Cleveland weighs switching from Flock to Axon for license plate reader technology

The debate over automated license plate readers (ALPRs) in Cleveland is intensifying, with city officials now proposing a switch from the current vendor, Flock, to Axon Enterprises, Inc. This shift, introduced as an emergency ordinance Monday, marks a new chapter in a contentious issue that has deeply divided residents and council members. While proponents tout the technology's potential to enhance public safety, critics raise serious concerns about civil liberties and government overreach—concerns that a simple vendor change may not address.

The Proposed Shift and Its Context

On Monday, Cleveland's Department of Public Safety introduced an emergency ordinance proposing Axon Enterprises, Inc., formerly known as TASER International, as the city’s new vendor for automated license plate readers. This proposal follows a period of scrutiny regarding the existing contract with Flock, which the city initially attempted to renew without seeking alternative bids. Councilman Mike Polensek, chair of the Public Safety Committee, previously refused to allow the administration to bypass council in seeking other vendors, ultimately leading to a six-month contract extension for Flock with the stipulation that other companies be considered. The proposed one-year contract with Axon includes options for renewal and has not yet been accompanied by a publicly released cost estimate. The city already utilizes Axon’s body cameras and Fusus, a software platform that integrates data from various surveillance systems. Cleveland City Government is responsible for overseeing the implementation of such technologies.

Mike Polensek, chair of the Public Safety Committee, highlighted the lack of detail in the proposal. “Well, there’s nothing here as you can see, no dollar amounts, no deep dive in any of these pieces,” he said. Polensek supports the use of license plate readers but is concerned about the transparency of the proposed switch. The administration argues that Axon's license plate reader system “provides the tools, controls, and accountability measures necessary to protect the civil liberties of our residents while supporting public safety efforts in our most vulnerable neighborhoods.” This stance contrasts with concerns raised by Councilman Tanmay Shah, who worries about potential data sharing with federal agencies like ICE, DHS, or Customs and Border Patrol. He believes providing “our residents on a platter” to these agencies is a significant risk.

Community Concerns and the Role of FlockNo

The proposal has sparked a mix of support and opposition in the community. Bryn Adams, a resident organizing with FlockNo, an opposition group, argues that switching vendors is a superficial fix. “Axon is just Flock with a better PR department, deeper ties to the federal government and even more invasive AI capabilities,” Adams stated. She and her group remain staunchly opposed to the use of ALPRs, regardless of the vendor. Adams also voiced concerns about Axon’s history of “troubling ethical violations” and its dominance in the police technology surveillance market. The group’s perspective highlights the deep-seated distrust some residents have regarding government surveillance and its potential impact on civil liberties. FlockNo is actively working to raise awareness about the issues.

Understanding Automated License Plate Readers

Automated license plate readers (ALPRs) are cameras that capture images of every passing vehicle. These images are stored in databases that law enforcement agencies can share with each other. Cleveland police currently operate 100 Flock license plate readers in high-traffic areas throughout the city, capturing images of vehicles and storing them in shared databases. The technology is intended to assist in investigations, locate stolen vehicles, and identify potential suspects. However, critics worry about the potential for misuse and the erosion of privacy.

The Cleveland Community Police Commission's Stance

The Cleveland Community Police Commission is actively gathering input from residents, experts, and city officials to determine whether to revise its 2025 policy governing police use of license plate readers. They passed a resolution requiring police to stop using license plate readers by January unless the review is complete. Commissioner Shandra Moriera-Benito stated it’s “highly unlikely” that the city would heed that resolution before January, but she emphasized the need for a robust civic discussion on the issue. The commission's ongoing review underscores the broader debate surrounding the appropriate limits on surveillance technology and the need for transparency and accountability. The online survey is available until Nov. 16th, providing residents a direct opportunity to voice their opinions. The Cleveland Police Department is responsible for operating these systems.

Broader Context: Drones, ShotSpotter, and Surveillance Expansion

The proposed shift to Axon is part of a larger trend in Cleveland's adoption of surveillance technology. The administration is also proposing contracts for a “drone as a first responder” system and continued use of the ShotSpotter gunshot detection tool. The city previously considered Flock’s gunshot detection system before opting for ShotSpotter. This expansion of surveillance capabilities raises concerns about the potential for overreach and the impact on civil liberties, prompting calls for greater transparency and public oversight.

Roberto's Perspective: Balancing Security and Freedom

The debate over license plate readers in Cleveland is emblematic of a broader conversation about privacy and technology in our society. While the technology can undoubtedly aid law enforcement in catching violent criminals, it also raises significant concerns about the potential for abuse and the erosion of civil liberties. As city officials move forward with this proposal, it is crucial that they engage the community in a meaningful and transparent dialogue. The future of this technology will not only shape public safety but also the trust between law enforcement and the residents they serve.

The emphasis on “accountability measures” and “protecting civil liberties” is encouraging, but those promises must be backed by concrete action and transparent oversight. It's imperative that our elected officials prioritize the well-being of families and neighborhoods, ensuring that technology serves as a tool for good, not a source of fear or distrust. The strength of our community rests on the foundation of trust – trust in our institutions, trust in our neighbors, and trust in the rule of law. We must ask ourselves: are we willing to sacrifice that trust for the sake of perceived security?

Resources and Contact Information

Residents interested in learning more about the automated license plate reader debate and participating in the public discussion can find valuable resources online. The Cleveland Community Police Commission’s website provides information about their review process and the online survey. News 5 Cleveland has provided extensive coverage of the issue, offering insights from various perspectives. The FlockNo group’s website offers information about their concerns and advocacy efforts. For information about the city’s government, visit the city's official website. Signal Cleveland has provided ongoing coverage of this issue.

Contact Information:

• Nadeen Abusada: [email protected]
• Cleveland Community Police Commission: Check their website for contact details.

The ongoing debate surrounding automated license plate readers underscores the importance of informed civic engagement and a commitment to protecting the rights and freedoms of all Cleveland residents.

Closing paragraph: The decision to switch vendors for automated license plate readers in Cleveland represents a pivotal moment in the city’s ongoing struggle to balance public safety with individual liberties. While the change may offer a fresh start, it is crucial that residents remain engaged and vigilant, ensuring that any implementation of this technology is conducted with transparency, accountability, and a deep respect for the values that define our community. The questions raised by this debate—about privacy, government overreach, and the appropriate use of technology—will continue to shape the future of our city for years to come.