How Grafton's Flock Camera System Works

What the cameras capture, what the Village pays, who can access the data, and which rules govern its use. Every claim below is sourced from Village of Grafton records, public records responses, and Grafton Police Policy 427.

What Are Flock Cameras?

TL;DR: Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) that photograph every vehicle, capturing license plates, vehicle characteristics, and location data. All information stored for 30 days and searchable by 591 agencies.

Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) that photograph every vehicle passing by. These cameras capture far more than just license plates:

License plates + vehicle characteristics (make, model, color, bumper stickers, damage)
Motion-activated, solar-powered, capture 6-12 images per vehicle
Data stored for 30 days in cloud (Amazon Web Services)
Real-time alerts for "hot list" vehicles (stolen cars, wanted suspects)
Historical search capability by plate number or vehicle description

Key Points

Technology captures MORE than just plates - creates detailed "vehicle fingerprints"
Officers can search without probable cause or reasonable suspicion (per Grafton Policy 427)
No facial recognition, but tracks vehicles and by extension, their owners

What's Happening in Grafton

TL;DR: Grafton deployed 7 Flock cameras in 2021 without documented public debate, at a cost of $17,500/year, with plans to expand to 8 cameras by 2028. Camera data is shared with 591 agencies nationwide.

Timeline

Date	Event	Details
January 2021	Initial Authorization	Village Board approved Flock contract
June 2021	System Operational	5 cameras deployed at entry/exit points
FY 2023	Expansion to 6 cameras	Added sixth camera
December 12, 2023	Public Safety Committee Approval	Recommended 5-year contract extension
December 18, 2023	Village Board Approval	Authorized 5-year agreement through 2028
FY 2024	Expansion to 7 cameras	Current deployment (as of 2025)
Planned 2028	Expansion to 8 cameras	Future planned expansion

Contract Details

Initial Contract: Year-to-year at $2,500/camera annually
Current Contract: 5-year agreement (2024-2028)
Cost: $2,500 per camera/year (locked in; new customers pay $3,000)
FY 2024 Cost: $17,500 annually for 7 cameras
Total 5-Year Commitment: $87,500 ($11,500 savings vs. new pricing)
Funding Source: Property tax levy
Installation Fee: $250 one-time per camera
Includes: Installation, maintenance, cellular service, cloud hosting, software updates

Public Process

Based on available public records:

Capital Improvement Program budgets confirm Village Board authorizations for camera purchases
Detailed meeting minutes from January 2021 authorization are not publicly accessible through standard records requests
Individual trustee votes are not documented in available public records
Public comments or opposition are not documented in accessible minutes

Note: This may reflect record-keeping practices rather than absence of public input.

Chief's Justification

Police Chief Jeff Caponera cited retail theft as primary concern:

118 retail thefts reported in 2020
Strategic placement at "every major point of ingress and egress"
Goal: "capture data within the village so we know who is here"

What Data Is Collected?

Information Captured

✓ License plate number
✓ Vehicle make, model, year, color, body type
✓ Distinguishing features (bumper stickers, damage, roof racks)
✓ GPS location of camera
✓ Date and timestamp
✓ 6-12 still images (not video)

NOT Captured

✗ Facial recognition
✗ Identifiable images of people inside vehicles
✗ Audio recordings
✗ Continuous video

Data Retention

30 days before hard deletion (per Policy 427)
Exception: Data relevant to investigations can be downloaded and stored as evidence
Encryption in transit and at rest

Who Controls It

Flock Safety, Inc. owns hardware and data
Grafton Police Department has access
591 other agencies have access through network sharing
Template contract grants Flock "worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free license" to share data

Policy & Oversight

TL;DR: Grafton's policy prohibits misuse but has no independent oversight, no public reporting on usage, and the department doesn't track how external agencies access Grafton's data.

Grafton Police Department Policy 427

Adopted September 2021, updated September 2025
No warrant required for ALPR searches
No reasonable suspicion required for searches
Officers must document search reason and link to case number
All searches automatically logged with audit trail
Prohibits "blanket searches absent bona fide reason"
Restricts to "official and legitimate law enforcement business"

Authorized Uses

Identify stolen vehicles, wanted persons, missing persons
Assist criminal investigations
Locate witnesses or victims
Verify vehicle information

Prohibited Uses

Personal surveillance
Tracking individuals based on protected characteristics
Blanket searches without legitimate purpose
Non-law enforcement uses

Oversight

Audit logs reviewed by supervisors
No independent civilian oversight
No public reporting on usage statistics
Department does not track external agency access to Grafton data

Key Findings from Public Records Request

In response to a public records request (October 28, 2025), Grafton Police Department provided the following information (November 11, 2025):

Department does NOT track how many times external agencies access Grafton data
No separate MOUs governing data sharing beyond Flock system access
No direct federal agency access, but department "not aware" if federal agencies have accessed through network
Other agencies bound by "their own departmental policies" for data retention - no Grafton control
Use restricted to "legitimate law enforcement purposes" but no enforcement mechanism

The Transparency Problem

Flock Safety offers an optional "transparency portal" that agencies can enable to make audit data publicly viewable. However:

Grafton has NOT enabled its transparency portal - the public cannot see how Grafton officers use the system
Transparency portals are opt-in, meaning most agencies keep usage data secret
According to Eyes on Flock (a third-party monitoring site), only a small fraction of Flock-equipped agencies have public portals
Of agencies that do enable transparency, the top search reasons are vague: "INVESTIGATION" (25,835 searches), "INV" (15,289), and "INVEST" (9,740)

Wisconsin-Specific Concerns

A 2025 Wisconsin Examiner investigation analyzed Flock audit data and found troubling patterns:

221 Wisconsin agencies used Flock from January to May 2025
Many agencies entered vague search reasons like "investigation" with no context, or simply used a period (".") as the reason
West Allis PD led the state in using only "." as a search reason - over 1,200 times
Brown County Sheriff's Office (Wisconsin's 2nd highest Flock user) has NO Flock-specific policy
Top statewide search reason: "investigation" (vague, no specifics provided)

Milwaukee PD Accessed Illinois Cameras for "Classified" Investigation

In May 2025, Wisconsin Examiner revealed that Milwaukee Police Department's intelligence unit (STAC - Southeastern Threat Analysis Center) accessed Flock cameras in Danville, Illinois for a "classified" investigation. Key findings:

Three searches conducted in July and October 2024 logged as "HSI investigation" (Homeland Security Investigations)
By tapping into Danville's network, Milwaukee accessed 4,893-5,425 Flock networks nationwide - demonstrating how one agency's data opens access to thousands of others
MPD stated the investigation was "classified," claiming it was a federal drug trafficking investigation (HIDTA)
ACLU Wisconsin raised concerns about lack of oversight and public notification

Implication: This case demonstrates how network sharing allows agencies to access cameras far outside their jurisdiction. A single search by one Wisconsin agency can pull data from thousands of networks across the country without the knowledge or consent of the communities being surveilled.

ACLU of Wisconsin (Amanda Merkwae):
"If law enforcement told us that they wanted to put a tracking device on every single car in the country so that we know where every car is every single moment of the day, and we're going to build a database of all those locations run by an unaccountable private company, and accessible to every law enforcement agency across the country without needing any type of a warrant, I think we would be alarmed."

ACLU of Wisconsin (John McCray Jones):
"This level of opacity is unacceptable. Vague entries like 'investigation' or a period provide no meaningful oversight and violate the spirit of transparency and democracy. This kind of documentation undermines any public trust or accountability."

Note: Grafton Police Department did not appear in the Wisconsin Examiner's analysis, suggesting either lower usage or that Grafton's audit data was not accessible through the public records request methods used. No Ozaukee County agencies appear to have enabled Flock's transparency portal.

Continue Reading

Now that you know how the system works, see why it raises constitutional and civil-liberties concerns.

Why It's a Problem Search the 591 Agencies Read the Source Documents