Flock Cameras in Columbia Heights, Minnesota

The short version

The Columbia Heights City Council voted on June 8, 2026 to terminate services with Flock Safety. The city later said staff had removed five city-installed Flock cameras, seven Flock-installed cameras remained in place until Flock could remove them, and those seven cameras had been covered with black plastic.

The city also said the Columbia Heights Police Department no longer had access to the Flock database and had shut off data sharing with all agencies. That makes Columbia Heights a useful case study for any city asking whether policy changes are enough, or whether public trust has already broken.

The debate was not simply whether Flock cameras help solve crimes. Local reporting showed residents and officials weighing that benefit against privacy, data security, immigration enforcement fears, and uncertainty about who could reach license plate data once it entered a networked ALPR system.

What Columbia Heights did

Columbia Heights had a Flock program that included fixed and flexible license plate reader cameras. MyNortheaster reported that the city contracts covered seven fixed-location cameras and five location-flexible cameras, with the original 12-month contract signed in May 2024 and an auto-renewal in May 2025 for another 24 months.

After community concern grew, the city held a Flock town hall on May 14, 2026. The city website says the town hall included the Police Department, Mayor Amada Marquez Simula, Anoka County Commissioner Mandy Meisner, and the Anoka County Sheriff's Office.

By June 8, the city council had moved from review to termination. MPR News reported that the council voted unanimously to cancel the contract. The city then posted that Flock service had been terminated, five cameras had been removed, seven remained covered, police access had ended, and data sharing with all agencies had been shut off.

Why residents pushed back

The strongest objection was about data leaving local control. KSTP reported that public testimony at the May town hall included questions about whether camera information could be shared with the federal government for immigration enforcement.

The city had already narrowed sharing before the final vote. Sahan Journal, republishing MPR's reporting, said Columbia Heights restricted out-of-state data sharing in January and statewide data sharing in February. MyNortheaster reported the same sequence.

Those restrictions did not end the debate. The public question became bigger than one police department's stated intent. Residents wanted to know whether the system's structure could still allow indirect access, future policy drift, or data use the city did not approve.

The immigration enforcement concern

Columbia Heights sits inside a broader Minnesota and national debate over whether local license plate reader data can be used for immigration enforcement. KSTP reported that Columbia Heights police confirmed sharing Flock camera data for immigration enforcement was prohibited.

But the mayor and residents still pointed to risk outside the local department. KSTP quoted Mayor Simula saying the police department was doing good work, but that officials were uncomfortable with the tool until stronger guardrails existed because of concern about other people having access.

MyNortheaster reported that residents cited ICE access as a primary concern. It also reported council discussion about possible indirect access patterns, including searches run on behalf of federal agents. Those claims are exactly why cities should not treat ALPR sharing settings as a small administrative detail.

The public-safety argument was real too

The cancellation was not framed as Flock being useless. Local reporting repeatedly noted that police and public-safety officials saw investigative value in the cameras.

KSTP reported that law enforcement said the cameras helped solve crime and that the Anoka County Sheriff's Office described cases ranging from sexual assault to stolen vehicles. MyNortheaster quoted Councilmember Connie Buesgens calling the cameras a great tool while also expressing distrust toward the company.

That split matters. Columbia Heights did not simply ask whether Flock works. It asked whether a tool can be effective and still be unacceptable if residents no longer trust the controls around it.

The contract lesson

The contract timing created a practical problem. MyNortheaster reported that the city prepaid for the auto-renewal and that taxpayers were still carrying a $45,000 cost for camera operation, installation, and data management after usage ended. The same report said the city's reimbursement request was denied.

For other cities, that is the procurement lesson hiding under the privacy fight. A Flock contract should be reviewed for renewal terms, prepaid periods, cancellation rights, refund language, camera-removal timing, data-access shutoff, and what happens if the city later changes its surveillance policy.

A city should know the exit path before approving the entry. If the only practical option after public backlash is to cover cameras with black plastic while waiting for removal, the contract did not give the city enough operational control.

What other cities should ask

Before approving or renewing Flock, a council should ask for the current sharing settings, a complete list of agencies with access, written limits on immigration-related use, audit logs, case-number rules, retention rules, cancellation rights, and camera-removal obligations.

Officials should also ask whether the vendor can change contract terms, policies, integrations, or network access in ways that affect local promises. MyNortheaster reported concern from a councilmember that the contract was a living document, which raised worries about future changes.

The Columbia Heights lesson is plain: residents will not accept vague assurances once they believe license plate data can travel farther than the city intended. The city needs proof, not comfort language.

The bottom line

Columbia Heights ended its Flock program because the trust math changed. Police said the cameras had value, but residents and officials were not comfortable with the risk around data sharing, immigration enforcement, and long-term control.

The most important fact is the city's own final status: service terminated, five cameras removed, seven covered, police database access ended, and data sharing shut off with all agencies.

For other cities, Columbia Heights is now a warning label. Flock approval is not only a camera-count decision. It is a contract, privacy, governance, and public-trust decision.

Sources used

City of Columbia Heights, Flock page, updated after June 8, 2026 termination: https://www.columbiaheightsmn.gov/police/flock.php

MPR News, Columbia Heights City Council votes to end Flock Safety camera contract, June 9, 2026: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/06/09/columbia-heights-city-council-votes-end-flock-safety-camera-contract

MPR News, Columbia Heights City Council to decide on Flock camera removal, June 8, 2026: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/06/08/columbia-heights-city-council-flock-camera-removal

KSTP, Columbia Heights expected to remove 12 Flock cameras, June 2026: https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/columbia-heights-expected-to-remove-12-flock-cameras/

FOX 9, Columbia Heights poised to remove all of its city-owned Flock cameras, June 7, 2026: https://www.fox9.com/news/columbia-heights-poised-cancel-flock-camera-contracts

MyNortheaster, Heights cancels contract with Flock, June 16, 2026: https://www.mynortheaster.com/news/heights-cancels-contract-with-flock/