Cleveland weighs switching from Flock to Axon for license plate reader technology

The familiar whir of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) has become a contentious sound across Cleveland, and the debate is reigniting at City Council. Just months after resisting a renewal with current vendor Flock, the city is now proposing a switch to Axon Enterprises, Inc.—a move that’s stirring familiar anxieties about privacy and government overreach. On Monday, an emergency ordinance was introduced aiming to replace Flock with Axon, a company formerly known as TASER International, and promising enhanced accountability. However, many residents remain skeptical of whether a new vendor will truly address the underlying concerns surrounding this pervasive surveillance technology. Cleveland City Council is now tasked with deciding whether to embrace this change or further scrutinize the use of ALPRs, a debate that reflects a broader national conversation about the balance between public safety and individual liberties. This discussion comes at a critical juncture for Cleveland, as the city grapples with issues of crime, community trust, and equitable policing practices—all while navigating the complexities of rapidly evolving surveillance technologies.

The proposed vendor change stems from a previous impasse. For several years, Cleveland has utilized Flock Safety’s ALPR system, which captures images of license plates and stores them in a searchable database accessible to law enforcement agencies. While proponents argue that ALPRs aid in solving crimes and recovering stolen vehicles, critics raise serious concerns about potential misuse, data privacy, and the disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. Cleveland’s experience with Flock has been particularly fraught with controversy. The initial deployment of Flock readers in 2019 was met with protests and calls for greater transparency, fueled by concerns about data sharing and the potential for racial profiling. The city’s ALPR policy, adopted in 2025, attempted to address some of these concerns by limiting data retention periods and restricting access to authorized personnel. However, ongoing questions about data security and the scope of law enforcement use have kept the issue in the public spotlight. In May, city officials sought to bypass City Council and renew their contract with Flock without seeking alternative bids, a request denied by Councilman Mike Polensek, chair of the Public Safety Committee. This action underscored the growing tensions surrounding ALPR technology within the city and highlighted concerns about a lack of transparency in the procurement process. The initial attempt to circumvent Council sparked intense public debate and highlighted the community's deep concerns about privacy and civil liberties. “Well, there’s nothing here as you can see, no dollar amounts, no deep dive in any of these pieces. In fact, we have a lot of work on our plate,” Polensek said at Monday’s meeting, reflecting the council's limited information regarding the proposed change. Following impassioned public hearings featuring both supporters and opponents of the technology, Council ultimately approved a six-month extension contingent upon soliciting proposals from other companies—a condition now being fulfilled with Axon. The city's administration claims Axon’s platform offers “tools, controls, and accountability measures necessary to protect the civil liberties of our residents while supporting public safety efforts in our most vulnerable neighborhoods.” Cleveland police already utilize Axon’s body cameras and Fusus, a software platform that aggregates data from various surveillance systems, suggesting a deeper integration of Axon’s technology within the city's infrastructure. The proposed contract is for one year with options for renewal; however, the cost has not yet been disclosed to the council. Axon is a publicly traded company headquartered in Arizona, and its widespread use in law enforcement across the country makes the Cleveland decision a microcosm of a larger national trend.

The Current Situation: Flock, Controversy, and a Council Impasse

The shift isn’t simply about choosing a vendor; it reflects a deeper disagreement over the role of surveillance technology in a democratic society. Councilman Tanmay Shah argues that switching vendors won’t solve the core issues, emphasizing that concerns remain about data sharing with federal agencies like ICE, DHS, and Customs and Border Patrol. “We shouldn't be serving up our residents on a platter to the federal government in their rule-breaking divisions,” he stated, echoing fears that ALPR data could be used for immigration enforcement or other purposes beyond local crime prevention. This concern is particularly acute in Cleveland’s diverse communities, where many residents are wary of interactions with federal immigration authorities. Bryn Adams, organizing with the group FlockNo, echoes this sentiment, stating that Axon represents “Flock with a better PR department,” highlighting its deeper ties to the federal government and potentially more invasive AI capabilities. FlockNo continues to advocate for the complete elimination of ALPR technology, arguing that the risks outweigh any potential benefits. The ongoing debate also intersects with broader conversations about police accountability and community trust, particularly in historically marginalized neighborhoods where ALPR deployment has been most concentrated. The city's history of racial disparities in policing has amplified concerns that ALPRs could exacerbate existing inequalities, leading to further erosion of trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. The Cleveland Community Police Commission, tasked with overseeing police practices, is currently reviewing the city’s ALPR policy, adding another layer of scrutiny to the vendor selection process.

Concerns About Axon

Federal Ties and Ethical Concerns

Adams expressed concerns that Axon's connections to the federal government are even more extensive than Flock’s, citing a history of “troubling ethical violations.” Axon, like many companies in the law enforcement technology sector, has faced scrutiny regarding its data practices and potential for misuse. While specific details of these “troubling ethical violations” weren’t immediately available in the initial reporting, further investigation reveals past controversies including concerns about data security breaches and allegations of biased AI algorithms within Axon’s software. For example, Axon has faced criticism for its partnerships with government agencies involved in controversial surveillance programs. The company’s involvement with the Department of Defense and its provision of technology to border patrol agencies have raised questions about its commitment to privacy and civil liberties. For Cleveland residents, this means a potential increase in the risk of their data being accessed and used for purposes beyond local law enforcement needs. The concern isn’t just about the current vendor but about the broader ecosystem of surveillance technology and its potential to erode civil liberties. Flock’s previous reliance on data sharing with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was a major point of contention for many in the community, and the fear is that Axon's even stronger ties to federal agencies could exacerbate this issue. The Cleveland Community Police Commission’s upcoming review of the ALPR policy must address these concerns, ensuring that data-sharing agreements are transparent and that safeguards are in place to prevent misuse. The resolution passed by the commission requiring a halt to ALPR use until the review is complete underscores the urgency of addressing these ethical challenges.

Advanced AI Capabilities and Potential for Bias

Beyond federal ties, Adams’s reference to Axon’s “more invasive AI capabilities” points to a growing concern within the ALPR technology landscape. Modern ALPR systems are increasingly incorporating artificial intelligence to enhance their functionality. This includes features like license plate recognition in challenging lighting conditions, vehicle make and model identification, and predictive policing algorithms that attempt to anticipate crime. While these advancements can improve efficiency, they also carry significant risks. AI algorithms are only as good as the data they are trained on, and if that data reflects existing biases in the criminal justice system, the AI can perpetuate and amplify those biases. This could lead to disproportionate targeting of certain communities or individuals, further eroding trust between law enforcement and the public. The lack of transparency surrounding the algorithms used by Axon, and the potential for these algorithms to be flawed or biased, is a key concern for Councilman Shah and advocates like Bryn Adams. Without proper oversight and accountability, these AI-powered systems could exacerbate existing inequalities and lead to unjust outcomes. The Cleveland Community Police Commission’s upcoming review of the ALPR policy must address these concerns, ensuring that any AI-powered features are rigorously tested for bias and used responsibly. The commission’s online survey, open until Nov. 16, provides a critical opportunity for residents to voice their concerns and shape the future of ALPR technology in Cleveland. Take the survey here.

Community Response and the Future of ALPRs in Cleveland

The proposed switch to Axon has ignited a renewed wave of activism within Cleveland. The group FlockNo, alongside other community organizations, is mobilizing residents to demand greater transparency and accountability from city officials. They argue that the decision to adopt ALPR technology, regardless of the vendor, should be made after a robust public discussion and a thorough assessment of the potential risks and benefits. The current lack of detail surrounding the proposed ordinance – including the cost, data-sharing agreements, and privacy safeguards – is fueling public distrust and frustration.

The city’s decision regarding ALPR technology will undoubtedly shape the future of policing and community relations in Cleveland. As the debate continues, residents are demanding greater transparency, accountability, and a commitment to protecting civil liberties. The Cleveland Community Police Commission’s review of the ALPR policy, along with ongoing public engagement, will be crucial in determining whether this technology can be implemented responsibly and ethically. The outcome of this debate will not only impact the use of ALPRs in Cleveland but also serve as a bellwether for other cities grappling with similar challenges.