Flock Cameras: We Can Have Safety and Common Sense

Most of us want the same thing for our community: a safe place to live, work and raise our families. That is why the discussion about Flock cameras deserves a fair hearing.

Flock cameras are another tool for law enforcement. They photograph vehicles that pass by and can help officers locate a stolen car, find a missing person or investigate a crime.

And there are examples close to home.

In Guernsey County, the Sheriff’s Office recently used its Flock system to help locate a vehicle belonging to a wanted suspect who had traveled north on Interstate 77. 

Muskingum County also uses Flock cameras for investigations and real-time alerts involving wanted vehicles. The sheriff’s office has created a public transparency page explaining how the system is used and making its policies and usage information available to the public.

Coshocton County has also established a public Flock transparency portal with information about data retention, camera use, sharing with other agencies and search audits. However, despite all of that, various news reports say the Sheriff has recently decided to remove its cameras after hearing residents’ concerns.

Those are good reasons to consider the technology. If a camera helps a sheriff or police find a stolen vehicle or locate someone who is missing, or a murder suspect, that’s something most of us can get behind.

But there is another side to the conversation.

The cameras don’t just photograph people suspected of a crime. They photograph everybody who drives past them. That doesn’t mean Flock is bad. It does mean we should be thoughtful about how the information is handled.

Who can look at it? How long is it kept? Can another law enforcement agency search it? What rules have to be followed before someone conducts a search? And who makes sure those rules are being followed?

Those are reasonable questions for people in a community to ask.

If our communities use Flock cameras, we should put some basic safeguards in place.

Keep routine information for a limited amount of time. There is little reason to keep information forever simply because we can.

Require a legitimate reason for searches. A case number or other documentation can provide accountability without preventing officers from doing their jobs.

Be clear about who has access. Residents should know whether other law-enforcement agencies can search our local cameras and under what circumstances.

Regularly review searches. An audit log is useful, but someone should actually review it to make sure the system is being used properly. A citizen’s committee could be created to participate in this with law enforcement for even more transparency.

And finally, tell the public whether the cameras are working. How many cases have they helped? How often have alerts led to something useful? What does the system cost taxpayers?

These aren’t unreasonable demands. They are simply good community oversight.

Residents can help make that happen. Attend county commissioners’ or city council meetings regularly to discuss the cameras and the policies. Setup a town meeting with the Sheriff and local Police Chief’s. Ask to see the contract and written policies. Ask about data retention, sharing and audits. Most importantly, ask that reasonable safeguards be written into policy before more cameras are added or the program is expanded.

We don’t need to throw out a tool that may help keep our neighbors safe. But we also don’t need to accept new technology without reasonable rules. 

We support our local law enforcement officers and the work they do every day to keep our communities safe. Asking reasonable questions about new technology isn’t a lack of support—it is part of making sure our officers have the tools they need and our community has confidence in how those tools are used. 

We don’t have to choose between public safety and privacy. We can demand both. 

Flock cameras have a place in our community. Let’s make sure they are used in a way that protects both public safety and the trust of the people they are meant to serve.

That’s just common sense. 

That is our opinion, what is yours? Leave a note or comment on this page, or email us at AVCNews@Yourradioplace.com

Editor’s Note: As part of our research for this editorial, AVC News reached out via email to the Sheriff’s Office in each of the five counties across our listening area—Guernsey, Muskingum, Coshocton, Noble, and Belmont—with policy questions regarding Flock camera use. As of publication, none of the five offices responded to our requests for comment. 

We also contacted Cambridge City Police Chief Dave Peoples with the same questions. He did respond to our questions in a phone call and in a recent presentation to the City Council. Here is his response:

Search Documentation: What specific documentation (e.g., an active case or dispatch number) is required before an officer can execute a search in the system?
Answer: Before conducting a search, users must select a reason from a list of approved investigative categories and enter a case number. 

Data Sharing: Which outside agencies or neighboring counties are authorized to access or query our local camera data?

Answer: We own the date. We control who gets it, who we share it with and why we share it. We will not open it up to everyone for everything.

Auditing & Transparency: How frequently are search logs audited for proper use, and would your office support maintaining a public-facing Transparency Portal detailing basic usage stats?

Answer: The department plans to audit searches every two weeks. Peoples said a transparency portal is also planned once the system is fully operational and personnel have been trained. The portal is expected to include the department’s policy, information about data retention and search history.

You can see Chief Peoples presentation to Cambridge see council here:

Another question we looked into is how many Flock cameras are already in our area?

Official totals vary across public records, transparency portals, and physical community mapping. Law enforcement agencies add or relocate units periodically, but public records and media reports provide the following breakdown of Flock (and ALPR) cameras across our five Ohio counties we cover:

While we believe these numbers are relatively accurate, we couldn’t find sufficiently reliable current evidence from credible sources to guarantee they are correct.

Last Updated on September 16, 2026 by AVC News