS features are active.
- Confirm deletion
Require written data-disposition confirmation from FWPD and Flock, including vendor systems, backups, affiliates, subcontractors, and any retained analytics data.
- Adopt rule
No networked mass-surveillance contract without public notice, public comment, civil-liberties review, and Council approval.
Email Draft
Contact
Have a question, a tip, or want to help? Fill this out and hit send. Your message comes straight to the campaign.
Council Vote and Contacts
| Member | Do-pass vote | |
|---|---|---|
| Rohli Booker | No | rohli.booker@cityoffortwayne.org |
| Paul Ensley | No | paul@paulensley.com |
| Nathan Hartman | No | Nathan.hartman@cityoffortwayne.org |
| Russ Jehl | No | russ@russjehl.com |
| Dr. Scott Myers | No | scott.myers2@cityoffortwayne.org |
| Martin Bender | Yes | martin.bender@cityoffortwayne.org |
| Michelle Chambers | Yes | michelle.chambers@cityoffortwayne.org |
| Tom Freistroffer | Yes | thomas.freistroffer@cityoffortwayne.org |
| Geoff Paddock | Yes | geoffreypaddock@aol.com |
Exhibits: The Three Signed Contracts
Order forms from each signed Flock contract. Click any exhibit to open the full PDF.
