COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio's top law enforcement leaders agree with the public: misusing Flock cameras should be punished. Attorney General Andy Wilson and the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio are asking lawmakers for some regulations.
Across the nation, distrust of Flock Safety cameras has grown over privacy concerns. They have typically been used as license plate readers, but our investigations have found instances where dispatchers have been accused of misusing data.
Also, in May, we obtained public records chronicling all of Shaker Heights' license plate reader data requests from Dec. 20, 2025, through the end of April 2026. The data sets showed that Shaker Heights data was accessed more than 700,000 times, but Shaker Police accessed it only 1,016 times. The majority, 693,573 searches, were done by other law enforcement agencies in Ohio and across the country. Each search listed a reason. Immigration was listed 282 times. ICE was mentioned 32 times.
Some Ohioans have started chopping the cameras down.
In a one-on-one interview Wednesday, Wilson agreed that the tools need to be regulated.
"We need a piece of legislation that requires each and every department or agency that uses Flock cameras to have a very strict policy on how those cameras are used," Wilson said. "We need legislation that requires agencies to conduct ongoing auditing of use to find or ferret out misuse of this resource."
Right now, there is no penalty for misusing this type of data. It should result in felony charges, Wilson said.
"A person who misuses this should never ever be able to wear a badge again," he continued. "They violated the trust, they violated civil liberties, and they should never be put in a position of trust or responsibility with respect to public safety again."
There should be privacy provisions, as well, he added. Data not being used on active cases needs to be deleted somewhere between 10 and 30 days, Wilson said.
State Sen. Al Cutrona (R-Canfield) is leading the charge in the legislature to restrict Flock usage.
WATCH MORE ABOUT THE BILL:
RELATED: Who watches the watchers? Flock misuse reveals oversight weaknesses
Of the provisions, his bill would require outside agencies seeking data to get a warrant.
“Just like anything else, you can’t tap somebody’s phone without a warrant. Okay, you shouldn’t be able to access at the whim of anybody’s curiosity,” Cutrona told us.
He also wants to restrict camera placement, not near places of worship or gun stores.
"Do you think that there should be more steps for federal law enforcement to be able to access this data?" I asked Wilson.
"I don't think there should be more steps... A lot of the public just thinks that ICE or the federal government can access these cameras in any jurisdiction, and that's just not the way it works," the attorney general responded.
Jurisdictions have broad authority over their policies, and local municipalities can choose to restrict their Flock data.
Ohio FOP President Jay McDonald said he and other officials are meeting to discuss best practices and whether they should issue guidance to all agencies.
"What I believe is important is that rules get put in place, guardrails, strategies, legislation — however you want to frame it — that addresses some of the issues that are being brought forth," McDonald said in an interview Wednesday.
McDonald notes that state statute already penalizes misuse of other law enforcement databases, so license plate readers should be added to that, he said.
"There should be rules around the use of them; law enforcement supports that," McDonald said. "What we don't support is eliminating the ability to use these tools to solve crimes, especially violent crimes, and every police department in the state of Ohio that has access to a license plate reader can tell you a story about how a violent crime would never have been solved without the use of these valuable tools."
More and more cities have started to ban the tools because of public outrage, including claims that the cameras violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
WATCH MORE ABOUT THE FLOCK DEBATE:
RELATED: Are Flock cameras next? Supreme Court rules against police using sprawling cell phone location data
Both McDonald and Wilson acknowledge these tools are controversial, but blame it on bad intel.
"A lot of those complaints are coming from folks who don't fully understand how these cameras are used," Wilson said.
Community members we’ve spoken to say they know exactly how they work, and solving a crime isn’t worth their freedom. I asked Wilson how he deals with the public image crisis.
"Our country was founded on the idea that we value civil liberty, our individual rights over an oppressive or intrusive government, and on the surface, these cameras appear to conflict with that concept of that that principle," he said, but added that Ohio isn't China or a 'Nanny State'. "This is just a tool that we have given law enforcement to better protect our communities."
There may be some bad "apples" misusing the data, the attorney general continued, but that doesn't mean that the tool should be gone.
"We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater," Wilson said.
Lawmakers hope to pass regulations by the end of the year.
Follow Statehouse and Columbus bureau reporter Morgan Trau on X, Instagram and Facebook. Email her at Morgan.Trau@wews.com.
