Full Breakdown
Ohio Grand Jury Declines to Indict Man Accused of Vandalizing Flock ALPR Camera
8/22/2026, 1:09:45 AM
Incident and Legal Outcome
- On June 13, police in Union Township, a Cincinnati suburb, accused Cody Morelock of removing bolts, toppling, and destroying a Flock automatic license-plate reader (ALPR) camera, its support pole, and solar panel.
- Investigators identified Morelock using surveillance footage from nearby cameras and information linked to a credit-card and a customer-rewards account.
- Police estimated the damage at more than $1,000.
- Morelock posted a $10,000 bond and was released shortly after his arrest.
- A Clermont County grand jury later declined to indict, resulting in dismissal of the felony vandalism charges.
Background on Flock ALPR Technology and Controversy
- Flock’s ALPR cameras record license-plate numbers and vehicle characteristics, storing the data in a central database that local police and, in many cases, law-enforcement agencies in other jurisdictions can access.
- The technology has been criticized for alleged misuse by police, including accusations of stalking romantic interests.
- The Institute for Justice reported more than 100 cases of law-enforcement abuse involving Flock data as of August.
Growing Backlash and Vandalism Trend
- The Union Township case is part of a broader pattern; dozens of Flock cameras have been vandalized across the United States.
- Earlier in the month, police in Winona, Minnesota, reported the theft and destruction of all eight of the city’s license-plate reader cameras.
- Social-media users have promoted a loosely organized event called “De-Flock America Night,” encouraging people to vandalize or obscure Flock cameras on Halloween.
Industry Response and Criticism
- In response to mounting criticism, Flock announced new safeguards intended to prevent misuse of its data.
- The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that the reforms are largely “cosmetic” and called for warrant requirements before searching ALPR data.
Significance
- The grand jury’s decision—unusual in cases of alleged ALPR vandalism—highlights the tension between law-enforcement reliance on surveillance technology and public resistance to perceived privacy infringements.
