Deflock Broward

Broward County, Florida • What the records show

Broward is building a vehicle-tracking network.

Deflock Broward uses public records to show what ALPR systems do in practice: they create searchable logs of vehicle movements across your community. We document what’s in place — and why removal is the appropriate response.

The case for removal → Sources & documents
Documented deployment
Pembroke Pines, FL
$1.3M
Documented expenditures authorized by Commission, 2015–2025
13+
Commission votes on ALPR — all consent agenda, all unanimous, none deliberated
0
Commissioners who spoke on any ALPR item in ten years
See full Pembroke Pines summary →
Documented deployment
Davie, FL
$695K+
Total documented expenditure across 13 purchase orders, 2019–2025
6
Years of operation without a single Town Council authorization
0
Town Council votes ever taken on ALPR deployment
See full Davie summary →
Documented deployment
Weston, FL
48 cam
Cameras covering all city entry and exit points
100%
Coverage of every road in or out of the city
100s
Of agencies in the Flock data-sharing network
See full Weston summary →
The system, explained

What these cameras collect — and what that enables

📍

What ALPR systems do

Automated license plate readers capture a vehicle’s plate number along with the date, time, and location. That information is stored in searchable databases. These systems do not record only vehicles suspected of wrongdoing — they capture every plate within camera range.

ALPR cameras also capture images of vehicles, not just plate characters. Those images enable searches using vehicle descriptors (like make, model, and color) and can distinguish vehicles by visible characteristics — including bumper stickers, roof racks, dents, scratches, or other markings that make a car recognizable over time.

In practice, ALPR systems create persistent identifiers for vehicles. When retained, those identifiers accumulate into a searchable history of where vehicles were seen and when. Depending on policy, that data may be retained for months or years and shared across agencies.

⚖️

Why governance gaps matter

Local policy determines who can access ALPR data, how long it is retained, how widely it is shared, and whether meaningful oversight exists. Even when policies exist on paper, they depend on consistent enforcement, audit practices, and political will.

When a system is designed to log and store movement data, structural risk remains. Retention enables historical reconstruction. Sharing expands who can search those records.

Surveillance infrastructure, once installed, tends to persist. Contracts renew. Databases grow. Normalization follows. Governance can narrow risk, but it cannot eliminate the underlying capability — which is why removal is the most durable solution.

Core distinction

Capability is what matters. Policy is secondary.

Officials often describe how a system is currently configured, or how it’s intended to be used. That framing does not change what the sensors physically capture, what data is stored once collected, or what stored data makes possible over time.

Collection capability is the structural risk. Configuration promises do not eliminate it. Our analysis starts with what the system can do — not what officials say it will do.

Capability — the structural risk

Cameras physically record every plate in range. Images are stored. Data is retained and searchable. Sharing agreements can distribute that data to hundreds of agencies. That capability exists independent of any policy setting.

Policy — secondary and mutable

Retention limits and access controls may constrain access today. They can be changed by administrators, altered at contract renewal, or expanded through legal process. Policy does not undo capability.

City spotlight — loading…

What the public records show

All documented cities →
Get involved

Reversal will happen locally.

ALPR systems are approved at the local level. So is their removal. These systems expand quietly, and public awareness is the first requirement for change.

We are organizing residents to understand what is in place, demand concrete limits, and build support for removal. Participate at whatever level fits your capacity.

  • Attend a commission meeting and ask questions about retention and sharing policies.
  • Demand written retention limits — not verbal assurances, but adopted policy with enforcement.
  • Request public audit logs of who is accessing the system and when.
  • Share this site with neighbors, local journalists, and community groups.
  • Email us your city if you want to get more directly involved in local organizing.