Unclaimed Flock cameras found in St. Lucie County, Florida; removal notices expire Oct. 16-20
St. Lucie County, Florida, found 14 Flock license-plate cameras it had not approved, and 11 still have no publicly identified owner. The county has posted 30-day removal notices and is covering the cameras with bags.
1 / 2
The story, neutrally told
St. Lucie County, Florida, officials found 14 Flock Safety license-plate cameras that the county had not permitted, in addition to the 52 they believed were operating on county roads. The IndependentLC “St. Lucie County officials previously identified 52 authorized cameras before workers discovered 14 additional automated license-plate readers that had not been approved by the county” Read at The Independent ↗ Washington ExaminerR “Officials in St. Lucie County, Florida, discovered that 14 Flock cameras were not permitted by the county.” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ The county sheriff's office identified three of the cameras as its own but has not explained why they lacked permits, and the other 11 have not been publicly claimed. The IndependentLC “The St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office has since claimed three of the mystery cameras but has not explained why they were not among the devices previously authorized by the county.” Read at The Independent ↗ Washington ExaminerR “The other 11 cameras have yet to be publicly claimed.” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ The Independent reports that the county's other two law enforcement agencies said none of the remaining cameras were theirs. The IndependentLC “The county's other two law enforcement agencies said none of the remaining cameras belonged to them, leaving 11 without a publicly identified owner.” Read at The Independent ↗
Both outlets, citing the Washington Post, say the county has put notices on the cameras giving the installer 30 days to remove them and plans to bag the cameras so they cannot collect data. County spokesperson Erick Gill said deadlines fall between October 16 and 20, depending on when each notice was posted. The IndependentLC “Depending on when the notices were posted, the deadlines fall between October 16 and 20.” Read at The Independent ↗ Washington ExaminerR ““It’s like a bright red notice that says you have 30 days to remove this, and we will also bag the cameras so they’re not operable,”” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ Because the county does not own the cameras, it cannot shut them down, according to the Washington Examiner. Interim administrator Mayte Santamaria described the notice-and-bag approach as the county's own workaround. Washington ExaminerR “Because the county does not own the cameras, officials have no means of shutting them down.” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ The Washington Examiner links the discovery to a Florida Department of Transportation directive, issued last month, giving local agencies 30 days to remove such cameras from the state highway system. It says the cameras were first found around Sept. 18. The Independent does not mention the directive. Washington ExaminerR “The directive from Florida DOT went out last month, giving local agencies 30 days to remove the controversial cameras from the state highway system.”“The cameras were first discovered around Sept. 18 and quickly raised alarm among county officials.” Read at Washington Examiner ↗
It remains unclear whether the cameras are operating, what data they collected and who can access it. One camera on 25th Street in Fort Pierce had vanished by the time the Post visited, leaving only the notice on the pole, and officials did not know who removed it or when. The IndependentLC “It is also unclear whether they are still operational or whether anyone is receiving the information they collect.”“By the time The Post visited last week, it had disappeared, although a removal notice remained wrapped around the pole.” Read at The Independent ↗ Washington ExaminerR “it is unclear what data was collected by the cameras and who can access the recorded data.” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ Flock spokesperson Paris Lewbel said the company has contacted the county and will help review the cameras. Lewbel added that Flock applies for permits where required but that requirements vary by jurisdiction. Flock generally handles permitting and installation, according to the Post as relayed by the Independent. The Examiner notes that homeowners associations can also contract with Flock, though the county has not said whether one is responsible here. The IndependentLC “We have reached out to St. Lucie County and are happy to work with them directly to review the cameras in question and address any discrepancies,”“Flock sells cameras to law enforcement agencies and private organizations and generally handles permitting and installation, according to The Post.” Read at The Independent ↗ Washington ExaminerR “Homeowners associations, which are common in the Sunshine State, can also contract with Flock for its ALPRs” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ County Commissioner James Clasby said not knowing who owns the cameras is a problem and may point to broader Flock reform. Resident Ty Grant said he found it unsettling that officials did not know who installed a camera near his home. Washington ExaminerR ““Not knowing who they belong to, I think, is another issue,”” Read at Washington Examiner ↗ The IndependentLC “"That makes me feel very unsafe,"” Read at The Independent ↗
Both outlets place the story against privacy scrutiny of Flock, including the case of a former Fort Pierce police officer, named by the Examiner as Josepher Crutchfield, who was arrested on four felony counts after allegedly using Flock data to track an ex-girlfriend's car. The Independent puts the number of searches at 382, while the Examiner says he was fired and tracked the car 'hundreds of times'. The Independent adds that Massachusetts and Utah officials reportedly found unauthorized Flock cameras and that a 2024 Forbes investigation found unpermitted cameras in several states, including Florida. The IndependentLC “a former Fort Pierce police officer was arrested in September on four felony counts after allegedly accessing Flock’s license-plate database 382 times”“A 2024 Forbes investigation also found Flock cameras installed without required permits in several states, including Florida.” Read at The Independent ↗ Washington ExaminerR “Josepher Crutchfield was later arrested on four felony counts related to accessing the department’s database without authorization.” Read at Washington Examiner ↗
Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on.
Left1 outlet
- Framing
- Leads on the mystery of who runs the cameras. It stresses the unanswered questions about data access and the ordinary-resident reaction, and places the case among similar incidents elsewhere.
- Emphasis
- Unknown ownership, data-privacy risk, resident unease, earlier incidents in Massachusetts and Utah and the Forbes 2024 investigation, and Flock's permitting statement.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Does not mention the Florida DOT directive, the Sept. 18 discovery date, or the HOA possibility.
- Charged language
- “mystery cameras”“controversial Flock Safety surveillance cameras”
- For example
-
“The discovery has raised questions about who installed the cameras, whether they were collecting motorists' data and who could access it.” — The Independent
“That makes me feel very unsafe,” — The Independent
Centre0 outlets
No centre outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.
Right1 outlet
- Framing
- Frames it as a policy story about a Florida state order and local officials' response, with Flock reform as the wider issue.
- Emphasis
- The Florida DOT directive, county officials' quotes, the do-it-yourself bagging, the HOA possibility and police misuse of the cameras.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Does not give the removal-deadline dates of Oct. 16-20, the 382-search figure, Flock's response, or other states' incidents. It says Flock was contacted for comment.
- Charged language
- “controversial cameras”“do-it-yourself way”“invasion of privacy”
- For example
-
“The revelation came after the Florida Department of Transportation mandated that all such cameras be taken down.” — Washington Examiner
“The surveillance technology company has been under intense scrutiny in the past year, as many residents feel the cameras are an invasion of privacy.” — Washington Examiner
What every side reports
- 14 Flock cameras in St. Lucie County were not permitted by the county, beyond 52 it knew of.
- The sheriff's office claimed three; the other 11 have no publicly identified owner.
- Notices give the installer 30 days to remove the cameras, and the county is covering them.
- It is unclear what data was collected or who can access it.
- A former Fort Pierce police officer was arrested on four felony counts over alleged misuse of Flock data against an ex-girlfriend.
- Both outlets draw on Washington Post reporting.
Where accounts differ
-
Why the cameras surfaced
- Left
- The Independent says workers found them while taking down cameras, and does not mention a state directive.
- Right
- The Washington Examiner says the discovery followed a Florida DOT order to remove such cameras from state highways.
-
Fate of the former officer
- Left
- The Independent says he was arrested after allegedly accessing the database 382 times.
- Right
- The Washington Examiner says he was terminated and later arrested, and names him as Josepher Crutchfield.
Flock Safety organisation
Says it has contacted St. Lucie County and will help identify the cameras. It says it seeks permits where required, and that requirements vary by place.
“permitting requirements vary by jurisdiction and are not necessary in every location.” — The Independent
St. Lucie County place
County officials say they did not authorize 14 cameras and have posted 30-day removal notices and are bagging the cameras. They say they cannot shut them down because they do not own them.
“officials have placed notices on the newly discovered Flock cameras, giving whoever installed them 30 days to remove them.” — The Independent
“we will also bag the cameras so they’re not operable” — Washington Examiner
Florida place
The Washington Examiner says a Florida DOT directive ordered local agencies to remove such cameras from state highways within 30 days.
“giving local agencies 30 days to remove the controversial cameras from the state highway system.” — Washington Examiner
Left1 article
-
Flock cameras appear in Florida town – but nobody knows who is running them
Critical Presents the unclaimed cameras as an unsettling mystery with open privacy questions, backed by a resident's reaction and similar incidents elsewhere.
Centre0 articles
No coverage yet.
Right1 article
-
Florida to take down Flock cameras put up by unknown owner
Critical Treats the find as a state-and-county regulatory problem tied to the Florida DOT order and a wider call for Flock reform.
- 1 Oct 14:39 First The IndependentLC Flock cameras appear in Florida town – but nobody knows who is running them
- 1 Oct 15:42 +1h 3m Washington ExaminerR Florida to take down Flock cameras put up by unknown owner
Times are when each article was published, or when we first saw it if the outlet gave no time.