What Flock tells Las Cruces, and what Las Cruces signed

What's Detected - License Plates, Vehicles. What's Not Detected - Facial recognition, People, Gender, Race

True of the plate readers. The same order form licenses 15 Condor cameras, which Flock builds to detect and locate people, and which were found streaming to the open internet in December 2025 - and the portal's camera count is defined to leave them out.

• ContestedThe transparency portal says 'What's Not Detected: People'; the referral page's copy says the cameras 'capture vehicle data' while its hero graphic shows a 'People Detection - Activity in dog park after hours' alert beside a 'Stolen Vehicle' one. The video products on Las Cruces' 2024 order form - fifteen Condors and seventeen Wing Gateways - are the ones Flock markets with 'instant alerts for people and vehicles', a Guardian Mode that 'automatically detects and locates people', and, in its own training video, a camera that will 'acquire and track that person as they walk'.7 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces holds fifteen Flock Condor cameras under its 2024 order form - fourteen PTZ units with LTE service and one solar fixed unit, with 11,250 dollars in Condor implementation fees - the product Flock describes in the contract as capturing 'video footage with the option to stream live video', and on its product pages as detecting and locating people, alerting when a person enters the field of view, and, in its own training video, acquiring and tracking a person as they walk.5 sources
• Well supportedFlock's Condor cameras track people rather than vehicles and can be set to zoom automatically on faces in parking lots, streets and playgrounds - so an agency that says it bought license plate readers may be operating something materially different. Las Cruces holds fifteen under its 2024 order form.5 sources

Myth: Flock cameras use facial recognition. Fact: … Flock cannot recognize, identify, or track individuals …

No facial recognition: consistent with everything here, including what Flock told councilors in Feb 2026. “Cannot track individuals”: officers have tracked ex-partners thousands of times through the system, Flock built a plate-to-person tool, its Condor training video says the camera will “acquire and track that person as they walk”, and a New Mexico chief conceded consecutive cameras give consecutive reads. Courts mostly still say that is not a search.

• Contested'Flock cannot recognize, identify, or track individuals' is two claims. No facial recognition is consistent with every source here, including what Flock told Las Cruces councilors in February 2026. 'Cannot track individuals' is contradicted by the record: officers have tracked former partners thousands of times through the system, Flock built Nova to join plate reads to identified people, Vehicle Fingerprint is sold as finding vehicles with no readable plate, and a New Mexico chief conceded that consecutive cameras produce consecutive reads of a vehicle.8 sources
• Well supportedOfficers have used ALPR systems to track intimate partners and other private individuals, in dozens of documented cases, and the misuse was typically discovered by victims or by outside review rather than by the vendor's own monitoring.4 sources, 1 not read at source
• Well supportedThe weight of judicial authority currently runs AGAINST the argument this dossier makes: a federal court collecting the cases in 2025 found that nearly every court to address the question has held that querying an ALPR database is not a Fourth Amendment search.4 sources

What's Not Detected - People

True of the plate readers, and the portal counts only plate readers. The video products on the same order form are sold on people detection by name. Whether Guardian Mode or People Detection Alerts are switched on in Las Cruces is not stated anywhere; no facial recognition is consistent with every source. The department has not been asked which cameras the line describes.

• ContestedThe transparency portal says 'What's Not Detected: People'; the referral page's copy says the cameras 'capture vehicle data' while its hero graphic shows a 'People Detection - Activity in dog park after hours' alert beside a 'Stolen Vehicle' one. The video products on Las Cruces' 2024 order form - fifteen Condors and seventeen Wing Gateways - are the ones Flock markets with 'instant alerts for people and vehicles', a Guardian Mode that 'automatically detects and locates people', and, in its own training video, a camera that will 'acquire and track that person as they walk'.7 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces holds fifteen Flock Condor cameras under its 2024 order form - fourteen PTZ units with LTE service and one solar fixed unit, with 11,250 dollars in Condor implementation fees - the product Flock describes in the contract as capturing 'video footage with the option to stream live video', and on its product pages as detecting and locating people, alerting when a person enters the field of view, and, in its own training video, acquiring and tracking a person as they walk.5 sources
• Contested'Flock cannot recognize, identify, or track individuals' is two claims. No facial recognition is consistent with every source here, including what Flock told Las Cruces councilors in February 2026. 'Cannot track individuals' is contradicted by the record: officers have tracked former partners thousands of times through the system, Flock built Nova to join plate reads to identified people, Vehicle Fingerprint is sold as finding vehicles with no readable plate, and a New Mexico chief conceded that consecutive cameras produce consecutive reads of a vehicle.8 sources

People Detection - Activity in dog park after hours · Stolen Vehicle - Blue Honda with Bike Rack

Two alert callouts drawn onto the “Why This Program Matters” image of a Flock solar camera unit. The page's prose never says “people”; its picture does. The transparency portal for the same department lists people under “not detected”. Correction: this project's first capture said the page did not advertise people detection in text or images; the callout is drawn into the image rather than written in the text, and was found the same night.

• ContestedThe transparency portal says 'What's Not Detected: People'; the referral page's copy says the cameras 'capture vehicle data' while its hero graphic shows a 'People Detection - Activity in dog park after hours' alert beside a 'Stolen Vehicle' one. The video products on Las Cruces' 2024 order form - fifteen Condors and seventeen Wing Gateways - are the ones Flock markets with 'instant alerts for people and vehicles', a Guardian Mode that 'automatically detects and locates people', and, in its own training video, a camera that will 'acquire and track that person as they walk'.7 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces holds fifteen Flock Condor cameras under its 2024 order form - fourteen PTZ units with LTE service and one solar fixed unit, with 11,250 dollars in Condor implementation fees - the product Flock describes in the contract as capturing 'video footage with the option to stream live video', and on its product pages as detecting and locating people, alerting when a person enters the field of view, and, in its own training video, acquiring and tracking a person as they walk.5 sources
• Contested'Flock cannot recognize, identify, or track individuals' is two claims. No facial recognition is consistent with every source here, including what Flock told Las Cruces councilors in February 2026. 'Cannot track individuals' is contradicted by the record: officers have tracked former partners thousands of times through the system, Flock built Nova to join plate reads to identified people, Vehicle Fingerprint is sold as finding vehicles with no readable plate, and a New Mexico chief conceded that consecutive cameras produce consecutive reads of a vehicle.8 sources

Cameras automatically capture vehicle data while maintaining privacy protections.

The copy sells Falcons and the product image is a Falcon. The products LCPD holds also include 15 Condors and the gateways, which Flock markets with “instant alerts for people and vehicles”, a Guardian Mode that “automatically detects and locates people”, and a training video in which the camera will “acquire and track that person as they walk” - and this page's own graphic advertises the feature the sentence leaves out.

• ContestedThe transparency portal says 'What's Not Detected: People'; the referral page's copy says the cameras 'capture vehicle data' while its hero graphic shows a 'People Detection - Activity in dog park after hours' alert beside a 'Stolen Vehicle' one. The video products on Las Cruces' 2024 order form - fifteen Condors and seventeen Wing Gateways - are the ones Flock markets with 'instant alerts for people and vehicles', a Guardian Mode that 'automatically detects and locates people', and, in its own training video, a camera that will 'acquire and track that person as they walk'.7 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces holds fifteen Flock Condor cameras under its 2024 order form - fourteen PTZ units with LTE service and one solar fixed unit, with 11,250 dollars in Condor implementation fees - the product Flock describes in the contract as capturing 'video footage with the option to stream live video', and on its product pages as detecting and locating people, alerting when a person enters the field of view, and, in its own training video, acquiring and tracking a person as they walk.5 sources
• Well supportedNeither vendor page for Las Cruces mentions what the city's contracts contain: the transparency portal counts 'LPR cameras only' and says nothing about drones, Condor cameras, gateways, Peregrine or audio; the referral page sells plate readers and camera integration and names none of those either. Everything the city bought beyond plate reading is visible only in the contracts this project serves.4 sources

Flock Safety Condor PTZ w/ LTE Service · 14 · Solar Condor Fixed · 1 … cameras which capture video footage with the option to stream live video

Fifteen of the camera Flock's own training video says will “acquire and track that person as they walk”, and 404 Media found streaming to the open internet without a password. The transparency portal counts “LPR cameras only” and lists people under “not detected”.

• Well supportedLas Cruces holds fifteen Flock Condor cameras under its 2024 order form - fourteen PTZ units with LTE service and one solar fixed unit, with 11,250 dollars in Condor implementation fees - the product Flock describes in the contract as capturing 'video footage with the option to stream live video', and on its product pages as detecting and locating people, alerting when a person enters the field of view, and, in its own training video, acquiring and tracking a person as they walk.5 sources
• Well supportedFlock's Condor cameras track people rather than vehicles and can be set to zoom automatically on faces in parking lots, streets and playgrounds - so an agency that says it bought license plate readers may be operating something materially different. Las Cruces holds fifteen under its 2024 order form.5 sources
• ContestedAt a February 2026 meeting with Las Cruces councilors, Flock representatives stated the company has never and will never integrate facial recognition into its product. The councilor who recorded it added that they came away not entirely comforted.3 sources

Flock license plate readers do not and cannot track vehicles, much less individual people. The cameras themselves take a point-in-time image of a vehicle on a public roadway… that determination has been made consistently by more than 30 courts across this country.

The courts part checks out; the rest describes one product. Flock's own Condor training video says the camera will 'acquire and track that person as they walk', Flock built a plate-to-person tool, and officers have tracked ex-partners thousands of times through the system - the city held fifteen Condors when this was said.

• Well supportedOn 1 July 2026 Chief Story said 'these cameras cannot see the driver. They don't take a picture of the person. It's only the license plate', and Flock's representative said the readers 'do not and cannot track vehicles, much less individual people'. Both statements describe the Falcon plate reader. The city had held fifteen Flock Condor cameras since September 2024 - the product Flock's own training video says will 'acquire and track that person as they walk' - and Flock's referral page for Las Cruces advertises 'People Detection' on its hero graphic.6 sources
• Contested'Flock cannot recognize, identify, or track individuals' is two claims. No facial recognition is consistent with every source here, including what Flock told Las Cruces councilors in February 2026. 'Cannot track individuals' is contradicted by the record: officers have tracked former partners thousands of times through the system, Flock built Nova to join plate reads to identified people, Vehicle Fingerprint is sold as finding vehicles with no readable plate, and a New Mexico chief conceded that consecutive cameras produce consecutive reads of a vehicle.8 sources
• Well supportedThe weight of judicial authority currently runs AGAINST the argument this dossier makes: a federal court collecting the cases in 2025 found that nearly every court to address the question has held that querying an ALPR database is not a Fourth Amendment search.4 sources

These cameras cannot see the driver. They don't take a picture of the person. It's only the license plate, which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy of a license plate.

True of the Falcon, which images the vehicle - plate, make, color, bumper stickers, decals. The fifteen Condors on the department's own order form take video of people, and Flock's referral page for Las Cruces advertises 'People Detection' in its hero graphic. The courts part checks out: nearly every court has held a plate query is not a search.

• Well supportedOn 1 July 2026 Chief Story said 'these cameras cannot see the driver. They don't take a picture of the person. It's only the license plate', and Flock's representative said the readers 'do not and cannot track vehicles, much less individual people'. Both statements describe the Falcon plate reader. The city had held fifteen Flock Condor cameras since September 2024 - the product Flock's own training video says will 'acquire and track that person as they walk' - and Flock's referral page for Las Cruces advertises 'People Detection' on its hero graphic.6 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces holds fifteen Flock Condor cameras under its 2024 order form - fourteen PTZ units with LTE service and one solar fixed unit, with 11,250 dollars in Condor implementation fees - the product Flock describes in the contract as capturing 'video footage with the option to stream live video', and on its product pages as detecting and locating people, alerting when a person enters the field of view, and, in its own training video, acquiring and tracking a person as they walk.5 sources
• Well supportedThe contracted Vehicle Fingerprint search covers vehicle type, make, color, plate state, bumper stickers, decals, roof racks - and explicitly missing or covered plates, meaning the system is sold as able to find vehicles whose plates cannot be read.3 sources
• Well supportedThe weight of judicial authority currently runs AGAINST the argument this dossier makes: a federal court collecting the cases in 2025 found that nearly every court to address the question has held that querying an ALPR database is not a Fourth Amendment search.4 sources

We're not connected to any personal identifying information databases… We don't know who was driving that vehicle. We don't know who that vehicle is registered to.

The officer is. A New Mexico chief told his commission that a plate captured by Flock is run through NCIC, which he already had; Flock built Nova to join plate reads to identified people with data-broker records; and Las Cruces' Statement of Work puts dispatch calls and officers' body-camera locations on the same map as the reads.

• Well supportedThe answer that a plate reader shows no registration, insurance or immigration data is true and incomplete: officers can take a plate captured by Flock and run it through NCIC, which they already had access to.2 sources
• ContestedThe trajectory of the product is from plate reads toward identified people: Flock's Nova was built to join plate data to individuals using data-broker and breach-sourced records.2 sources
• Well supportedThe Statement of Work integrates more than cameras into FlockOS: active dispatch calls from Tyler New World CAD, managed by the regional dispatch authority, pulled every ten seconds; Axon body-worn camera and Fleet 3 in-car locations 'for live location tracking'; custom ESRI map layers; and an evaluation of Peregrine data on the same map. The plate reads, the video feeds, the calls and the officers' positions share one screen.3 sources

The police chief and the Flock rep sitting in that studio… lying to the public saying that the Flock cameras here in Las Cruces do not track people. - Well, it may have been true at that time. - No, at that time, the Flock Condor cameras were installed.

The caller was right on the date: the city's order form licensing fourteen Condor PTZ cameras and one solar Condor was signed 12 September 2024, twenty-two months before the July 1 broadcast. 'Lying' is the caller's word and this page does not adopt it - the July 1 statements were made about plate readers, and whether the speakers had the Condors in mind is not established.

• Well supportedWhen a caller told two councilors on 22 July 2026 that the chief and the Flock representative had said on air that Las Cruces' cameras do not track people, Councilor Bencomo answered 'it may have been true at that time'. It was not: the city's order form licensing fourteen Condor PTZ cameras and one solar Condor was signed on 12 September 2024, twenty-two months before the 1 July broadcast, and Flock's own training video describes the Condor acquiring and tracking a person as they walk.4 sources
• Well supportedOn 1 July 2026 Chief Story said 'these cameras cannot see the driver. They don't take a picture of the person. It's only the license plate', and Flock's representative said the readers 'do not and cannot track vehicles, much less individual people'. Both statements describe the Falcon plate reader. The city had held fifteen Flock Condor cameras since September 2024 - the product Flock's own training video says will 'acquire and track that person as they walk' - and Flock's referral page for Las Cruces advertises 'People Detection' on its hero graphic.6 sources
• Well supportedA pattern that holds across every Las Cruces search: product-level detail exists in the contracts and nowhere in the council record. Peregrine, Multi-Purpose LPR, FlockOS Elite, Wing Gateway and Condor appear zero times across 413 scanned city and district documents, while all five are line items or special terms in the 2024 order form - and Condor was named aloud only once, by a councilor in a 2026 verbal update.4 sources

Installed in Young Park on the light poles are cameras… six that are aimed at the middle school and children and people who drive on Nevada and park there. - Not just a year ago, there was a mass shooting at the park… where the school, Lynn Middle School is often…

Cameras at Young Park are documented: none during the 21 March 2025 shooting that killed three teenagers, and 'there are today', with live video cameras for the crime center planned for Young and Apodaca parks. The count of six, the aim at Lynn Middle School about 540 feet away, and whether they are Flock's or the city's own are not in the record.

• ContestedA caller told councilors on 22 July 2026 that cameras on light poles in Young Park are aimed at Lynn Middle School. The record confirms cameras at the park and leaves the aim and the count open: Haussamen reported in February 2026 that there were no plate readers over the Young Park lot during the 21 March 2025 shooting that killed three teenagers, 'there are today', and that Young and Apodaca parks would get live video cameras for the real-time crime center. Lynn Middle School is about 540 feet from the lot.3 sources
• Well supportedNon-Flock, city-owned cameras feed the Las Cruces Real Time Crime Center. In a councilor's words on 1 June 2026: most of the 22 cameras are Flock-branded but some are the city's own, and these all go into the Real Time Crime Center, with Flock the vendor that helps make it run.2 sources

LPR Cameras - 43 - Number of LPR cameras only.

By its own label the count excludes the 15 Condor video cameras on the city's 2024 order form and the 17 Wing Gateways beside them. It sits inside a growth curve - 21 contracted, 18, 22, 45 + 7, 22 “in total”, 28 mapped - without reconciling with any point on it. Ankeny's page, same template, shows “Total Cameras - LPR and other” instead.

• ContestedThe portal's 43 cameras carries the label 'Number of LPR cameras only', so by definition it excludes the Condor live-view cameras a councilor confirmed the city operates in June 2026 - and it sits inside the growth curve without reconciling with any point on it: 21 contracted in September 2024, 18 per the chief in December 2024, 22 in July 2025 records, 45 plus 7 at NMSU in February 2026 reporting, 22 'in total' per Councilor Harris in June 2026, 28 on the crowdsourced map in August 2026, 43 on the vendor's page in September 2026. The same template gives Ankeny IA a 'Total Cameras - LPR and other' figure instead. The contract itself lists 21 plate readers, 15 Condors and 17 Wing Gateways - so 'LPR cameras only' is, by the city's own order form, at most 21 devices plus whatever was added since, and 43 counts something the contract does not.9 sources
• Well supportedRead in full, the Las Cruces 2024 Flock order form buys far more than plate readers: alongside 15 Falcon readers and 6 solar LPR-and-video bundles it lists 14 Condor PTZ cameras and 1 solar Condor, 10 Wing Gateway units of 8 streams and 7 of 128 streams, a Peregrine integration, and the FlockOS Elite package - 737,750 dollars billed at signing for a 60-month initial term with 24-month renewals, Net 90, 30-day retention.2 sources
• Well supportedFlock's Condor cameras track people rather than vehicles and can be set to zoom automatically on faces in parking lots, streets and playgrounds - so an agency that says it bought license plate readers may be operating something materially different. Las Cruces holds fifteen under its 2024 order form.5 sources

Explore Flock Safety Cameras … plate capture capabilities and time-stamped evidence.

Neither vendor page mentions the drone, the Condors, the gateways, the Peregrine integration or audio detection. Everything the city bought beyond plate reading is visible only in the contracts this project serves, one section down.

• Well supportedNeither vendor page for Las Cruces mentions what the city's contracts contain: the transparency portal counts 'LPR cameras only' and says nothing about drones, Condor cameras, gateways, Peregrine or audio; the referral page sells plate readers and camera integration and names none of those either. Everything the city bought beyond plate reading is visible only in the contracts this project serves.4 sources

Flock Safety Wing Gateway - 8 Streams · 10 … Flock Safety Wing Gateway - 128 Streams · 7

The product the dossier had searched for by name and never found: 17 units, 976 camera streams, $8,500 in implementation fees. The MSA calls what they carry “Customer Hardware … the third-party camera owned or provided by Customer”. A councilor described the function without the name; the council record never carries either.

• Well supportedLas Cruces contracted Flock's third-party camera integrator by name in September 2024: ten 'Wing Gateway - 8 Streams' units and seven 'Wing Gateway - 128 Streams' units, 976 camera streams of capacity, with 8,500 dollars in gateway implementation fees. The Statement of Work says what each is for: the 128-channel units 'integrate IP cameras across Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations'; the 8-channel units carry ten ESI surveillance trailers. Through them city-owned cameras - and the business cameras the referral page asks owners to 'connect' - reach the Real Time Crime Center, and 'Third Party cameras integrated will be available on the Flock Safety network'.5 sources
• Well supportedAs of 30 August 2026 no Flock Wing Gateway purchase had been found BY PRODUCT NAME in any council or district record searched, though the function was documented in a councilor's words on 1 June 2026: of 22 cameras, most Flock-branded but some the city's own, 'these all go into the Real Time Crime Center'. SUPERSEDED 9 September 2026: the 2024 order form, read in full, lists 'Flock Safety Wing Gateway - 8 Streams' x10 and 'Flock Safety Wing Gateway - 128 Streams' x7 (claim-lc-wing-gateways-contracted). The product was in the contract this project was serving; the council record still never names it.6 sources
• Well supportedNon-Flock, city-owned cameras feed the Las Cruces Real Time Crime Center. In a councilor's words on 1 June 2026: most of the 22 cameras are Flock-branded but some are the city's own, and these all go into the Real Time Crime Center, with Flock the vendor that helps make it run.2 sources

Custom Subscription: Peregrine integration

The data-fusion platform founded by a former Palantir executive, contracted as a special term and named nowhere in the council record. It is the part of the purchase the mosaic argument is about: not the cameras but what joins them.

• Well supportedLas Cruces has not merely bought plate readers: its contract integrates with Peregrine, a data-fusion platform founded by a former Palantir executive that unifies body-camera footage, dispatch records and other feeds into one searchable real-time system serving agencies covering more than 80 million Americans.3 sources
• Well supportedA pattern that holds across every Las Cruces search: product-level detail exists in the contracts and nowhere in the council record. Peregrine, Multi-Purpose LPR, FlockOS Elite, Wing Gateway and Condor appear zero times across 413 scanned city and district documents, while all five are line items or special terms in the 2024 order form - and Condor was named aloud only once, by a councilor in a 2026 verbal update.4 sources

We have 43 license plate readers and there are over 500 miles of roads in Las Cruces. If you think I'm going to reconstruct somebody's movement patterns with 43 cameras over 500 miles, that is not mass surveillance.

Forty-three is the portal's 'LPR cameras only' figure. The department's own 2024 order form also licenses 15 Condor video cameras and 17 gateways with 976 streams, which its Statement of Work points at traffic, school district and third-party cameras. And one Las Cruces search, if the city is opted in, reaches the national network.

• Well supportedChief Story told Las Cruces on 1 July 2026 that the city has '43 license plate readers' over '500 miles of roads' and that this 'is not mass surveillance'. The 43 matches the transparency portal's 'LPR cameras only' figure two months later. The same department's 2024 order form also licenses 15 Condor video cameras and 17 Wing Gateways with 976 streams, which its Statement of Work points at Traffic Engineering, School Districts and third-party cameras - none of which the 43 counts.4 sources
• ContestedThe portal's 43 cameras carries the label 'Number of LPR cameras only', so by definition it excludes the Condor live-view cameras a councilor confirmed the city operates in June 2026 - and it sits inside the growth curve without reconciling with any point on it: 21 contracted in September 2024, 18 per the chief in December 2024, 22 in July 2025 records, 45 plus 7 at NMSU in February 2026 reporting, 22 'in total' per Councilor Harris in June 2026, 28 on the crowdsourced map in August 2026, 43 on the vendor's page in September 2026. The same template gives Ankeny IA a 'Total Cameras - LPR and other' figure instead. The contract itself lists 21 plate readers, 15 Condors and 17 Wing Gateways - so 'LPR cameras only' is, by the city's own order form, at most 21 devices plus whatever was added since, and 43 counts something the contract does not.9 sources
• Well supportedA single search by one local officer can reach tens of thousands of cameras across thousands of networks nationwide, making a local procurement decision a national exposure.2 sources

We've had Flocks since the beginning in 2018, so almost eight years or about eight years.

The same chief told Alamogordo's commission in December 2024 that 'in January 2022 we started with the license plate readers', and the city record reported in February 2026 dates the first purchase - ten readers - to January 2021. Three start dates from one department; the record supports 2021 and 2022. What eight years would mean for the data is worked out in Part 8.

• Well supportedChief Story told Las Cruces on air on 1 July 2026 that the city has 'had Flocks since the beginning in 2018, so almost eight years or about eight years'. His own earlier statement to Alamogordo's commission in December 2024 was 'In January 2022 we started with the license plate readers', and the city record reported by Haussamen dates the first purchase - a service agreement and purchase order for ten readers - to January 2021. Three start dates from the same department, four years apart; the record supports 2021 for the contract and 2022 for operation, not 2018.5 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces was the first agency in New Mexico to adopt Flock, starting with license plate readers in January 2022 - stated by Chief Jeremy Story on the record at a neighboring city's commission meeting.2 sources
• Well supportedThe first Las Cruces Flock agreement - a 'January 2021 service agreement and purchase order for initial 10 LPRs', reported by Haussamen from city records in February 2026 - is not among the documents this project holds, and the 2024 order form incorporates 'the previously executed agreement' by reference. What data terms governed the city's plate data from 2021 until 12 September 2024, including whether Flock held a training license on it, cannot be read from anything published.3 sources

Integrating your business cameras gives us secure, live access to video streams and the ability to download footage … law enforcement can access your video feeds directly.

This is the Wing Gateway in consumer language, and the city already bought it: ten 8-stream and seven 128-stream gateways on the 2024 order form, 976 streams of capacity, $8,500 in implementation fees. How many businesses have connected is unknown; the one named example - Lowes shares, Home Depot does not - concerns businesses that own Flock cameras. “Some agencies may cover the cost”: this one did, in 2024.

• Well supportedThe referral page's 'Integrate' route is the Wing Gateway in consumer language: 'Integration enables us to directly connect to and view live and recorded video feeds', with law enforcement able to 'access your video feeds directly' once a business is 'integrated... with our real-time crime center'. The city contracted seventeen gateways in 2024; a councilor confirmed in June 2026 that among private owners of Flock cameras Lowes shares with LCPD and Home Depot does not; and Flock separately offers businesses free 'Community Partnership' cameras whose 'feed go straight to your local police department'.4 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces contracted Flock's third-party camera integrator by name in September 2024: ten 'Wing Gateway - 8 Streams' units and seven 'Wing Gateway - 128 Streams' units, 976 camera streams of capacity, with 8,500 dollars in gateway implementation fees. The Statement of Work says what each is for: the 128-channel units 'integrate IP cameras across Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations'; the 8-channel units carry ten ESI surveillance trailers. Through them city-owned cameras - and the business cameras the referral page asks owners to 'connect' - reach the Real Time Crime Center, and 'Third Party cameras integrated will be available on the Flock Safety network'.5 sources
• Well supportedPrivate Flock camera owners in Las Cruces do share with police, and they can be named: asked directly, a councilor said Lowes shares its data with LCPD and Home Depot does not - both now subject to SB 40.3 sources, 1 not read at source

Starting at $1,160/year for up to 8 channels … (hidden card on the same page) Integrating live camera streams starts at $300 /year for up to 8 channels.

Two prices for the same thing on one page. Most likely a stale card in the template; what a business owner cannot tell from either is whether their feed rides capacity the city already paid for, and who controls it once connected.

• Well supportedThe referral page prices business camera integration two ways at once: 'Starting at $1,160/year for up to 8 channels' in the visible comparison table and 'starts at $300 /year for up to 8 channels' in a card the same template hides - both adding that 'some agencies may cover the cost'. The city's 2024 order form already paid 8,500 dollars in Wing Gateway implementation fees for 976 streams of capacity.2 sources

(7) 128-channel Wing gateway to integrate IP cameras across Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations

The school link, in an executed city document: the big gateways are directed at school district cameras by name, seventeen months before reporting described school-building cameras in the system. No district, campus or count is named, installs ran on a rolling 90-day schedule, and the district's board record carries no packet on it - so “planned” is established and “connected” is still a records request, now with a document to cite.

• Well supportedThe executed Statement of Work behind the 2024 order form names schools as a target of the camera integration in the city's own words: the seven 128-channel Wing gateways are 'to integrate IP cameras across Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations', and 'Third Party cameras integrated will be available on the Flock Safety network'. The first public report of school-building cameras in the system, in February 2026, now has a signed document under it dated September 2024.6 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces' Flock system reaches school cameras by design: the executed September 2024 Statement of Work directs the seven 128-channel Wing gateways 'to integrate IP cameras across Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations', and February 2026 reporting described cameras on the outside of city and public school buildings in the system. That puts the national school-camera finding directly in scope locally.4 sources
• Well supportedCameras contracted by school districts have been searched for immigration enforcement: in one Texas district's audit logs, searches for civil immigration reasons were more than TWICE as frequent as those involving immigrants suspected or convicted of a crime. About 100 school districts nationwide contract with Flock.3 sources

Third Party cameras integrated will be available on the Flock Safety network.

A school's, a traffic engineer's or a business's camera, once on a gateway, sits on the same searchable platform as the plate reads, under the same master agreement. The transparency portal describes plate readers; the referral page says “you choose what you share”; this sentence says where it goes.

• Well supportedThe executed Statement of Work behind the 2024 order form names schools as a target of the camera integration in the city's own words: the seven 128-channel Wing gateways are 'to integrate IP cameras across Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations', and 'Third Party cameras integrated will be available on the Flock Safety network'. The first public report of school-building cameras in the system, in February 2026, now has a signed document under it dated September 2024.6 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces contracted Flock's third-party camera integrator by name in September 2024: ten 'Wing Gateway - 8 Streams' units and seven 'Wing Gateway - 128 Streams' units, 976 camera streams of capacity, with 8,500 dollars in gateway implementation fees. The Statement of Work says what each is for: the 128-channel units 'integrate IP cameras across Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations'; the 8-channel units carry ten ESI surveillance trailers. Through them city-owned cameras - and the business cameras the referral page asks owners to 'connect' - reach the Real Time Crime Center, and 'Third Party cameras integrated will be available on the Flock Safety network'.5 sources
• Well supportedThe Master Services Agreement governing the Las Cruces Flock relationship is not missing: it is pages 7 to 27 of the same PDF as the order form, and it defines the Services to include audio detection, defines Footage to include audio, defines Customer Hardware as the third-party camera the customer provides, grants Flock a perpetual right to train machine-learning algorithms on anonymized city data, and lets Flock disclose Footage to law enforcement authorities and government officials where reasonably necessary to comply with legal process.2 sources

Configure up to 976 video feeds within Flock OS package … Flock Safety Wing Gateway includes 14 days on edge storage.

A retention figure that exists in no policy: General Order 173 sets 30 days for plate-reader data and says nothing about video; the portal says 30 days; the gateways keep other people's camera video for 14 days at the edge. Which figure governs a school camera's footage is not written anywhere public.

• Well supportedThe Wing Gateways keep video for '14 days on edge storage' with live view and replay on all feeds - a retention figure for third-party camera video that appears in no policy, on neither vendor page, and nowhere in General Order 173, which governs plate-reader data only.3 sources
• Well supportedThe portal's 30-day retention is the one number on it this project can verify against three city documents, and it checks out: the signed 2024 agreement records a 30-day Retention Period at page 2, General Order 173 sets thirty days with automatic purge unless evidentiary, and the chief told the council thirty days for plate readers in the April 2024 work session.4 sources

Integration of Axon Body Worn Cameras and Fleet 3 for live location tracking … Integration with Tyler New World CAD (managed by MVRDA) … every 10s in order to provide a real-time experience

The plate reads, the video, the dispatch calls and the officers' positions share one map - the aggregation the mosaic argument is about, itemized as a deliverable. The same dispatch feed is what the 2025 drone agreement's Schedule B wires the drone to.

• Well supportedThe Statement of Work integrates more than cameras into FlockOS: active dispatch calls from Tyler New World CAD, managed by the regional dispatch authority, pulled every ten seconds; Axon body-worn camera and Fleet 3 in-car locations 'for live location tracking'; custom ESRI map layers; and an evaluation of Peregrine data on the same map. The plate reads, the video feeds, the calls and the officers' positions share one screen.3 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces' drone contract, read in full, is one Flock Safety DFR 2.0 - 400ft system - drone, camera, batteries, battery-swapping dock and radar - with remote piloting, spectator view and a community engagement dashboard, on a 24-month term with a 60-day 'Project Prove It' opt-out, 457,133 dollars total (150,000 in year one, 307,133 a year after), first-year radar free and then paid, a downgrade path to 200 feet without radar, and governance under the state price agreement.4 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces has not merely bought plate readers: its contract integrates with Peregrine, a data-fusion platform founded by a former Palantir executive that unifies body-camera footage, dispatch records and other feeds into one searchable real-time system serving agencies covering more than 80 million Americans.3 sources

Flock Safety DFR 2.0 - 400ft · Contract Total: $457,133.00 · PROJECT PROVE IT … a 60 day opt-out period

One drone system on a two-year pilot, eight months after the camera contract, at more than twice the annual price - and it reached the council in no document anyone can point to. The transparency portal, which counts “LPR cameras only”, does not mention that the city flies a Flock drone.

• Well supportedLas Cruces' drone contract, read in full, is one Flock Safety DFR 2.0 - 400ft system - drone, camera, batteries, battery-swapping dock and radar - with remote piloting, spectator view and a community engagement dashboard, on a 24-month term with a 60-day 'Project Prove It' opt-out, 457,133 dollars total (150,000 in year one, 307,133 a year after), first-year radar free and then paid, a downgrade path to 200 feet without radar, and governance under the state price agreement.4 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces went from a 737,750 dollar five-year platform agreement in September 2024 (141,850 dollars a year in platform fees) to a further 457,133 dollar Drone as First Responder agreement with the same vendor in May 2025 - 307,133 dollars annually recurring, on a 60-day opt-out pilot called PROJECT PROVE IT - and the module's comparison finds no staff report and no council enactment attached to it.4 sources
• Well supportedThe largest single Flock commitment Las Cruces has made - 457,133 dollars for Drone as First Responder, signed 13 May 2025 - reached the city council in no document anyone can point to. The procurement module records no staff report and no enactment for it, and an independent scan of all 24 available 2025 council and work session packets (9,192 pages) finds zero references to DFR and no Flock item at all.3 sources

these all go into the Real Time Crime Center … Flock is a vendor that helps make the Real Time Crime Center run … an integrated system of cameras, surveillance equipment and information technology

The Statement of Work and the council record between them document the routes into the center, and the state paid $650,000 to build it. Neither vendor page describes the center; the portal describes one route's plate readers, the referral page recruits for two more. The councilor's exclusion - new city-building cameras stay out - is the only published line between what is in and what is not.

• Well supportedThe documented routes into the Las Cruces Real Time Crime Center, now with the Statement of Work: Flock's own cameras (21 readers, 15 Condors); city cameras through the 128-channel Wing gateways, which the SOW directs at 'Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations' and a councilor described as 'these all go into the Real Time Crime Center'; ten ESI surveillance trailers on the 8-channel gateways; business-owned Flock cameras that share with LCPD (Lowes yes, Home Depot no, June 2026); business cameras 'integrated' through the referral page (count unknown); registered private cameras, which contribute a map pin and a phone number rather than a feed; Flock-sponsored 'Community Partnership' cameras whose feeds go straight to police; drone video; and, as data on the same map, dispatch calls and Axon body-camera and in-car locations. The state paid 650,000 dollars in 2024 for 'an integrated system of cameras' to build it.8 sources
• Well supportedThe camera-integration function appears in public records under generic language, not product names: New Mexico's 2024 appropriation gave Las Cruces 650,000 dollars to implement AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF CAMERAS, SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY for a real-time crime center - naming no vendor and no product.2 sources
• Well supportedNon-Flock, city-owned cameras feed the Las Cruces Real Time Crime Center. In a councilor's words on 1 June 2026: most of the 22 cameras are Flock-branded but some are the city's own, and these all go into the Real Time Crime Center, with Flock the vendor that helps make it run.2 sources

(7) 128-channel Wing gateway to integrate IP cameras across Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations … cameras on the outside of city and public school buildings

No longer a single press report: an executed September 2024 city document names school districts as an integration target of the big gateways, and the same document says integrated third-party cameras “will be available on the Flock Safety network”. What it does not say is which district, which campuses, how many streams, or whether any board voted - the district publishes no packets, and its one city MOU under the safety goal (19 Aug 2025) states no subject. On 29 July 2026 the district's superintendent, asked on air, said he was not aware of any such link. The records request now has a document to quote and a district to send it to.

• Well supportedThe executed Statement of Work behind the 2024 order form names schools as a target of the camera integration in the city's own words: the seven 128-channel Wing gateways are 'to integrate IP cameras across Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations', and 'Third Party cameras integrated will be available on the Flock Safety network'. The first public report of school-building cameras in the system, in February 2026, now has a signed document under it dated September 2024.6 sources
• Well supportedAsked on air on 29 July 2026 whether Las Cruces Public Schools' cameras feed the police department's Flock system, Superintendent Ignacio Ruiz said 'I wasn't aware, I'm not aware of that', named the district's own vendor, Verkada, said 'we do share resources', and promised to 'circle back with our team'. The city's Statement of Work, signed 23 and 24 September 2024, names 'School Districts' as an integration target for its seven 128-channel gateways. Ten months after the document and six weeks after the promise, no district statement answers whether any LCPS camera is on them.3 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces' Flock system reaches school cameras by design: the executed September 2024 Statement of Work directs the seven 128-channel Wing gateways 'to integrate IP cameras across Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations', and February 2026 reporting described cameras on the outside of city and public school buildings in the system. That puts the national school-camera finding directly in scope locally.4 sources
• Well supportedThe school-camera question cannot be answered from any public surface: the district publishes agendas and some minutes but no packets, and its document library carries policy rather than board materials. Closing it requires a records request to LCPS for the 19 August 2025 packet and the LCPS-City of Las Cruces MOU, plus the city's counterpart copy.4 sources
• Well supportedCameras contracted by school districts have been searched for immigration enforcement: in one Texas district's audit logs, searches for civil immigration reasons were more than TWICE as frequent as those involving immigrants suspected or convicted of a crime. About 100 school districts nationwide contract with Flock.3 sources

I noticed that in the contract for the LCPD Flock security mass surveillance system we have in town, that it includes provisions to feed live stream cameras installed all around our school districts into the police department. This includes Flock, AI facial recognition and body recognition and license plate recognition. What do you have to say to the public that might be unaware that they are being scanned every single day?

The feed provision is real: the Statement of Work aims the seven 128-channel gateways at 'Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations', and says integrated cameras 'will be available on the Flock Safety network'. 'AI facial recognition' is not in the record: Flock says it has never integrated it, told councilors so in February 2026, and the portal lists it under not detected. 'Body recognition' is the Condor's people detection and tracking, which is.

• Well supportedThe executed Statement of Work behind the 2024 order form names schools as a target of the camera integration in the city's own words: the seven 128-channel Wing gateways are 'to integrate IP cameras across Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations', and 'Third Party cameras integrated will be available on the Flock Safety network'. The first public report of school-building cameras in the system, in February 2026, now has a signed document under it dated September 2024.6 sources
• Well supportedThe caller's premise on 29 July 2026 was half right: the Statement of Work does provide for school-district cameras to be fed into the police department's FlockOS through the gateways, and the Condor cameras the city holds do detect and track people. It also said the system 'includes Flock, AI facial recognition', which nothing in this record supports: Flock's representatives told Las Cruces councilors in February 2026 the company 'has never and will never integrate facial recognition', the portal lists it under not detected, and every source here that examines the product agrees.5 sources
• Well supportedFlock's Condor cameras track people rather than vehicles and can be set to zoom automatically on faces in parking lots, streets and playgrounds - so an agency that says it bought license plate readers may be operating something materially different. Las Cruces holds fifteen under its 2024 order form.5 sources

I've uncovered the real contracts… the Master Services Agreement of the surveillance tech and software combo package that links to all the school districts is the fact that Flock gets to give this information up to ICE any time they want at their discretion. It's buried there in the clause. So do your parents and teachers and students know that they're being scanned and that ICE has access to that information?

The clause exists and is narrower than 'any time they want': MSA section 5.3 lets Flock 'access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials' where 'reasonably necessary to comply with a legal process' or to enforce the agreement - a vendor-side channel no local policy controls, conditioned on process rather than discretion, and it does not name ICE. SB 40 has barred immigration use by the agency since 1 July; the ICE access in the record came through local lookups and logins, not this clause.

• ContestedUnder section 5.3 of the attached MSA, 'Flock may access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or' other parties where preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to comply with a legal process or enforce the agreement - a vendor-side channel for Las Cruces video and plate data that the transparency portal's 'only your agency decides who to share your data with' does not describe.3 sources
• Well supportedThe caller told the superintendent on 29 July 2026 that the Master Services Agreement lets 'Flock give this information up to ICE any time they want at their discretion'. The clause is section 5.3: Flock 'may access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or' others where 'reasonably necessary to comply with a legal process' or to enforce the agreement. It is a vendor-side channel no local policy controls and the portal's 'only your agency decides' does not mention it; it is conditioned on process, not discretion, and it does not name ICE. The ICE access in the record came through local agencies' lookups and local officers' logins, which the clause has nothing to do with.3 sources
• Well supportedICE has no direct contract with Flock and no direct access - and obtained data anyway, through local agencies running lookups on its behalf and through federal agents using local officers' credentials.5 sources, 1 not read at source

The school that is right across the street now has a camera system in the park… I looked at the contract for the statement of work with the Las Cruces Police Department, which by the way was signed 9-14-24. So when the city councilors were on the show last week, I asked them if they knew about this camera, which is now a rotating surveillance camera that tracks everybody. And they didn't want to answer that question.

The Statement of Work is real and the date is close: effective 5 September 2024, approved as to form on the 17th, signed on the 23rd and 24th. The councilors did answer a week earlier - Corran put the Young Park cameras in the context of the 2025 shooting there; what nobody has answered is the count, the aim, and whether they feed the crime center. 'Rotating' describes a Condor PTZ; which cameras stand in the park is unpublished.

• ContestedA caller told councilors on 22 July 2026 that cameras on light poles in Young Park are aimed at Lynn Middle School. The record confirms cameras at the park and leaves the aim and the count open: Haussamen reported in February 2026 that there were no plate readers over the Young Park lot during the 21 March 2025 shooting that killed three teenagers, 'there are today', and that Young and Apodaca parks would get live video cameras for the real-time crime center. Lynn Middle School is about 540 feet from the lot.3 sources
• Well supportedThe executed Statement of Work behind the 2024 order form names schools as a target of the camera integration in the city's own words: the seven 128-channel Wing gateways are 'to integrate IP cameras across Traffic Engineering, School Districts, and various third party locations', and 'Third Party cameras integrated will be available on the Flock Safety network'. The first public report of school-building cameras in the system, in February 2026, now has a signed document under it dated September 2024.6 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces holds fifteen Flock Condor cameras under its 2024 order form - fourteen PTZ units with LTE service and one solar fixed unit, with 11,250 dollars in Condor implementation fees - the product Flock describes in the contract as capturing 'video footage with the option to stream live video', and on its product pages as detecting and locating people, alerting when a person enters the field of view, and, in its own training video, acquiring and tracking a person as they walk.5 sources

Flock does not have any contracts with ICE or any sub-agency of the Department of Homeland Security.

Accurate on its own terms, and the terms are the problem: Illinois' Secretary of State found Flock had given Customs and Border Protection access in violation of state law, and ICE obtained local data through local agencies' lookups and local officers' credentials without any contract of its own. ICE's direct plate-reader contract is with Motorola's Vigilant.

• Well supportedICE has no direct contract with Flock and no direct access - and obtained data anyway, through local agencies running lookups on its behalf and through federal agents using local officers' credentials.5 sources, 1 not read at source
• Well supportedICE does hold a direct national license plate reader contract - with Motorola's Vigilant, not Flock. More than 9,000 ICE personnel have had access to a commercial database of roughly two billion plate records growing by about 100 million a month, which also feeds Palantir and Thomson Reuters CLEAR.4 sources, 1 not read at source

We as a company support regulation. We are very supportive of Senate Bill 40.

Flock publishes state-specific contract provisions for six states. New Mexico is not among them, and the Doña Ana County order form signed three weeks before this broadcast incorporates that page as it stands.

• Well supportedFlock publishes state-specific contract provisions for Connecticut, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, Indiana and Texas - and NOT for New Mexico, even though SB 40 took effect July 1 2026 and imposes duties closely resembling Connecticut's. The June 2026 Dona Ana order form incorporates that page as it stands.3 sources

Acceptable Use Policy - Data is owned by LCPD and is never sold to 3rd parties.

Accurate as far as it goes: the attached MSA says Flock “does not own and shall not sell” anonymized data or customer-generated data, and the public terms carry a no-sale clause. The same MSA gives Flock an irrevocable license to use the city's data and a perpetual right to train machine-learning algorithms on it once anonymized - the provisions the city's own lawyers were trying to strip in June 2026, along with Flock staff reviewing city data for sales demos.

• Well supported'Data is owned by LCPD and is never sold to 3rd parties' is accurate to the live terms and incomplete: the same terms grant Flock a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide license to use the city's data to support and improve its products, and on 1 June 2026 the city's own legal department was trying to strip from its contract Flock's training of its algorithms on city data and Flock employees' review of city data for sales demonstrations - the uses documented in Dunwoody and Redwood City.6 sources, 2 not read at source
• Well supportedThe Master Services Agreement governing the Las Cruces Flock relationship is not missing: it is pages 7 to 27 of the same PDF as the order form, and it defines the Services to include audio detection, defines Footage to include audio, defines Customer Hardware as the third-party camera the customer provides, grants Flock a perpetual right to train machine-learning algorithms on anonymized city data, and lets Flock disclose Footage to law enforcement authorities and government officials where reasonably necessary to comply with legal process.2 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces' legal department is trying to strip from its Flock contract the exact provisions chapter 6b identified: emergency sharing with other agencies, Flock training its own algorithms on city data, and Flock employees reviewing city data and using it in sales demos - the councilor adding, as it has in other cities.4 sources, 1 not read at source

Myth: Flock sells and/or shares customer data. Fact: … it will never be sold … Other agencies who you share footage with have been responding to FOIA requests and sharing this search data.

Not sold: accurate. Not shared: Flock itself holds a perpetual license, may disclose Footage to “law enforcement authorities, government officials” under the MSA's own clause 5.3, and has used customer cameras for sales demonstrations. The last sentence is the vendor telling Las Cruces that its searches become public through other states' records laws - which is exactly how this project's search data was obtained.

• Well supportedThe portal's Myth vs Fact section is Flock's national copy - written in Flock's first person ('Flock invests', 'we do not provide') and word-for-word identical on Poughkeepsie NY's portal the same day - and one of its own sentences concedes the premise of this project: other agencies 'have been responding to FOIA requests and sharing this search data'. Nothing on the page says which sentences, if any, the department wrote.3 sources, vendor material only
• ContestedUnder section 5.3 of the attached MSA, 'Flock may access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or' other parties where preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to comply with a legal process or enforce the agreement - a vendor-side channel for Las Cruces video and plate data that the transparency portal's 'only your agency decides who to share your data with' does not describe.3 sources
• Single sourceFlock itself ran searches of a California city's camera data for sales demonstrations without the police department's permission - a category of misuse distinct from both officer abuse and federal access.3 sources, 1 not read at source

Discounts: $290,000.00 · Estimated Tax: $2,297.84 · Contract Total: $737,750.00 … Initial Term: 60 Months

The “about $737,000 over five years” everybody reported was exactly right, and this project was wrong to say otherwise: the $141,850 it had called the total is the annual platform line. A correction, kept visible. The number the council record never carried is the one on page 3.

• Well supportedThe reported figure of about 737,000 dollars over five years for the Las Cruces Flock agreement is exactly what the signed document says: Contract Total 737,750.00, Total Contract Due at Signing, over a 60-month initial term. The 141,850 figure this corpus previously reported as the total is the annual Flock Safety Platform line, discounted by 290,000 dollars across the term.2 sources
• Well supportedThe Las Cruces Flock agreement signed 12 September 2024 records 21 plate readers - 6 Multi-Purpose LPR and Video Fixed units and 15 Falcons - with a 30-day retention period and automatic renewal, at a Flock Safety Platform price of 141,850 dollars a year. CORRECTED 9 September 2026 after reading the full PDF: the CONTRACT TOTAL is 737,750 dollars over a 60-month initial term, billed at signing, so the reported 'about 737,000 dollars over five years' is exactly what the signed agreement says (claim-lc-737k-was-the-contract-total). The order form also lists 15 Condor cameras and 17 Wing Gateway units (claim-lc-order-form-read-in-full).4 sources
• Well supportedOn the 2024 Las Cruces agreement the written record is silent on camera count, cost and auto-renewal - but not on everything. In the 22 April 2024 work session the police chief stated retention aloud - thirty days for plate readers, seven days for all video - and a councilor raised sharing with ICE by name. What the council never received was any of it in writing, and the vendor is not named once in the 1,732-page packet.4 sources

“Customer Hardware” means the third-party camera owned or provided by Customer … “Flock Services” means … automatic license plate detection, alerts, audio detection, searching image records, video and sharing Footage … including the training of machine learning algorithms … Flock may access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or …

The master agreement the procurement record lists as “not held” is in the same PDF. It defines the services to include audio detection, the footage to include audio, grants Flock a perpetual right to train models on anonymized city data, and lets Flock disclose footage to “government officials” where legal process requires. The city's lawyers were renegotiating the training clause in June 2026.

• Well supportedThe Master Services Agreement governing the Las Cruces Flock relationship is not missing: it is pages 7 to 27 of the same PDF as the order form, and it defines the Services to include audio detection, defines Footage to include audio, defines Customer Hardware as the third-party camera the customer provides, grants Flock a perpetual right to train machine-learning algorithms on anonymized city data, and lets Flock disclose Footage to law enforcement authorities and government officials where reasonably necessary to comply with legal process.2 sources
• ContestedUnder section 5.3 of the attached MSA, 'Flock may access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or' other parties where preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to comply with a legal process or enforce the agreement - a vendor-side channel for Las Cruces video and plate data that the transparency portal's 'only your agency decides who to share your data with' does not describe.3 sources
• Well supportedFlock's terms grant it an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide license to use customer data to improve its products - surviving termination of the contract, so a city that cancels does not get its data out of the company's models.4 sources, 1 not read at source

Flock Drone IP expressly includes … data collected by Flock's radar and radio frequency sensors … flight logs and flight history, telemetry data … Customer agrees that it will not share … any data generated by the Flock Hardware … to any third party without the prior express written consent of Flock

Flight logs, telemetry and airspace radar data belong to Flock, which “reserves the right to create and market public indexes” from them, and the city may not share drone-generated data without Flock's written consent. The city wrote itself the exception that matters, in the same section: Las Cruces “must comply with all requests” under IPRA “notwithstanding any applicable exceptions”.

• Well supportedUnder the drone addendum, flight logs and flight history, telemetry, fleet information and radar data 'concerning the surrounding airspace' are Flock Drone IP - Flock's property, which it 'reserves the right to create and market public indexes, analysis or insights' from - and the city 'will not share, sell, transfer, or make available any data generated by the Flock Hardware... to any third party without the prior express written consent of Flock'.2 sources

Flock shall have the right to collect, analyze, and anonymize Customer Data and Customer Generated Data… to create Anonymized Data to use and perform the Services and related systems and technologies, including the training of machine learning algorithms. Customer hereby grants Flock a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right to use and distribute such Anonymized Data.

This is the clause the councilors set out to remove, quoted from the only executed Flock contract this project holds for the city. It survives termination. Flock deletes the raw footage after 30 days; the anonymized derivative it may keep is not subject to that clock. What the January 2021 agreement said about the same data is unknown, because that agreement is not published.

• Well supportedThe Master Services Agreement governing the Las Cruces Flock relationship is not missing: it is pages 7 to 27 of the same PDF as the order form, and it defines the Services to include audio detection, defines Footage to include audio, defines Customer Hardware as the third-party camera the customer provides, grants Flock a perpetual right to train machine-learning algorithms on anonymized city data, and lets Flock disclose Footage to law enforcement authorities and government officials where reasonably necessary to comply with legal process.2 sources
• Well supportedFlock's terms grant it an irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide license to use customer data to improve its products - surviving termination of the contract, so a city that cancels does not get its data out of the company's models.4 sources, 1 not read at source
• Well supportedThe first Las Cruces Flock agreement - a 'January 2021 service agreement and purchase order for initial 10 LPRs', reported by Haussamen from city records in February 2026 - is not among the documents this project holds, and the 2024 order form incorporates 'the previously executed agreement' by reference. What data terms governed the city's plate data from 2021 until 12 September 2024, including whether Flock held a training license on it, cannot be read from anything published.3 sources

Prohibited Uses - Immigration enforcement, harassment or intimidation, usage based solely on a protected class, Personal use.

Matches SB 40's immigration bar. The same template line carries “traffic enforcement” on Ankeny's and Poughkeepsie's portals and not here, and LCPD policy says no reasonable suspicion is needed to use a reader. Prohibitions elsewhere were satisfied by whatever an officer typed; the monthly audits that would show enforcement are not public.

• Well supportedThe prohibited-uses line on the Las Cruces portal omits 'traffic enforcement', which the same template carries on the Ankeny IA and Poughkeepsie NY portals the same day - while General Order 173 states that reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required before using an ALPR.3 sources
• Well supportedFederal immigration enforcement obtained access to local ALPR data through local agencies rather than through any contract of its own, at scale and in multiple states: an Illinois regulator found it violated state law, Virginia's network logged nearly 3,000 immigration-related searches in twelve months, and Texas school district logs show civil immigration searches outnumbering criminal ones two to one.5 sources, 1 not read at source
• Well supportedGeneral Order 173 devotes a single sentence to data sharing - that ALPR data is law enforcement sensitive and may be shared for valid purposes - with no mention of the national lookup network, out-of-state agencies, or federal access, which are the subjects the audit logs in this corpus show to be the actual risk. It also predates SB 40's effective date and has not been revised since.4 sources

Myth: Flock has been hacked. Fact: Flock's cloud environment has never been breached … required Multi-Factor Authentication …

Flock's sentence, identical on Poughkeepsie's portal. Scoped to exclude what happened: at least 60 Condor cameras open on the internet without a password (Dec 2025) and at least 35 customer logins stolen by malware while Flock did not require MFA (Nov 2025). Flock says MFA is default since Jan 2026 and the exposure was fixed.

• Contested'Flock's cloud environment has never been breached' is Flock's sentence, not LCPD's - it is word-for-word identical on Poughkeepsie NY's portal the same day - and it is scoped to exclude the two documented failures: at least 60 Condor cameras reachable on the open internet with no password, exposing live feeds, 30 days of archive and administrative panels (December 2025), and passwords for at least 35 customer accounts stolen by infostealer malware while Flock did not require multi-factor authentication (November 2025).6 sources
• Well supportedAt least 60 Flock Condor cameras sat on the open internet with no authentication, exposing live feeds, 30 days of archived video and in some cases administrative controls - meaning the network's security failures expose the public it records, not only its police customers.3 sources
• ContestedFederal lawmakers asked the FTC to investigate Flock's security, finding it does not require multi-factor authentication of law enforcement customers and that at least 35 customer accounts had passwords stolen by malware. Reporting on the same oversight, not yet verified against the letter itself, says Flock's described filters were easily bypassed and that it did not audit how its own network was used.2 sources

I would not agree that there's a lot of abuses. Now, any time there's human beings involved, there's going to be misuse of anything, just like with NCIC.

At least 50 officers have faced accusations or charges for misusing plate readers, mostly Flock's - one in Kentucky after more than 2,000 searches of one woman, one in Joplin after nearly 400 - and the cases were found by the victims and by records requests, not by the systems' own monitoring.

• Well supportedOfficers have used ALPR systems to track intimate partners and other private individuals, in dozens of documented cases, and the misuse was typically discovered by victims or by outside review rather than by the vendor's own monitoring.4 sources, 1 not read at source
• Well supportedOn Las Cruces radio on 1 July 2026 Flock's representative said misuse cases are 'extremely rare' - 'a very small number' in eight years - and that in every case 'the immutable audit trails within the Flock system' held the officer accountable. The record says otherwise on both counts: at least 50 officers have faced accusations or charges, one in Kentucky after more than 2,000 searches of one woman, and the cases were found by victims looking themselves up and by records requests, not by the vendor; in Mountain View, Flock reportedly kept no access logs for a period; and Flock's own staff used a customer's cameras for sales demos.5 sources, 2 not read at source
• Well supportedAn ordinary resident can check whether their own plate has been searched - the mechanism by which several officer-misuse cases were discovered by their victims rather than by any oversight body.3 sources, 1 not read at source

We have a very small number of misuse cases in Flock's eight years of being a platform. But in every case of misuse, it's been the immutable audit trails within the Flock system that have been able to hold that officer accountable.

The audit trail proved the cases once someone looked; the someone was a victim or a reporter, never Flock. In Mountain View, Flock reportedly kept no access logs for a period, and in Dunwoody Flock's own staff used a customer's cameras for sales demos.

• Well supportedOn Las Cruces radio on 1 July 2026 Flock's representative said misuse cases are 'extremely rare' - 'a very small number' in eight years - and that in every case 'the immutable audit trails within the Flock system' held the officer accountable. The record says otherwise on both counts: at least 50 officers have faced accusations or charges, one in Kentucky after more than 2,000 searches of one woman, and the cases were found by victims looking themselves up and by records requests, not by the vendor; in Mountain View, Flock reportedly kept no access logs for a period; and Flock's own staff used a customer's cameras for sales demos.5 sources, 2 not read at source
• ContestedThe audit log is this dossier's most load-bearing evidence type, and it is not complete: in Mountain View, Flock reportedly did not retain access logs for the period when federal agencies were searching the city's system.3 sources, 1 not read at source
• Single sourceFlock itself ran searches of a California city's camera data for sales demonstrations without the police department's permission - a category of misuse distinct from both officer abuse and federal access.3 sources, 1 not read at source

It requires a case number and a reason for every single search so that we can go back and verify that it was for a lawful purpose.

General Order 173, the department's own written policy, requires a requestor, a reason, and a case number 'if available', and exempts administrative and audit queries from the case-number requirement.

• Well supportedChief Story told Las Cruces on 1 July 2026 that the system 'requires a case number and a reason for every single search'. The department's own General Order 173, in force since September 2025, requires a requestor, a reason, and a case number 'if available', and exempts administrative and audit queries from the case-number requirement altogether.2 sources
• Well supportedWhere Dona Ana County's lieutenant describes a hard rule that every search carry a case number, Las Cruces policy requires a requestor, reason, and case number 'if available' - making the case number optional.4 sources

The Flock platform has never been hacked. We use some of the highest security standards, the same security standards that store sensitive government information.

Six months earlier, at least 60 Flock Condor cameras sat on the open internet without a password, and Congress had found at least 35 customer logins stolen by malware while Flock did not require multi-factor authentication. Flock's own definition of 'never breached' is scoped to its cloud platform.

• Contested'Flock's cloud environment has never been breached' is Flock's sentence, not LCPD's - it is word-for-word identical on Poughkeepsie NY's portal the same day - and it is scoped to exclude the two documented failures: at least 60 Condor cameras reachable on the open internet with no password, exposing live feeds, 30 days of archive and administrative panels (December 2025), and passwords for at least 35 customer accounts stolen by infostealer malware while Flock did not require multi-factor authentication (November 2025).6 sources
• Well supportedAt least 60 Flock Condor cameras sat on the open internet with no authentication, exposing live feeds, 30 days of archived video and in some cases administrative controls - meaning the network's security failures expose the public it records, not only its police customers.3 sources
• ContestedFederal lawmakers asked the FTC to investigate Flock's security, finding it does not require multi-factor authentication of law enforcement customers and that at least 35 customer accounts had passwords stolen by malware. Reporting on the same oversight, not yet verified against the letter itself, says Flock's described filters were easily bypassed and that it did not audit how its own network was used.2 sources

Last updated: Wed Sep 09 2026 … Provided by Flock Safety

Every usage number is a rolling 30-day window refreshed daily; there is no history and the host defeats the Wayback Machine, so this capture is the only fixed record. The page delivers four of the five things Councilor Bencomo asked for on 18 Aug - not scan counts - on the vendor's template, and loads two third-party analytics recorders while you read it.

• Well supportedLas Cruces PD's Flock transparency portal exists and was live by 9 September 2026 at transparency.flocksafety.com/las-cruces-nm-pd, three weeks after reporting that it was in development. It publishes 30-day retention, 43 'LPR cameras only', 487 search sessions and 1,542 hotlist hits over a rolling 30-day window, a 20-agency all-New-Mexico sharing list, Flock's policy copy and Flock's Myth vs Fact block.3 sources
• Well supportedAgainst what Councilor Bencomo asked for on 18 August 2026 - camera counts, scan numbers, retention periods, search volumes and inter-agency sharing - the portal delivers four of five: a camera count (LPR only), retention, a rolling 30-day search-session count and the outbound sharing list. It does not publish scan numbers although the vendor template can, it has no history, and it is hosted and templated by the vendor, which is what both councilors said would not satisfy them.4 sources
• Well supportedLas Cruces councilors are seeking a city-level surveillance ordinance, regular audits and an independently run public transparency portal, on the ground that a departmental policy can be changed by the department at any time.3 sources

Flock LPR Helps Deputies Identify Fatal Hit-and-Run Suspect in NM - Read full story

A Doña Ana County Sheriff's Office case (June 2026), not LCPD's. In the court record a witness photographed the driver, the Escalade and its plate at the scene; the Flock camera added a photograph and nearby video showed the car speeding away. A real case for the cameras, credited to the wrong thing on the wrong agency's page.

• Well supportedThe one Community Impact story on LCPD's portal - 'Flock LPR Helps Deputies Identify Fatal Hit-and-Run Suspect in NM' - is a Dona Ana County Sheriff's Office case, and in the court record a witness photographed the driver, the Escalade and its plate at the scene; a Flock camera supplied a further photograph, nearby surveillance video showed the vehicle speeding away, and a past LCPD citation linked the plate to Kimberly Skaggs.3 sources
• Well supportedLocal officials make a concrete case for the cameras - auto theft, homicides, missing persons, a solved Las Cruces hit-and-run - and the dossier carries it at full strength rather than pretending it does not exist.3 sources

Solved Stories Near You

One story loads: a Minnesota shopping-center arrest. The nearest solved story the vendor could find for a Las Cruces page is 1,200 miles away, and the Skaggs hit-and-run the portal claims is not here.

• Well supportedFlock runs an LCPD-badged referral page for Las Cruces - 'Together, We Make Las Cruces Safer' - asking residents to register home cameras and businesses to connect live feeds to the real-time crime center, with a purchase funnel for Flock cameras. It is a lightly re-skinned template: hidden register buttons still link to the Fort Worth, Texas police registry, a hidden card still reads lorem ipsum, the only 'Solved Story Near You' is a Minnesota arrest, and the footer's 'Las Cruces Transparency Portal' link goes nowhere.2 sources, vendor material only
• Well supportedThe one Community Impact story on LCPD's portal - 'Flock LPR Helps Deputies Identify Fatal Hit-and-Run Suspect in NM' - is a Dona Ana County Sheriff's Office case, and in the court record a witness photographed the driver, the Escalade and its plate at the scene; a Flock camera supplied a further photograph, nearby surveillance video showed the vehicle speeding away, and a past LCPD citation linked the plate to Kimberly Skaggs.3 sources

Your information is stored in Flock's secure cloud system … according to CJIS standards.

The same cloud whose customers had at least 35 logins stolen by malware while Flock did not require multi-factor authentication, and whose Condor cameras sat on the open internet without a password. Flock says both are fixed. A resident's name, phone number and street address go into that system when they register.

• Contested'Flock's cloud environment has never been breached' is Flock's sentence, not LCPD's - it is word-for-word identical on Poughkeepsie NY's portal the same day - and it is scoped to exclude the two documented failures: at least 60 Condor cameras reachable on the open internet with no password, exposing live feeds, 30 days of archive and administrative panels (December 2025), and passwords for at least 35 customer accounts stolen by infostealer malware while Flock did not require multi-factor authentication (November 2025).6 sources
• ContestedFederal lawmakers asked the FTC to investigate Flock's security, finding it does not require multi-factor authentication of law enforcement customers and that at least 35 customer accounts had passwords stolen by malware. Reporting on the same oversight, not yet verified against the letter itself, says Flock's described filters were easily bypassed and that it did not audit how its own network was used.2 sources
• Well supportedThe referral page is also a sales page: its 'Purchase Cameras' form asks for Organization Type, Community Role, Total Sworn Officers, Industry and Annual Revenue; its register and integrate forms post a resident's name, phone, email and street address to Flock; and the page loads Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager and Mapbox while a resident fills them in.1 source, vendor material only

REGISTER YOUR CAMERA NOW → pdapps.fortworthtexas.gov/onlineservices/cameras/ … Nisl massa ut maecenas gravida rutrum justo proin … Las Cruces Transparency Portal → #

A lightly re-skinned template: three hidden register buttons still point at Fort Worth, Texas PD's registry (invisible at desktop and phone widths; the visible ones open Flock's form), a hidden card still reads lorem ipsum, and the footer link to the Las Cruces transparency portal is dead - the one link that would take a resident from the sales page to the accountability page.

• Well supportedFlock runs an LCPD-badged referral page for Las Cruces - 'Together, We Make Las Cruces Safer' - asking residents to register home cameras and businesses to connect live feeds to the real-time crime center, with a purchase funnel for Flock cameras. It is a lightly re-skinned template: hidden register buttons still link to the Fort Worth, Texas police registry, a hidden card still reads lorem ipsum, the only 'Solved Story Near You' is a Minnesota arrest, and the footer's 'Las Cruces Transparency Portal' link goes nowhere.2 sources, vendor material only

PURCHASE CAMERAS: Organization Type · Community Role · Total Sworn Officers · Industry · Select Annual Revenue

An LCPD-badged page that is also a Flock sales funnel: the purchase form is a lead form, every form posts to Flock, and Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager and Mapbox load while a resident fills it in. Nothing on the page says which parts the department wrote.

• Well supportedThe referral page is also a sales page: its 'Purchase Cameras' form asks for Organization Type, Community Role, Total Sworn Officers, Industry and Annual Revenue; its register and integrate forms post a resident's name, phone, email and street address to Flock; and the page loads Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager and Mapbox while a resident fills them in.1 source, vendor material only
• Well supportedThe portal's Myth vs Fact section is Flock's national copy - written in Flock's first person ('Flock invests', 'we do not provide') and word-for-word identical on Poughkeepsie NY's portal the same day - and one of its own sentences concedes the premise of this project: other agencies 'have been responding to FOIA requests and sharing this search data'. Nothing on the page says which sentences, if any, the department wrote.3 sources, vendor material only

These mass surveillance cameras are unconstitutional. They're a dragnet that you cannot opt out of… The American public has not consented to this mass surveillance.

Stated as law, this is the argument this project makes and the courts have so far rejected: nearly every court to address it has held that a plate-reader query is not a Fourth Amendment search. The Supreme Court's 2026 Chatrie decision and the Fourth Circuit's Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle are the best authority for the caller's position; they do not yet settle it.

• Well supportedThe weight of judicial authority currently runs AGAINST the argument this dossier makes: a federal court collecting the cases in 2025 found that nearly every court to address the question has held that querying an ALPR database is not a Fourth Amendment search.4 sources
• Well supportedThe Norfolk court expressly said this experimentation is best handled with public input and with guardrails erected by state legislatures or local governing bodies - a judicial invitation to exactly the municipal ordinance Las Cruces councilors are drafting.3 sources
• Well supportedThe network's reach is not an accident of adoption but a design incentive: an agency gets nationwide search only by contributing its own cameras, so joining to search means joining to be searched.1 source