NO INDICTMENT IN GRAND JURY FOR FLOCK CAMERA DESTRUCTION. #flockcameras

Our Take

NYCLAWGUY flags a notable data point in the ongoing backlash against Flock Safety: a grand jury declined to indict in a case involving the destruction of one of these cameras. We don't have the underlying case file, so we're not going to speculate on jurisdiction, evidence, or the individual involved — but the headline result itself is worth sitting with.

Grand juries are usually a rubber stamp for prosecutors. When one declines to indict, it's often a signal that ordinary citizens sitting in that room didn't see the clear-cut crime the state expected them to see. That's significant in the Flock context, where police departments and the company itself have leaned hard on the narrative that anyone who disables or destroys a camera is committing straightforward property crime, full stop. A no-bill doesn't erase accountability, but it does suggest that at least some jurors weren't willing to treat a privately-run, warrantless surveillance node the same way they'd treat, say, someone's car.

Whether or not you think vandalism is the right tactic, this is a useful temperature check on how these devices are actually landing with the public that lives under them. If you want to see how dense Flock's network has gotten in your area, check our camera map, and if you'd rather push back through your city council instead of a grand jury, our take-action page has the playbook.