Flock Safety Contract Terms to Watch

The short version

Cities reviewing a Flock Safety contract should read it like public-safety infrastructure, not like a routine equipment order. The contract can define how long license plate data is stored, who can use the system, what gets logged, what happens at renewal, and how hard it is to leave later.

The public terms and recent city packets show the same pattern: a subscription model, order-form-specific retention periods, renewal language, broad platform features, and operational details that often matter more than the headline camera count.

The safest public process is simple. Before a vote, publish the order form, master terms, data policy, sharing settings, audit-log rules, camera locations or location policy, renewal calendar, and total multi-year cost.

1. Renewal language

The renewal clause is one of the first things to check because ALPR programs can become normal before residents understand them. Troy, Michigan's 2025 Flock order form said the agreement would automatically renew for successive renewal terms unless either party gave notice of non-renewal at least 30 days before the end of the then-current term.

That does not mean every city has identical language. It means residents should read the actual order form, not just the staff memo. If a city wants a fresh public debate before renewal, the contract and council calendar should force that review instead of relying on someone remembering a deadline years later.

A stronger approval motion can require staff to return to council before renewal, publish use metrics, and disclose any proposed product expansion before the next term starts.

2. Retention period

Flock's public terms define the retention period as the time that footage and associated metadata captured through the services are stored by Flock, as specified in the applicable order form. That last phrase matters. The order form is where residents should look for the actual number.

Troy's 2025 order form listed a 30-day retention period. Cleveland reporting and city materials have also discussed 30-day default deletion unless data is needed as evidence. South Pasadena's 2026 debate included discussion of reducing retention from 30 days to 15 days.

Retention is not a side detail. A shorter period limits how much routine driving history remains searchable. A longer period may help investigations, but it also increases the importance of search rules, audit logs, and outside-agency controls.

3. Data rights after the contract ends

The hard question is not only who owns raw plate reads during the contract. It is what Flock can keep, derive, or use after the city leaves. Flock's public terms define Customer Data separately from Flock Property, and say customers have a limited ability to access and download Customer Data within the applicable retention period.

Berkeley's Police Accountability Board flagged this as a real contract issue in 2026. Its memo warned that Flock's master services agreement granted Flock a perpetual license to retain anonymized derivatives of city data after termination, and said Berkeley lacked a contractual mechanism to object.

Cities should ask for plain-English answers before signing: what data is deleted at termination, what derivative or anonymized data remains, whether the city can audit deletion, and whether residents can understand the difference between city-owned records and vendor-retained outputs.

4. Assignment if Flock is acquired

Assignment language decides whether a contract can move to another company if the vendor is acquired or sells assets. Berkeley's Police Accountability Board warned that Flock's agreement allowed assignment to an acquirer by merger or asset sale without the city's consent.

That concern is practical, not theoretical. A city may trust the vendor it signs with today, but the contract should also answer what happens if ownership, incentives, products, or data practices change later.

Cities should ask whether assignment requires notice, consent, a public hearing, or a termination right. If the answer is no, residents should know that before the vote.

5. Platform expansion and bundled products

A city may start with license plate readers and later consider a broader platform. Cleveland City Council file 1367-2025 is a good example. The proposed contract was not just a simple camera renewal. The legislative summary described an integrated technology safety solution combining sound detection, video integration, live camera feeds, automated license plate readers, street takeover detection, and vehicle crash detection.

That kind of bundled platform may create operational benefits, but it also changes the oversight problem. A city is no longer only deciding whether to read plates at fixed locations. It is deciding whether to connect more public-safety feeds into one vendor-controlled workflow.

The contract should separate what is approved now from what can be added later. Product modules, search tools, data-sharing features, and network access should require public disclosure before expansion.

6. Advanced search and audit access

Order forms can include features that are easy to miss in a short staff presentation. Troy's Flock order form included Flock Safety Advanced Search. The same packet described features such as license plate location-history lookup, vehicle fingerprint search, user and network audits, plate-read reports, hot-list alert reports, event logs, and outcome reports.

Those features are exactly why audit access matters. If users can search by plate, vehicle description, location, or network data, the city needs written rules for search purpose, case numbers, supervisor review, outside-agency access, and disciplinary consequences.

A useful contract should make audit logs available to the city in a form officials can review. A useful policy should say who reviews them, how often, and what gets reported publicly.

7. Total cost, not first-year cost

Flock contracts are often presented as annual subscriptions, pilots, renewals, discounts, or bundled platform deals. The public should look at total obligation, not only year one.

Troy's 2025 order form listed 25 fixed LPR cameras, 2 LPR Flex cameras, Platform Essentials, Advanced Search, a 60-month initial term, an annual recurring subtotal of $69,500, discounts totaling $80,000, and a $347,500 contract total. Cleveland's proposed integrated technology contract listed $195,000 for year one and $915,750 per year for years two and three, for a three-year total of $2,026,500.

Those are very different procurement stories. A good council packet should show the full multi-year cost, what products are included, what discounts expire, what installation or removal costs apply, and what happens if the city cancels early.

The contract checklist

Before approving Flock cameras, a city should publish and answer the core contract questions: term length, renewal rules, retention period, data ownership, derivative-data rights, assignment rules, product modules, network access, outside-agency sharing, audit-log access, hot-list controls, pricing, cancellation rights, hardware removal, and public reporting.

None of this requires a city to reject ALPR cameras by default. It requires the city to prove the contract has limits before the cameras become permanent infrastructure.

If a council packet cannot answer those questions plainly, the vote is too early.

Sources used

Flock Safety, Customer Terms and Conditions, last published May 28, 2026: https://www.flocksafety.com/legal/terms-and-conditions

City of Troy, Michigan, City Council agenda item and Flock order form, Bid Waiver: Flock Safety ALPR Camera System, August 18, 2025: https://apps.troymi.gov/Meetings/Meetings/DownloadPDF/6883733

Cleveland City Council, File 1367-2025, ordinance authorizing a contract with Flock Group, Inc. dba Flock Safety: https://cityofcleveland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7714153&GUID=D5D4E9A9-CED2-4198-9998-FCD9349ED5A4&Options=ID%7CText%7CAttachments%7COther%7C&Search=flock

Cleveland City Council attachment, 1367-2025 professional services contract authorization with Flock Safety: https://cityofcleveland.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=14891313&GUID=79FBD005-692C-43BA-9994-AA5A420EBB92

Cleveland City Council attachment, 1367-2025 legislative summary for Flock Safety integrated technology safety solution: https://cityofcleveland.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=14887673&GUID=89816E79-F658-423D-9BBD-40D31AB1115E

Berkeley Police Accountability Board, Flock Safety vendor concerns and surveillance technology recommendations, March 18, 2026: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/March%2018,%202026%20PAB%20Recommendations_Surveillance%20Tech.pdf

City of Berkeley, Contract: Flock Safety to Provide ALPR Cameras Services Pursuant to Resolution No. 71,013-N.S., October 10, 2023: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-10-10%20Item%2008%20Contract%20Flock%20Safety%20to%20Provide%20ALPR.pdf

LAist, South Pasadena cancels contract with Flock Safety, citing privacy concerns, March 19, 2026: https://laist.com/news/south-pasadena-cancels-flock-safety-contract-privacy-concerns