Two Flock cameras in Calloway County seem to have been cut down, according to observations by The Murray Sentinel. The local Crimestoppers is offering a $500 reward for information leading to an arrest in any case involving damage to a Flock camera.
According to DeFlock.org, an open-source project mapping Flock cameras across the United States, its crowdsourced map marks nine camera locations in Calloway County. The Murray Sentinel surveyed the marked locations and found cameras standing at four, cut poles at two and no visible cameras at three.
Calloway County Sheriff Nicky Knight endorsed the cameras on social media and described his office’s accomplishments using them. Meanwhile Murray Police Chief Samuel Bierds told The Sentinel he has concerns about the cameras.
Flock Safety Inc. claims its technology has assisted law enforcement in clearing one in five cases in its customers’ jurisdictions, based on a company survey of nearly 700 law enforcement agencies.
But Flock cameras have garnered national scrutiny — including a letter from the U.S. Committee on Government Oversight and Reform — over documented misuse and concerns about privacy and civil liberties.
The Sentinel surveyed locations marked on DeFlock’s map and found evidence of current or former cameras at seven, but cameras were only standing at four. The purpose of the survey was to clarify apparent inaccuracies in the crowdsourced map.
The following cameras are in Calloway County and are operated by the Calloway County Sheriff’s Office:
The following cameras are in Murray and are operated by Lowe’s Companies Inc.:
The following locations marked on DeFlock’s map appear to be duplicates or places where cameras are no longer standing:
Duplicate mark
No visible cameras
Cameras apparently cut down
Crimestoppers of Murray and Calloway County, Inc., a local nonprofit organization that accepts anonymous tips to help solve crimes, posted on Facebook on July 28 that it is offering a $500 reward for information leading to an arrest in any case involving damage to a Flock camera.
In a statement on the CCSO Facebook page on July 23, Knight said the cameras have helped recover five stolen vehicles, locate two missing persons and assisted in one felony arrest.
According to Knight, deputies cannot search for anyone they want.
“The use of this technology is governed by strict policies,” Knight wrote. “Deputies cannot simply monitor anyone they choose. Any search or alert must be supported by a legitimate law enforcement purpose, such as investigating a specific crime, locating a wanted or missing person, recovering a stolen vehicle, or addressing another public safety need. All access is tied to an authorized investigative reason.”
By contrast, Bierds said in an email that MPD does not operate any cameras and does not have access to the cameras at Lowe’s. Even if the department wanted the cameras, he said they are cost-prohibitive, making it a “moot point” for MPD.
Bierds said if the department wanted to implement Flock cameras or another type of tracking technology, the proposal would have to go before the mayor and city council. He said the cameras could be beneficial, but protecting citizens’ rights is also important.
“I have explored Flock cameras and believe they can benefit public safety when accompanied by a robust policy that ensures proper use and accountability,” Bierds wrote. “I am also aware that some have concerns over the use of these cameras. Good policing relies not only on implementing new technologies but also on ensuring that Constitutional rights are protected for all.”
Flock cameras are automated license plate readers. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit civil liberties organization focused on digital rights, ALPRs capture all license plates within their view, recording the exact location, date and time. The systems may take photographs of vehicles and sometimes their drivers and passengers. The images are uploaded to a central server.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, law enforcement agencies and private companies across the country are increasingly investing in Flock cameras. The organization says Flock cameras are “much more powerful” than typical ALPRs because they capture information beyond plate numbers.
“These cameras record and analyze every passing vehicle,” the ACLU wrote. “The make, model and color of a car, other identifiers like scratches and dents, and anything else they can see. Even a pedestrian, bicyclist, or animal who happens to be caught in the frame of a Flock camera can be swept up in the vast and unregulated Flock surveillance network.”
The ACLU says data is uploaded unencrypted to a national surveillance network and may be accessible to law enforcement agencies.
“The data captured by Flock’s cameras can reveal very private details about a person’s life, including what meetings a person attends, what doctors' offices and religious institutions they visit, who a person associates with and even where they sleep at night.”
The Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public-interest law firm, says law enforcement officers have used ALPR systems to track romantic interests, including current partners, former partners and strangers. One of the cases cited involved Josue Ayala, then a Milwaukee police officer.
The searches came to light after Ayala’s partner and her former partner looked up their license plate numbers on HaveIBeenFlocked.com, which collects Flock audit data made public by some local governments.
According to Fox 6, Ayala used Flock to search for the two 179 times between March and May 2025. Ayala resigned in March 2026 after being charged with attempted misconduct in public office. The department restricted access to the Flock database two weeks later, WTMJ-TV reported.
In May 2025, a Texas police officer allegedly searched data from more than 83,000 cameras nationwide looking for a woman authorities said had self-administered an abortion, according to 404 Media.
The search prompted an Aug. 6, 2025, letter to Flock CEO Garrett Langley from U.S. Reps. Robert Garcia and Raja Krishnamoorthi, Democratic leaders on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The lawmakers wrote that they were concerned law enforcement agencies were using the company’s technology to “wrongly track and to potentially harm people, in concerning violation of Americans’ privacy, freedom, and civil liberties.”
In the last legislative session, the Kentucky General Assembly passed House Bill 58, legislation regulating the use of ALPRs and the data they collect.
HB 58 defines ALPRs as automated high-speed cameras used with data-processing technology to convert images of vehicles and license plates into computer-readable data. It allows ALPRs to be deployed for:
The law also requires law enforcement agencies to adopt and make publicly available their own written policy governing the use of such cameras before deploying an ALPR. The policy must include:
Knight said every alert received by CCSO is verified by dispatch and a deputy before any enforcement action is taken.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here