Fort Lauderdale, Florida • Primary-source investigative summary

Fifteen years.
$5.1 million.
Two networks. Zero votes.

Fort Lauderdale connected its police department to a national surveillance network of 700 million plate scans in 2014 — through a contract with commercial data rights over city-contributed plate reads, a perpetual media silence clause, and a $5 million indemnification obligation, signed by the City Manager without a Commission vote. Eight years later it did it again: a free 25-camera Flock Safety pilot signed by the Chief Procurement Officer in 2022, followed by more than $511,000 in Flock purchases that appear nowhere in the Commission's legislative record. The only civil liberties objection in the entire documented record went unanswered.

$5.1M+
Documented police ALPR expenditures (conservative)
Hardware + contracts + platform access, FY2011–FY2026. Parking LPR adds ~$446K.
15
Years of ALPR operation
In use since at least FY2011
4
Years operating with no written policy
LEARN enrollment 2014. First policy: August 2018.
0
Commission votes on either network enrollment
LEARN: City Manager, 2014. Flock: Chief Procurement Officer, 2022.
Vigilant/Motorola fleet
46 units across 3 procurements (2014) / 30+ fixed cameras / mobile + trailer units
Exact current fleet size not documented in available record
Flock Safety fleet (2022–present)
62+ Falcon cameras (25 free pilot → 40 + 22 purchased)
Vendors Vigilant Solutions → Motorola Solutions (2019) Flock Safety (via Axon, then Insight Public Sector) Genetec / T2 Systems (parking) Unknown (HOA cameras)

Fort Lauderdale's ALPR history spans fifteen years across parallel ecosystems — a police surveillance network built on Vigilant Solutions (now Motorola), a second police network built on Flock Safety since 2022, and a parking enforcement system built on Genetec — funded through at least seven distinct funding tracks: general fund, CIP capital, DHS UASI grants, DOJ asset forfeiture, NPF CRA, NW CRA, and parking revenues. The two most consequential decisions — connecting to a national surveillance database in 2014, and enrolling in a second one in 2022 — were both made administratively.

Date
Action
Amount
Funding
FY2011
Department's first ALPR (vendor unknown)
Unknown
Unknown
Sep 2013
CAM 13-1099 — parking LPR + IT package (Genetec AutoVu) Meeting →
$319,470
Parking Fund + Central Services
~Mar 2014
LEARN agreement signed — national database access (no Commission vote) Agreement →
Administrative
Feb 2014
8 VisualPro 360 mobile LPR (4-yr maintenance) Meeting →
$143,440
UASI grant
Aug 2014
2nd parking LPR unit (Genetec AutoVu) Meeting →
$34,500
Parking Fund
Sep 2014
8 VisualPro 360 mobile LPR for K-9 units Meeting →
$115,680
DOJ asset forfeiture
Dec 2014
30 Vigilant fixed cameras (2-yr) Meeting →
$625,260
Camera Initiative + NPF CRA
Feb 2015
2 Genetec AutoVu parking LPR Meeting →
$69,400
Parking fund
FY2015
$1M CIP — Phase I citywide cameras + fixed LPR
$1,000,000
Capital fund
Feb 2016
Cintel/Vigilant fixed LPR + CDW-G network Meeting →
$84,325
DHS UASI grant
FY2017
2 additional LPR units
$75,500
General fund capital
Jul 2018
1 fixed LPR + 8 trailers — Trinity (sole-source) Meeting →
$329,279
DOJ asset forfeiture
FY2019–FY2021
Vigilant LEARN subscription / renewals (7 payments)
$185,930
IT + Police Investigative
Mar 2022
Flock/Axon study agreement — 25 free cameras, 12 months (no Commission vote) Agreement →
$0 (list $68,750)
Administrative
2022–2024
Contract 477 parking LPR renewal Contract →
$22,243
Parking fund
Oct 2024
40 Flock Falcon cameras × 5 years — Insight Public Sector, OMNIA cooperative (no Commission item in Legistar) PO →
$450,000
Undetermined (fits $400K/yr LPR capital line)
Aug 2025
“Phase 3” — 22 more Flock Falcons (no Commission item in Legistar) PO →
$61,710
Undetermined
FY2022–FY2026
Annual LPR equipment capital ($400K/yr × 5; the Flock POs may draw from this line)
$2,000,000
General fund capital
Total documented
Conservative documented police-ALPR total (excl. unknowns; parking LPR rows total ~$446K and are counted separately). Excludes: Contract 260 (20-year, since 2009, no price documented); ALPR payments before FY2019 or after FY2021 in the Vigilant era; NW CRA purchases; wheel imaging costs. Note: if the Flock purchase orders were charged to the $400K/yr LPR capital line, up to $511,710 of this total is double-counted and the true figure is ~$4.6M — the funding source is not stated on the POs and is the subject of a pending records request.
~$5.1M+
Phase I — 2014–present
Vigilant Solutions / Motorola Solutions — Police Surveillance
LEARN national network enrollment • No competitive solicitation for database access • Vendor acquired by Motorola Jan 2019 ($445M)
Feb 2014
Founding police ALPR purchase. $143,440. 8 VisualPro 360 vehicle-mounted units via VisualPro 360 — which was Vigilant Solutions. Greg Skelly, listed on VP360's proposal team, was Vigilant's Regional Sales Manager. This was not disclosed to the Commission. Funded by FY2011 UASI grant — not general fund — a fact not visible in the meeting minutes and only recoverable from the CAM. 5-0 vote. The only public comment on any ALPR item in the entire record. Meeting folder →
~Mar 2014
LEARN agreement signed. No Commission vote. The City Manager signed the contract that connected FLPD to a commercial surveillance network of 700M+ plate scans under §2-189 administrative authority. The Commission voted on cameras on February 18. It never voted on the data network. The agreement contained: commercial data rights allowing Vigilant to use FLPD-contributed data for any commercially reasonable purpose; a perpetual media silence clause; $5M indemnification (city) vs. $10K liability cap (Vigilant); and no retention terms — deferring to an FLPD policy that would not exist for four more years. LEARN agreement →
Sep 2014
8 more VP360 for K-9 units. $115,680. DOJ asset forfeiture. The only civil liberties objection in the entire Fort Lauderdale ALPR record: Raymond Cox raised racial profiling concerns. No commissioner responded. 5-0 vote. The CAM's funding source was revised the day before the vote. Meeting folder →
Dec 2014
30 fixed Vigilant cameras. $625,260. The largest single hardware purchase. MIB Inc./Vigilant Solutions. NPF CRA partial funding. 5-0, no discussion. Meeting folder →
Feb 2016
DHS/UASI grant. $84,325. Homeland security framing. Cintel/Vigilant fixed LPR at Sistrunk + Beach corridors, plus CDW-G network infrastructure and Milestone video management. 5-0. Meeting folder →
Jul 2018
Trinity Innovative Solutions. $329,279. Asset forfeiture. 1 fixed LPR + 8 trailers. Vigilant recommended the vendor. Sole-source. 5-0. Meeting folder →
Aug 2018
Policy 316.0 written. First written ALPR governance — four years after LEARN enrollment. Establishes 3-year retention per §316.0778 F.S. But only governs data on FLPD's "secure server." Silent on vendor-held copies. Policy 316.0 →
FY2020
NW CRA purchases + wheel imaging. Vehicle fingerprinting capability documented in budget language. Zero procurement documentation for these specific purchases.
Phase II — 2013–present
Genetec / T2 Systems — Parking LPR
Separate ecosystem • 2013 CAM stated system "will merge with the Police Department information systems" • Integration status unknown
Sep 2013
First parking LPR. $319,470. CAM 13-1099 explicitly states the system "will merge with the Police Department information systems." The Commission approved it as a revenue tool. 5-0. Meeting folder →
Aug 2014
Second parking LPR. $34,500. First performance data: 145 vehicles immobilized, $44,637 recovered in 26 days. The only documented operational metrics for any LPR system in 15 years. Meeting folder →
Feb 2015
2 Genetec AutoVu units. $69,400. Proprietary purchase via Dana Safety Supply/Genetec exclusive chain. Meeting folder →
2022–2024
Contract 477 renewal. $22,243. Below $100K threshold — administrative approval, no Commission vote. Contract expired June 2024; no successor documented. Contract 477 →
Phase III — 2018–2021
HOA Camera Network — Unnamed Private Vendor
Camera donations from private neighborhoods • Vendor owns all data • Vendor identity never disclosed
Mar 2018
Bermuda Riviera. First private-neighborhood ALPR model. Camera donation. Vendor unidentified. Exhibit A (tech specs) confirmed absent from public record. 5-0. Meeting folder →
Aug 2021
The Landings (3-2, Glassman + McKinzie NAY) + Rio Vista (3-2, Glassman + McKinzie NAY). Private vendor owns all data. Rio Vista: original CAM listed SE 17th Street, revised to SE 7th Street — a different street, no explanation. Nurmi Isles deferred 5-0 (consistency concerns). Meeting folder →
Oct 2021
Lauderdale Harbors. 1 camera, Cordova Road. Same private-vendor-owns-data model. 5-0. Glassman + McKinzie flipped from NAY. Meeting folder →
Phase IV — 2022–present
Flock Safety — The Second Network
Free pilot via Axon • Paid expansion via Insight Public Sector cooperative contract • No Commission agenda item exists for any of it
Mar 2022
Free 25-camera Flock pilot. $0.00. No Commission vote. A "Government Agency Study Customer Agreement" signed by the Chief Procurement Officer — approved as to form by the same Police Legal Advisor's office that handled the 2014 LEARN agreement. Exhibit C is an Axon quote: 25 Flock ALPR cameras plus installation, 12 months, list value $68,750, total cost zero. The agreement caps Flock's liability at $100, has the City indemnify Flock, gives Flock marketing rights over the City's name, and contemplates access to footage from private "Non-Agency End Users" — schools, HOAs, businesses. A $0 deal generates no invoice, no budget line, and no procurement trigger: a surveillance network enrollment with no financial footprint at all. Study agreement →
Oct 2024
40 Flock Falcons, 5 years. $450,000.40. Purchased through Insight Public Sector on the OMNIA Partners/Cobb County cooperative contract — the same reseller channel used by Davie and Hollywood. The amount is 4.5× the $100,000 Commission-approval threshold. A full-text sweep of every published agenda and action summary from all 362 Commission-body meetings between October 2021 and July 2026 finds no agenda item, no action, and no vote for this purchase — in a month where the Commission individually approved items as small as a $72,970 park-maintenance amendment. Purchase order →
Aug 2025
"Phase 3." 22 more Falcons. $61,710/year. Same cooperative channel — and like the 2024 purchase, absent from every published agenda and action summary. The "Phase 3" label implies a Phase 2 that appears nowhere in the produced records. Documented paid fleet: at least 62 Falcon cameras. Purchase order →

A note on what was — and was not — voted on: every vote below authorizes hardware — cameras, trailers, installation. The agreements that connected that hardware to national data-sharing networks were never on any agenda: the Vigilant LEARN agreement was signed administratively in 2014, and the Flock Safety enrollment and purchases (2022–2025) appear in no agenda or action summary at all.

Date
Item
Vote
Notable
Sep 2013
Parking LPR + IT package ($319,470)
5-0
CAM says "will merge with Police"
Feb 2014
8 mobile LPR ($143,440)
5-0
Only public comment in entire record
Aug 2014
2nd parking LPR ($34,500)
5-0
Only operational metrics ever reported
Sep 2014
8 K-9 LPR ($115,680)
5-0
Raymond Cox: racial profiling. No response.
Dec 2014
30 fixed cameras ($625,260)
5-0
Largest single hardware purchase
Feb 2015
2 parking LPR ($69,400)
5-0
Proprietary chain (Genetec exclusive)
Feb 2016
DHS/UASI fixed LPR ($84,325)
5-0
Homeland security framing
Mar 2018
Bermuda Riviera HOA cameras
5-0
First HOA model; vendor unidentified
Jul 2018
Trinity sole-source ($329,279)
5-0
Vigilant recommended vendor; asset forfeiture
Aug 2021
The Landings HOA cameras
3-2
Glassman + McKinzie NAY
Aug 2021
Rio Vista HOA cameras
3-2
CAM revised: SE 17th → SE 7th St, no explanation
Aug 2021
Nurmi Isles HOA cameras
Deferred 5-0
Consistency concerns
Oct 2021
Lauderdale Harbors HOA camera
5-0
Glassman + McKinzie flipped from NAY
Mar 2022
25 free Flock cameras (list $68,750)
No vote
Signed by Chief Procurement Officer
Oct 2024
40 Flock Falcons × 5 yrs ($450,000)
No vote
Absent from all published agendas and action summaries
Aug 2025
22 Flock Falcons ($61,710)
No vote
Absent from all published agendas and action summaries

Fort Lauderdale operates four distinct ALPR ecosystems: a Vigilant/Motorola police surveillance network connected to a national database of 2 billion+ plate reads, a Flock Safety network of 62+ cameras connected to Flock's nationwide sharing platform, a Genetec/T2 parking enforcement system designed to merge with police systems, and an HOA camera network operated by an unidentified private vendor across four neighborhoods. Each system captures more than license plates. None has a complete, enforceable governance framework — the police department's written ALPR policy has never been updated to mention Flock at all.

The observation vs. tracking distinction
Observation

A police officer sees a license plate in public. One data point. Bounded by time, human attention, and physical presence.

Systematic tracking

Networked cameras log every vehicle's plate, location, time, image, and descriptors across a searchable database retained for years — building a retroactive location record for any vehicle. The Supreme Court recognized this distinction in Carpenter v. United States (2018).

Fort Lauderdale operates fixed, mobile, and trailer-mounted LPR cameras across three separate ecosystems — all feeding into databases with no unified governance. This is tracking infrastructure, not observation.

Vigilant / Motorola Solutions
LEARN National Network + VehicleManager Platform
What it captures

Plates, vehicle images, time, GPS. Plus "wheel imaging capability" (vehicle fingerprinting) documented in FY2020 budget.

LEARN / NVLS / VehicleManager

National database. 700M scans (2013) → 1.4B (FY2014 budget) → 2B+ detections (2024–2025). Growing at ~70M scans/month.

Commercial data rights

§6(g) — Vigilant/Motorola can use contributed data for promotions, marketing, business development, or any commercially reasonable purpose.

Retention

Policy 316.0 says 3 years on FLPD's "secure server." Silent on vendor-held copies. Statutory chain does not compel vendor deletion.

Flock Safety
Falcon cameras + FALCON nationwide sharing network
What it captures

Plates, vehicle make/model/color, distinguishing features ("Vehicle Fingerprint"), time, location — on every passing vehicle.

Network

Flock's nationwide law-enforcement sharing platform — billions of plate reads per month across thousands of agencies. The 2022 study agreement also contemplates footage from private cameras (schools, HOAs, businesses).

Retention

30-day default under the study agreement, with the agency responsible for extracting anything it wants to keep. The terms of the current paid agreement have not been produced.

Governance

FLPD Policy 316.0 (rev. June 2021) predates the Flock program and never mentions it. No policy revision covering Flock has been produced.

Genetec / T2 Systems
AutoVu LPR + T2 Parking Management
Parking enforcement LPR

AutoVu LPR integrated with T2 parking management system.

Data governance

Only data governance language in any Fort Lauderdale ALPR contract: "T2/Flex doesn't integrate or share this parking information with other vendors."

Police integration

Designed to merge with police systems (per 2013 CAM). Integration status: unknown.

Performance

145 vehicles immobilized, $44,637 recovered in 26 days — the only operational metrics in 15 years.

HOA Network — Unnamed Vendor
Four neighborhoods • Private vendor owns all data
Coverage

Four neighborhoods: Bermuda Riviera, The Landings, Rio Vista, Lauderdale Harbors.

Data ownership

Private vendor owns all data. Vendor never identified in any public document.

Accountability gap

Residents have no way to identify the company holding surveillance records of their streets.

The governance chain of failure

Follow the chain. Each link defers to the next. No link compels deletion.

1
Policy 316.0 → cites §316.0778 F.S. for 3-year retention
2
§316.0778 F.S. → doesn't specify a retention period — directs Dept. of State to create a schedule
3
FDLE CJJIS Council Guidelines → non-binding ("encouraged but not required") — source of the 3-year figure
4
Policy 316.0 scope → governs data on FLPD's "secure server" only — silent on vendor platform
5
LEARN agreement → defers retention to agency policy — but the policy doesn't reach the vendor
6
Motorola policy → data deletion is "the customer's responsibility" via account settings
No link in this chain compels Motorola to delete Fort Lauderdale plate reads from the 2B+ detection national database.
The structural bypass

The Commission voted on every camera purchase. What it never voted on — and was never told about — is the data architecture that makes those cameras consequential.

What the Commission voted on
What was signed administratively
8 mobile LPR cameras, $143,440
Connection to a national database of 700M+ plate scans
30 fixed cameras, $625,260
Commercial data rights over FLPD-contributed plate scans (§6(g))
Camera trailers, $329,279 (sole-source)
A perpetual media silence clause binding FLPD indefinitely (§4)
HOA camera placement (4 neighborhoods)
$5M indemnification obligation (city) vs. $10K liability cap (Vigilant)
$400K/year capital replacement budget
Annual LEARN renewals — the city has confirmed in writing that no renewal agreements exist; the 2014 contract is the only documented instrument ever to govern its LEARN access
A $76,926 drone replacement program (individually approved, Oct 2024)
A $450,000 Flock camera purchase the same month — no agenda item exists
The gag clause

§4(d): The City agreed not to publish "any written, electronically transmitted or other form of publicity material that makes reference to the LEARN Software Service or this Agreement without first submitting the material to Vigilant and receiving written consent."

§4(e): "Agency agrees not to voluntarily provide ANY information, including interviews, related to Vigilant, its products or its services to any member of the media without the express written consent of Vigilant."

§4(f)(5): "The restrictions set forth in this Section 4 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for an indefinite period of time."

The EFF first exposed this clause in January 2016 in Texas police contracts. Multiple cities responded: Kyle, Texas (Feb. 2016); Alameda, California (2018); Richmond, California (June 2019); Austin, Texas (2020). Fort Lauderdale signed the same template clause in 2014 — two years before it became a national story. No evidence it was ever renegotiated, even after Motorola acquired Vigilant in January 2019 for $445 million.

The procurement ordinance gap

The LEARN annual subscription (~$29K) fell below the $100,000 Commission threshold. §2-176(e)(16) entirely exempts "ongoing maintenance and support of existing security software and hardware" from commission approval. §2-180(e) delegates execution to the City Manager. The result: a contract containing a perpetual media gag clause, commercial data rights, a $5M indemnification obligation, and connection to a national surveillance network was processed as a routine sub-threshold security software subscription.

The Flock era repeats the pattern at a larger scale. The 2022 pilot cost $0 and triggered nothing. The October 2024 purchase — $450,000, 4.5× the Commission threshold — was executed through a cooperative purchasing contract with no item in any published agenda or action summary of any Commission body. What claimed authority exempted it from Commission approval is the subject of a pending records request.

The only civil liberties objection in the record

September 16, 2014. Raymond Cox raised racial profiling concerns about the K-9 unit LPR purchase during public comment. No commissioner responded. The vote was 5-0. The purchase was funded by DOJ asset forfeiture — funding the CAM revised the day before the vote.

In fifteen years of ALPR procurement, one resident spoke to civil liberties. The Commission's response was silence, then a unanimous vote.

The payment gap — and what records requests revealed was behind it

ALPR payments to Vigilant appear only in a 26-month window: October 2018 through November 2020 — $185,930 across 7 payments, then nothing. Records produced in 2026 explain what happened next: the city quietly switched networks. A free 25-camera Flock pilot arrived in March 2022 with no financial footprint, followed by $511,710 in Flock purchases through a cooperative reseller — spending that appears under the reseller's vendor number, invisible to anyone searching the city's books for "Vigilant," "Motorola," or "Flock." Two questions survive: whether payments to Vigilant before October 2018 ever existed (2014–2018 shows zero despite active use), and whether LEARN platform access — and the 2014–2020 plate data on Motorola's servers — continues today at no documented cost.

Fort Lauderdale has something most Broward municipalities don't: a written ALPR policy. Policy 316.0, written in August 2018 and revised in June 2021, establishes retention limits, access restrictions, and an audit requirement. The problem is that the policy was written as if the vendor platform does not exist.

Policy 316.0 says
The LEARN agreement says
Access restricted to FLPD personnel for criminal justice purposes (§H.5)
Vigilant reserves the right to provide LPR Data to third parties for commercially reasonable purposes (§6(g))
3-year retention on FLPD's "secure server" (§H.3, §H.6)
No retention terms — defers to contributing LEA's retention policy
References TAS software
Never mentions Vigilant, Motorola, LEARN, VehicleManager, or NVLS
Annual ITS audit (§H.7)
No audit mechanism for vendor-held data
Effective August 2018, revised June 2021
Signed approximately March 2014 — four years before any policy existed
Four years with no written governance

FLPD signed the LEARN agreement in approximately March 2014 and began uploading plate scans to a national database immediately. Policy 316.0 was not written until August 2018. For four years, Fort Lauderdale's ALPR program operated with zero written governance — contributing data to a commercial surveillance network that reached 1.4 billion scans by FY2014, under a contract that granted the vendor commercial data rights over that contributed data.

The unnamed vendor problem

All four HOA camera agreements (Bermuda Riviera 2018, The Landings 2021, Rio Vista 2021, Lauderdale Harbors 2021) assign data ownership to a private vendor. That vendor has never been identified in any public document. Across four neighborhoods and three years of agreements, residents have no way to identify the company holding surveillance records of their streets. The Bermuda Riviera agreement references an Exhibit A with technical specifications — confirmed absent from the public record.

What's unclear

These are factual gaps — not accusations. The record establishes that the program exists, what it cost, and most of how it was approved. The following questions remain genuinely unanswered.

On the data
What retention applies to vendor-held copies of Fort Lauderdale plate reads on the NVLS/VehicleManager platform?
Has FLPD ever configured auto-deletion in LEARN/VehicleManager? If not, data from 2014 onward may persist indefinitely on Motorola servers.
Has Vigilant or Motorola exercised its §6(g) commercial data rights against Fort Lauderdale-contributed scan data?
On the contracts
The city has confirmed no LEARN renewal agreements exist — so do the 2014 terms, including the gag clause and commercial data rights, still govern by default? Is there any Motorola successor agreement at all?
What subscription tier and annual cost was Fort Lauderdale paying? The purchase order referenced in the LEARN agreement is not in the record.
What are the terms of the current paid Flock agreement? The 2022 study agreement governed the free year; the services agreement behind the 2024–2025 purchases — including its data sharing, retention, and network access terms — has not been produced.
On the Flock program
Under what claimed procurement authority was $450,000 in Flock cameras purchased without a Commission agenda item?
What was "Phase 2"? The August 2025 purchase order is labeled Phase 3; no intervening order appears in the produced records.
Were the 25 free pilot cameras absorbed into the 40 purchased in 2024, or is the fleet larger than 62?
What happened to LEARN access and 2014–2020 contributed plate data when the city pivoted to Flock?
On the HOA cameras
Who is the private vendor in all four HOA camera agreements?
What data retention and access rules apply to these systems?
Was the Bermuda Riviera Exhibit A (camera specifications) ever produced?
What happened to the Nurmi Isles agreement after its August 2021 deferral?
On the money
Why do ALPR payments to Vigilant appear only in a 26-month window (Oct 2018–Nov 2020)? The post-2020 gap is now explained by the Flock pivot — but the 2014–2018 silence is not.
What funding source paid for the Flock purchase orders — the $400K/yr LPR capital line, or something else?
Was the parking/police LPR integration ever implemented as described in the 2013 CAM?
What is the total expenditure under Contract 260 (the 20-year Millennium Products surveillance umbrella) since 2009?
On the record
What became of the FY2011 first ALPR — vendor, cost, procurement method all unknown?
What were the NW CRA FY2020 LPR purchases and wheel imaging systems? Zero documentation exists for this capability expansion.
Has the gag clause ever been invoked, cited, or enforced in response to a media inquiry about ALPR?
Were inter-agency data sharing agreements executed with BSO or other agencies, or does all sharing occur through the LEARN platform?
What to ask for

The Commission voted on cameras. Ask it to vote on governance.

These safeguards do not eliminate the underlying tracking capability. They make it visible, measurable, and politically accountable. Fort Lauderdale has a written ALPR policy — more than most Broward municipalities. The gap is between the policy's scope and the system's actual architecture. Closing that gap requires the Commission to govern the data, not just the hardware.

Retention & access — close the policy gap
📄
Amend Policy 316.0 to address vendor-held data — and Flock
The current policy doesn't reach the platform where the data actually resides, and it has never been updated to mention the Flock program at all. Amend it to explicitly govern both networks — not just FLPD's "secure server."
🔒
Independent confirmation of auto-deletion
Confirm that Motorola has configured auto-deletion in VehicleManager per the 3-year policy. If deletion was never configured, data from 2014 may persist indefinitely.
Written access controls in Commission resolution form
Who queries the database, under what conditions, with what documentation and justification requirements.
Transparency & contracts
📊
Disclose the current Motorola successor agreement
Specifically: does §4 (media silence clause) survive? Does §6(g) (commercial data rights) survive? Has either been invoked?
📄
Bring the Flock program to a public vote
$511,710 in Flock purchases exist with no Commission agenda item. The Commission should ratify or reject the program in public session, and disclose the paid Flock agreement's data-sharing and retention terms before the next renewal.
🌐
Identify the HOA camera vendor
Name the company holding surveillance records for Bermuda Riviera, The Landings, Rio Vista, and Lauderdale Harbors.
🔍
Annual public transparency report
Plate reads, alerts generated, queries by access category, data shared with other agencies, and any policy violations. Published publicly — not filed internally.
Structural reform
🎤
Procurement ordinance amendment
Surveillance contracts treated differently from software subscriptions — regardless of dollar threshold or purchasing vehicle. A surveillance network enrollment should not bypass Commission review because it is free, sub-threshold, or routed through a cooperative contract.
📷
Commission review of indemnification terms
The city absorbs essentially all liability risk ($5M indemnification to Vigilant; broad indemnity to Flock) while the vendors' exposure is capped at $10K and $100 respectively.
📋
Independent audit of §316.0778 F.S. compliance
Given the documented chain of failure, is the city actually meeting the retention standard it claims to follow?
📄
Rescind or renegotiate the non-disparagement clause
A government agency should not be contractually prohibited from speaking to the press about its own surveillance infrastructure. If the clause persists in the current arrangement, the Commission should formally rescind it by resolution.

Make your presence
known.

The Commission voted on cameras. It never voted on either data network. Public presence at meetings changes that calculation.

  • Attend City Commission meetings: Ask why $511,710 in Flock camera purchases never appeared on a Commission agenda. Ask about the gag clause, the unnamed HOA vendors, and whether Motorola has ever used FLPD data commercially. Ask commissioners to request both current agreements.
  • Email your commissioner: Ask them to confirm whether they knew the police department joined the Flock network in 2022 — and whether §4 (media silence) and §6(g) (commercial data rights) survive in the current Motorola arrangement.
  • Share this page: Help neighbors understand what has been built, what it can do, and what questions remain unanswered.
  • Help with public records work: Contact deflockbroward@proton.me to assist with records analysis or community outreach.