A private surveillance company has skirted local regulations by installing dozens of cameras on public property without approval from the city of Fort Worth, an investigation by the Fort Worth Report has found.
, a $4 billion technology behemoth known for its automatic license plate readers, maintains hundreds of surveillance cameras in the city, most of which are used by Fort Worth Police to help fight crime. But records obtained by the Report show the company has also placed private cameras in the city鈥檚 right of way without obtaining city permits. Many were installed at the behest of neighborhood associations in north Fort Worth, which hoped the cameras would provide another layer of security in areas with a light police presence.
Jack Bowen, a resident of the Chisholm Ridge neighborhood, is a strong believer in the technology. He said there鈥檚 been a significant dip in criminal activity since cameras were installed at neighborhood entrances and exits several years ago.
鈥淲e had so many car burglaries going on and so much criminal activity, and we went from 60 to zero like overnight,鈥� he said. 鈥淲ithin two months, crime just went down.鈥�
But, when the neighborhood expanded to include new entrances, no new Flock cameras went up. Bowen, who wondered why, learned the original cameras had been placed on public property without necessary permits 鈥� and that the city had halted future installations.
Flock cameras like the ones in Chisholm Ridge raised legal questions for city staff, who are concerned about the ramifications of placing private surveillance cameras on public property. Further, the installations could cause logistical problems: What if city workers need to access utility lines under the cameras?
The improperly placed Flock cameras were discovered more than a year ago, but they continue to operate despite city concerns and issued to Flock by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Assistant City Manager Dana Burghdoff said negotiations with Flock are ongoing to establish a right-of-way use agreement, but that reaching an agreement will require the company to compromise.
鈥淲e need to find out if Flock is willing to assume liability for those cameras,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e need to make sure that the data that鈥檚 collected is only shared with the police department, and not shared with a private property owner or neighborhood association or HOA.鈥�
The Report sent Flock a list of questions about the cameras, including whether the company was aware of permitting requirements; whether it has paused private camera installations on city property for the time being; and whether it would agree to the terms suggested by city management.
In a written response, Flock spokesperson Holly Beilin said the technology is important to local law enforcement and the company is committed to obtaining permits when necessary.
鈥淔lock works closely with Fort Worth Mayor (Mattie) Parker鈥檚 office, Fort Worth Police, and other local leaders and stakeholders to ensure Fort Worth can maintain a safe city while adhering to all local law and policy,鈥� Beilin wrote. 鈥淲e are confident that city leaders have the best interests of Fort Worth residents at heart and will work together to resolve any obstacles that come up.鈥�
Police shortages prompt camera installations
In the past decade, north Fort Worth has experienced a massive growth surge. The region鈥檚 residents say its police force hasn鈥檛 kept pace.
In 2023, the department鈥檚 north division had the fewest patrol officers in the city, . North Fort Worth residents say that鈥檚 a problem, and some have invested in private security measures like Flock cameras to help.
These cameras, which can automatically read license plates, are also used by the Fort Worth Police Department. After the city first approved a contract with Flock in 2020, the company鈥檚 cameras became an integral part of the Fort Worth Police Department鈥檚 operations, and some officers have personally recommended that neighborhoods concerned about crime look into installing them. Once installed, residents can choose to give police access to their feed.
Assistant Police Chief David Carabajal said Flock cameras are part of an arsenal of tools used by the department鈥檚 Real Time Crime Center. In a small, dark room chock full of computers, officers monitor live camera feeds from across the city, cross-reference license plate hits with active warrants, and keep an eye on news channels. The department鈥檚 278 Flock cameras play a big role.
鈥淓ffectiveness means, as in any other job, going after exactly what you want to go after, whether you鈥檙e building widgets, or whether you鈥檙e trying to arrest criminals,鈥� Carabajal said. 鈥淲ith this technology, we can focus directly on the criminals and stay away from the great law-abiding citizens that we serve.鈥�
Rusty Fuller, president of the , said the Flock license plate readers help make police officers more efficient. He鈥檚 been frustrated with the city鈥檚 approach to the issue.
鈥淭he ability to have an officer dispatched to catch somebody, to actually catch somebody, instead of hopefully looking for somebody, is a godsend to a city like ours,鈥� he said.
The cameras aren鈥檛 cheap; the city pays over $500,000 each year to keep the police department鈥檚 cameras online. Carabajal said those costs make partnering with homeowners associations and other private camera owners an attractive proposition. However, he said the department鈥檚 ultimate preference is for those private cameras to be placed on private land.
鈥淎t that point, if it鈥檚 on their private property, a private camera purchased for a private individual, then there鈥檚 no need for permitting,鈥� he said.
Chisholm Ridge is among the neighborhoods currently sharing a feed with the police department. Tony Perez, who serves as vice president for the HOA and the North Fort Worth Alliance, said the neighborhood association pays about $26,000 annually for its cameras. That breaks down to around $22 per resident per year.
鈥淚 consider it to be the most effective tool that a neighborhood that鈥檚 not gated can utilize to help control crime, and I鈥檝e been contacted by board members from other HOAs and encouraged them to use it,鈥� Perez said.
Not all neighborhoods share their feeds with police. In documents obtained by the Report through an open records request, city staff reference at least three residents who installed cameras and don鈥檛 share their Flock feeds with police. Instead, the feeds are exclusively used in a neighborhood watch group.
The technology isn鈥檛 without its detractors. Flock cameras have been described as by the American Civil Liberties Union. Others have pointed to documented instances of license plate readers in other communities.
Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU, wrote in a 2022 paper that 鈥渁 proliferation of cameras and widespread sharing allow for the creation of intrusive records of our comings and goings, create chilling effects, and open the door to abusive tracking.鈥�
Pattern of unauthorized installations
Fort Worth isn鈥檛 the only city where Flock has installed cameras without getting the necessary permits. The Atlanta-based surveillance company has previously run afoul of local and state regulations in .
Most recently, the Texas Department of Public Safety issued a cease-and-desist letter to the company for failing to obtain a private security license. Any company operating in a private security capacity in Texas must have a state license.
In a letter dated July 10, DPS officials warned that if Flock continued to operate without a license, the company could face civil penalties, and may be referred to local prosecutors for criminal action.
The cease-and-desist order does not apply to Flock cameras owned by Texas law enforcement agencies, like the Fort Worth Police Department, but does encompass cameras owned by neighborhood associations.
Beilin, the Flock spokesperson, told the Report that Flock has been proactive working with DPS to determine which state licenses apply to its technology. When the company was informed it needed a private investigations license, she said, it immediately initiated the process. Beilin anticipates Flock will receive its official certification shortly.
鈥淭his will not change how we serve customers throughout the state,鈥� she wrote.
Burghdoff, the assistant city manager, said that until Flock becomes compliant with state regulations, the city won鈥檛 execute a right of way agreement with Flock.
Neighborhood frustrations
For one Fort Worth neighborhood, any solution to Flock鈥檚 licensing and permitting in the city will come too late to matter. Neighborhood association leaders in West Fork, which adjoins Chisholm Ridge, canceled the neighborhood鈥檚 Flock contract last month.
In a Sept. 20 letter sent to residents, the neighborhood association pointed to both high costs and ongoing permitting problems as contributing factors.
Evey Hull, a board member of West Fork鈥檚 homeowners association, said her neighborhood followed Chisholm Ridge鈥檚 footsteps when it decided to install cameras, but didn鈥檛 have the same positive result.
鈥淚 know that the city of Fort Worth was pushing this, the police department was pushing this at one point as a great option. We weren鈥檛 seeing the data back that it was solving crimes,鈥� she said. 鈥淎nd maybe there鈥檚 a feedback loop gap there, I don鈥檛 know. But also the fact that the north divisions, they鈥檙e so understaffed, it felt like they were pushing it as, in my opinion, a supplement for police presence.鈥�
That frustrated Hull, particularly because the city didn鈥檛 offer any subsidies to neighborhoods interested in installing the technology.
The city鈥檚 philosophy, she said, seemed to be 鈥渓et鈥檚 push this, and then you can pay for all of it. If the city of Fort Worth is going to push something, they should offer funding and incentives for that.鈥�
The revelation that Flock lacked the proper permits was the final straw. As a former construction company employee, Hull is familiar with the need to obtain permits before moving forward with a project. Flock should have known they had a responsibility to obtain permits, she said, and West Fork didn鈥檛 want to assume liability if the company hit a power or water line because they didn鈥檛 do due diligence.
While Perez remains a proponent of the technology, he shares Hull鈥檚 concerns about Flock鈥檚 permitting process.
鈥淲hen it comes to maintenance of service and technology, they are still outstanding, but somebody failed in their compliance department,鈥� Perez said.
Beilin, the Flock spokesperson, wrote that the company has a team of over 50 people dedicated to the planning, permitting and installation process. That same team secures tens of thousands of permits each year, she continued.
鈥淲e seek approval when obtaining permits and operate within the best of our abilities to deploy devices where customers request them, while moving quickly and within the bounds of the law,鈥� Beilin wrote. 鈥淚f and when local policy changes, we abide by those changes to the best of our ability. When we are required to move cameras, we do so as expeditiously as possible.鈥�
City restrictions
The city of Fort Worth has been in discussions with Flock about its permitting since at least June 2023. Multiple city departments have weighed in, including development services, transportation and public works, police, city legal and city management.
As a result, the city has determined two main requirements for Flock. First, the company must be willing to assume liability for any cameras it installs in public right of way. Second, it must only share the data collected by these cameras with the police department 鈥� and stop sharing it with the neighborhood associations who paid for them.
鈥淥ur conversation with our law department was that, if we鈥檙e going to allow what would then be really privately owned cameras that were privately initiated in the public right of way, there should be a public purpose to them,鈥� Burghdoff said. 鈥淏ecause it鈥檚 not as though the cameras couldn鈥檛 go anywhere else, right?鈥�
The proposal has rankled north Fort Worth residents, who say if the city wants exclusive access to the camera footage, it should foot the bill. Hull said she鈥檚 tired of neighborhoods having to subsidize services the city and its police department should already be providing.
鈥淭he city can come and say, 鈥極K, we鈥檙e gonna put a Flock camera, or whatever camera, on our city property, in our easement,鈥欌�� Hull said. 鈥淕o ahead and do it, but don鈥檛 make me pay for it.鈥�
Fuller, president of the North Fort Worth Alliance, agreed. The HOAs put the cameras in, he said, and it only makes sense that they鈥檇 have access. He said he鈥檚 tried to talk to city officials about paying for the cameras before, but the discussion didn鈥檛 go very far.
鈥淭he expense of these things is minuscule compared to the cost of a police officer,鈥� he said. 鈥淵eah, $2,500 to $3,000 a piece per year, versus probably $125,000 per year for a police officer with benefits.鈥�
Perez said his neighborhood association board鈥檚 access to the footage has had positive outcomes. He pointed to an instance where a woman was attacked by a loose dog that had broken through a fence. Flock captured several images of the attack, he said, which allowed the HOA to go after the dog鈥檚 owner to pay for property damage and helped the woman seek compensation.
鈥淎nd if we hadn鈥檛 had access to those images, we could have been sued,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e still need to have access, it鈥檚 what we do with those images that matters.鈥�
Residents interviewed by the Report consistently expressed frustration about a lack of communication from the city regarding the permitting problems and what it will mean for their neighborhoods.
Ultimately, Burghdoff said, the city believes the onus is on Flock to communicate with its customers.
鈥淚t occurred as a sort of a private conversation between those neighborhoods and Flock, as I understand it,鈥� she said. 鈥淎nd so if Flock wants to enter into an agreement with us, then it seems like they should be the ones to help communicate to folks who are requesting the cameras what the terms are going to be.鈥�
This first appeared on and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.