Frequently Asked Questions

No. We support real investigations and legitimate public-safety work. What we object to is a system that records everyone's movements by default. We think that system should come out, and that oversight and firm limits are, at best, a fallback if officials refuse to remove it.

Yes, a plate is visible on the road. But an officer noticing one plate at one moment is very different from a private database that stores thousands of movements and lets police search them later. The problem is the automatic, stored, searchable history.

Automated license plate readers photograph passing vehicles, turn the plate and vehicle details into searchable data, and tag each record with a time and place.

Flock Safety is a private company that sells license plate reader cameras and related surveillance tools to police, local governments, HOAs, and businesses. Under the released BCSO agreements, Flock hosts the data on its own servers, retains ownership of it, and keeps 'the right to use the foregoing for any purpose in Flock's sole discretion.'

A lot. The signed order confirms 10 cameras at $30,000 a year on a 36-month term that renews automatically unless someone gives 30 days' notice. BCSO has had free search access to Flock's network since a 2022 MOU. The written policy requires no reasonable suspicion to search, lets administrators grant outside agencies access at their discretion, and provides one internal audit a year with no public reporting. Our request for the actual audit and search logs was denied. Every released document is on the Records page.

Flock says no. Its published statement is that it doesn't work with ICE and that federal sharing is off by default. The ACLU disputes how straight Flock has been, pointing out that Flock first denied having federal contracts and later admitted a Customs and Border Protection pilot. That gap is exactly why settings matter here: Butler County's Sheriff holds both a Flock contract and a 287(g) immigration agreement, so residents deserve the actual configuration in writing, not just assurances. Both sources are on our Evidence page.

We have no proof Liberty's own data has been. But the released records don't rule it out either: BCSO's own ALPR policy says nothing about immigration — no prohibition, no restriction — and BCSO denied our request for the search logs that would show actual use, citing a database exemption. The surrounding risk is documented: Dayton found about 7,150 immigration-related searches of its Flock data by outside agencies, Butler County deputies can act on immigration during routine traffic stops, and the Sheriff holds a 287(g) agreement with ICE. Our narrowed follow-up request presses for the logs.

Yes — and we've corrected our own earlier wording on this. The Trustees discussed 'Flock Camera' at a January 20, 2026 work session and unanimously approved the funding on February 3, 2026. What residents couldn't know from the agenda: the motion never used the word Flock — it said only 'technology needed to provide police services' — the minutes record no public comments and no substance of the work-session discussion, the executed addendum has never been made public, and the money was charged to the township's opioid-settlement fund. The process was real; the disclosure was not.

The February 3, 2026 authorization charges the ~$30,000 annual cost to account 2904-210-360-0000. Liberty's own budget and Resolution 2022-033 identify Fund 2904 as the township's Ohio Opioid Settlement fund. We are not claiming that use was unlawful — we've requested the invoices and any written justification — but money meant for the opioid crisis being routed to surveillance cameras deserves a public explanation.

Not by flipping a switch — the Flock customer of record is BCSO (through the county commissioners), not the township. But the Trustees control the money and the contract: they can freeze expansion, demand the executed addendum and current configuration, formally request that BCSO suspend collection and sharing pending review, and decline to keep funding the program. Oxford's council, in this same county, showed in August 2026 that an elected body can simply vote to end it.

No. We aren't claiming the cameras are automatically illegal. We're saying the township shouldn't fund broad vehicle tracking, and residents deserve full disclosure of the contract and policies regardless of what happens next.

We want the Trustees to vote to end the Flock program and remove the township-funded cameras. Pausing the cameras, turning off outside sharing, and releasing the contracts and policies are steps toward that, not the finish line.

No. Disabling outside sharing or shortening retention reduces harm while the cameras are still up, and we'd support it as an interim step if the Trustees won't remove the program outright. But the underlying risk is the system itself: a database that continuously records where residents drive, sitting with a private company. Restricting how that data moves doesn't stop it from being collected. Removal is the goal; any lesser restriction is a fallback, not a resolution, and it doesn't end this campaign.

Liberty pays the Butler County Sheriff's Office for policing, so township money and county operations both matter. Liberty is the immediate focus, and countywide transparency is the next step.

No, not unless we say so. We may link to public mapping tools like DeFlock for research, but we operate independently.

Only document cameras lawfully, from public places. Don't trespass, touch, cover, or interfere with any equipment. Use public reporting tools responsibly.

Not right now. The project is volunteer-led and self-funded.