TL;DR: On April 9, 2026, Oakland County's Board of Commissioners voted 13-4 to approve "Project Prove It": a 9-month pilot putting seven Flock Safety autonomous drones over Michigan's second-largest county. The drones launch automatically when 911 calls come in. The pilot is free. If the county keeps the program, years two and three cost $1.25 million each, $2.5 million total. Commissioners moved public comment to after the vote. Residents spoke until nearly midnight, furious they'd been treated as an afterthought. One commissioner who voted no said it plainly: "Tonight, by passing the Flock resolution we made constituents scared of their government."
The Vote Came First. The People Came Second.
The Oakland County Board of Commissioners met Wednesday evening to decide on a Flock Safety drone contract. Scores of residents packed the chambers expecting to be heard before the decision.[1]
Instead, commissioners voted first. Then they opened public comment.
The meeting started at 6 p.m. and didn't end until nearly midnight. Resident after resident lined up to speak against the program, knowing it had already passed. The crowd booed when the vote was announced.[2]
One resident, Susan Matthews, captured the room's mood:
"We came here expecting to be listened to...we are treated like an inconvenience."
Commissioner Charlie Cavell, one of four no votes, didn't mince words:[1]
"In a democracy, politicians are supposed to fear angering their constituents. Tonight, by passing the Flock resolution we made constituents scared of their government."
The four commissioners who voted against: Charlie Cavell, Ann Erickson Gault, Kristin Nelson, and Yolanda Smith-Charles. Board Chair Dave Woodward voted in favor, calling drones "a tool to help save lives."[1]
Project Prove It: What's Actually Coming
Here's what Oakland County just signed up for:[2][3]
- 7 autonomous drones from Flock Safety
- Flock911 system: drones launch automatically when 911 calls come in, using geolocation to reach the scene
- 9-month free pilot: Flock eats the cost
- $2.5 million if the county continues: $1.25 million per year for years two and three
- Opt-out deadline: December 15, 2026
The drones are managed by the Oakland County Sheriff's Office under Sheriff Michael Bouchard. The sheriff's office says it's already been using drones for over four years: for missing persons, search and rescue, and active shooter response. A spokesperson cited the March 2026 active shooter at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, where drones were deployed to search for additional suspects.[1]
Flock claims an 89% increase in subjects located with its drone program.[1]
That's the pitch. Here's the problem.
Who Owns the Eyes in the Sky?
The original Flock contract contained language that should set off alarms. One section read:[4]
"Flock shall own all rights to any data input into the Flock Services."
Another reserved the right for Flock to "create and market public indexes, analysis, or insights created from such data."[4]
Read that again. A private company claimed ownership of surveillance data collected by government drones flying over your neighborhood. And reserved the right to sell insights derived from it.
After residents flagged this, commissioners amended the resolution to state that drone data would not be retained by Flock and would remain county property.[3]
But residents weren't reassured. Marion Brumer from Rochester Hills pointed out the obvious:[4]
"We know that the data can be hacked from Flock regardless of whether it's sold or if the law enforcement organizations are the only ones that have access to it."
Jenna Lindsay from Clarkston agreed: "There's absolutely no way that they can make a guarantee that this data would be safe."[4]
They're right to be skeptical. Amendments to contract language don't change the underlying architecture. If data flows through Flock's systems (and it will, because they built the drones and the software) contract language is a speed bump, not a wall.
What Do These Drones Actually See?
Flock and the sheriff's office insist the drones aren't for surveillance. Spokesperson Stephen Huber told reporters:[1]
"Drones are not used for surveillance. They are used for responding to specific calls and incidents."
The department says drones point cameras skyward on return flights. That there's a transparency dashboard listing every flight. That there's a "very specific privacy policy."[1]
But these drones carry cameras. They fly over private property. They record video, images, and metadata.[4] They respond to any 911 call, and in a county of 1.3 million people, that's a lot of flights.
As one resident put it: "You're gonna be out on your boat, picking your nose, and that's gonna be on camera."[1]
Here's the pattern we've documented across the country: drones start as emergency tools. Then the scope expands. Traffic monitoring. Crowd surveillance at protests. General patrol. The technology doesn't change. The policy does.
Flock's Track Record Speaks for Itself
Oakland County residents brought receipts. Angela Lippard told commissioners that "Flock as a business has shown itself to be an untrustworthy partner," citing cancelled contracts in multiple cities including nearby Ferndale, which ended its Flock license plate reader contract in fall 2025.[1]
She's understating it. In the past six months alone:
- Mountain View, CA: Terminated after an audit found ATF, Air Force, and GSA accessed camera data without the city's knowledge
- Santa Clara County, CA: Banned Flock outright by 3-2 vote. The sheriff's office can't touch the cameras.
- Santa Cruz, CA: Terminated over federal access concerns
- San Jose, CA: Slashed data retention to 30 days, blocked federal sharing
- Denver, CO: Won't renew Flock contract, switching to a competitor without nationwide search
- Ferndale, MI: Ended Flock LPR contract after community pressure
A class action lawsuit filed in California alleges Flock shared data with federal agencies (including ICE, CBP, and FBI) 1.6 million times through San Francisco PD's camera network.[5]
Flock told Fox 2 Detroit that "federal agencies do not have access to data collected by its products." Cities that cancelled their contracts found otherwise.[3]
The Immigration Enforcement Question
Multiple residents raised ICE access directly. Ann Layman warned the program "creates a chilling effect, especially for immigrants who fear ICE." Mary Ellen Scott connected the dots more bluntly: "When racism becomes immigration policy...Flock cameras will be used against our neighbors."[1]
Raymond Salts raised concerns about the "technology used for tracking activists" and noted that "cameras perpetuate bias in the criminal justice system."[1]
These aren't hypothetical concerns. ICE has used automated license plate reader data (the kind Flock specializes in) to track and arrest immigrants across the country. And Flock's "Drone as First Responder" program doesn't just do license plates. It does video. It does aerial imagery. It covers ground that fixed cameras can't.
Oakland County is Michigan's second-largest county. It borders Detroit. The surveillance implications here extend well beyond property crime response.
The Free Pilot Trap
Flock offered the first nine months free. That's not generosity. It's a sales strategy.
Once drones are integrated into 911 dispatch workflows, once deputies are trained on the system, once the sheriff's office builds its operations around Flock's infrastructure, walking away gets harder. The sunk cost isn't just money. It's institutional dependency.
After the free period, the county faces $1.25 million per year. The opt-out deadline is December 15, 2026. By then, the sheriff's office will have nine months of operations built on Flock's platform.[2]
Renis Nushaj, a resident, pointed out what $2.5 million could buy instead: "4-10 miles of roads, or plant 4,000 trees."[1]
What You Can Do
Track the Flights
The sheriff's office maintains a transparency dashboard of drone flights. Watch it. Document patterns. Ask whether "emergency response" drones are being used for general surveillance.
Push for Audit Requirements
Mountain View didn't know feds were accessing their Flock data until they audited. Demand Oakland County conduct quarterly audits of who accesses drone data and publish the results.
Mark December 15
That's the opt-out deadline. The next nine months determine whether this becomes permanent. Show up to every commissioner meeting between now and then. Make the cost of keeping the program political.
Follow the Data
The amended contract says Flock won't retain data. Verify it. FOIA request the data retention policies, Flock's system architecture documentation, and any data-sharing agreements (written or verbal) with federal agencies.
References
- Oakland County Times - Oakland County Approves Flock Drone Contract, Residents Speak Until Nearly Midnight Against It (April 9, 2026)
- Detroit News - Contract for police drones in Oakland County elicits boos, taunts (April 9, 2026)
- Fox 2 Detroit - Oakland County approves Flock drone pilot program despite strong opposition (April 2026)
- Click On Detroit - 'Who owns the data': Community voices concern over Flock drone surveillance (April 9, 2026)
- State of Surveillance - Class Action: Flock Shared California Data with Feds 1.6 Million Times
- CBS Detroit - Oakland County officials approve drone program; residents express privacy concerns (April 2026)
Published: April 10, 2026