Perrysburg police say Flock cameras are an important investigative tool, are used appropriately

Our Take

WTOL11's segment on Perrysburg PD defending its Flock Safety cameras follows a script we've seen in dozens of local markets: a reporter asks police whether the surveillance tool they bought is being used responsibly, and the department that bought it says yes. Credit to WTOL11 for covering the local debate at all, but notice what's missing — there's no independent audit, no named policy document, no third-party review of search logs. "We use it appropriately" is a claim, not evidence, and departments rarely volunteer the data that would actually test it.

This matters because Flock's own design makes self-policing the only check in most towns. The system logs every plate that passes a camera, searchable later by any officer who types in a reason — and in jurisdiction after jurisdiction, those reason fields turn out to be rubber-stamped, vague, or entirely unaudited. "Important investigative tool" is true; so is "tool with almost no outside accountability." Both things can be true at once, and reporters covering these systems should be asking departments to release search audit logs, retention policies, and interagency data-sharing agreements — not just their opinion of themselves.

If you want to see whether Perrysburg, or your own town, is running these cameras, check our camera map to find nearby installations, and visit our take-action page for templates to request the audit logs and policies your local police department would rather you not ask for.