ECFIGHT FLOCK
ERATH COUNTY, TX
Conceptual illustration of roadside surveillance cameras above a family car at dusk
FIGHT FLOCK / ERATH COUNTY, TX

What is Flock?

A camera sees a car.
A network can expose a routine.

Conceptual surveillance artwork supplied for this site. Red connections are symbolic—not actual tracking data or a map of Erath County cameras.

FLOCK EXPLAINED / WHAT FAMILIES NEED TO KNOW

FLOCK CREATES
A SEARCHABLE TRAIL.

A trip to work. Attending church. A medical appointment. A visit to someone you love. Repeated vehicle sightings can expose pieces of a family’s private life—even when nobody in that family is suspected of a crime.

What is Flock?

Flock Safety supplies automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and software that turns passing vehicle images into searchable records. The Falcon system described in these materials records vehicle observations at camera locations; it is not a GPS tracker attached to your car.

That distinction does not remove the danger: enough timestamped sightings can reveal routes, routines, and associations. The reach depends on coverage, retention, and the records a searching agency can access.

What can it collect and search?

  • License plate number and state, with images of the vehicle.
  • Date, time, and the camera location for a sighting.
  • Vehicle characteristics such as make, model, color, body type, and distinctive visible features.
  • Past observations, including searches that start with a vehicle description rather than a complete plate.
  • Records from other participating cameras or agencies where sharing permissions allow.

A record made today can be searched later.

Someone does not have to follow a vehicle in person to examine stored sightings later. In the hands of an abusive partner with improper access, a stalking officer, or another unauthorized user, those records can become a tool for intimidation and harassment.

Your family does not need to be guilty of anything to appear in a camera’s records.

See the reported misuse cases ↓

WHY THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR PHONE OR DOORBELL

You can get rid of your phone, delete apps, or unplug your Ring camera. You can’t turn off Flock. It can scan your plate without asking you.

QUESTIONPHONE OR RING CAMERAROADSIDE FLOCK NETWORK
Do I choose to use it?You choose whether to own a phone or install your own Ring camera. You can remove apps and control many device permissions.Flock does not ask your permission before recording your car as you drive by. You do not have to use Flock or be suspected of a crime.
Can I get rid of it?You can discard your phone, uninstall apps, or disconnect and remove your Ring camera.Getting rid of your phone or Ring does not stop Flock from scanning your plate. You cannot unplug a roadside Flock camera the way you can unplug your own camera.
What does it collect?A home camera records a particular area. A phone and its apps can collect private content and location data, depending on settings and services.Flock can save your plate, a picture of your car, and where and when it saw you. Repeated sightings can show parts of your daily routine.
What about consent and warrants?Police usually need a warrant to search what is on your phone unless you agree or an exception applies, such as an emergency. Ring footage can be shared with your permission or obtained through a legal demand or an emergency exception.In Texas, police generally do not need a warrant to search ALPR records they are allowed to access. Texas has no ALPR-specific state law requiring one. Flock can record your plate without asking your permission.

Choosing to use a phone or Ring does not mean you agreed to Flock tracking. Owning a phone does not mean police can freely search it. Phone and Ring access still has legal rules and exceptions.

Texas ALPR rules — City of Boerne ↗ · Warrant requirements — City of Seabrook ↗ · Ring law-enforcement requests ↗

What could the wrong person learn?

Depending on sightings and access, records could suggest when you leave for work, where you regularly park, which church or clinic you visit, and whom you see. A family escaping abuse has reason to care deeply about who can retrieve that information.

Vehicle sightings do not prove who was driving or why someone was there. They can still expose sensitive patterns—or produce misleading conclusions.

Why the Fourth Amendment matters

Our position is that government should not build a searchable history of innocent people’s movements without meaningful constitutional safeguards. Being visible on a public road is not blanket consent to scrutiny of your family’s life.

READ THE SUPPORTING IMAGES

Flock versus phones and Ring cameras
Flock versus phones and Ring cameras ↗OPEN ORIGINAL IMAGE
Vehicle Fingerprint and the Fourth Amendment
Vehicle Fingerprint and the Fourth Amendment ↗OPEN ORIGINAL IMAGE
Business cameras versus Flock
Business cameras versus Flock ↗OPEN ORIGINAL IMAGE
Falcon capabilities and historical searches
Falcon capabilities and historical searches ↗OPEN ORIGINAL IMAGE
LOCAL HISTORY / THE FIGHT OVER FLOCK

A $71,900 FLOCK DEAL—
SIGNED BEFORE THE PUBLIC KNEW.

The Erath County fight is about privacy, taxpayer consent, and whether elected officials listen. Residents have challenged how the county entered the Flock agreement—and why officials continued funding it despite organized opposition.

OCTOBER 25, 2024
Contract signed

Signed a month before it came before the public

Sheriff Matt Coates signed the taxpayer-funded Flock agreement on October 25, 2024. The signature page below records his name, title, signature, and date. The agreement was signed a month before Flock was first brought before the public in Commissioners Court on November 25, 2024.

County officials acknowledged that the agreement had not been reviewed by the county attorney before it was signed. Taxpayers were signed onto the agreement before that legal review and before the public Commissioners Court discussion.

The public notice was posted November 22, 2024. Item 13 on the November 25 agenda was discussion and action to approve the Sheriff’s Office Flock LPR resolution.

The signature page and posted agenda establish the dates. Open the original images below to inspect them.

Flock agreement signed by Sheriff Matt Coates and dated October 25 2024VIEW SIGNED AGREEMENT ↗
October 25, 2024 • Sheriff’s signature
November 25 2024 Commissioners Court agenda posted November 22 with Flock LPR resolution highlighted as item 13VIEW POSTED AGENDA ↗
November 25, 2024 • Flock under item 13
See all contract and agenda images ↓
NOVEMBER 25, 2024
Public approval

Commissioners approve the Flock resolution

Erath County News reports that county minutes record a 4–0 vote approving the Sheriff’s Office Flock LPR resolution on November 25, 2024. That public vote came one month after the sheriff’s October 25 signature on the agreement.

For opponents, the sequence matters: a financial commitment should receive legal review and public scrutiny before taxpayers are signed onto it.

Read the reporting on the county minutes ↗
AUGUST–SEPTEMBER 2026
Residents organize

A petition, polls, and public opposition

Heather Anderson, a grassroots organizer fighting Flock surveillance in Erath County, launched the removal petition on August 17, 2026. It has attracted more than 1,200 signatures. Two local polls showed more than 80% opposition among participants: Erath County News reported 90% against public funding for Flock, while the StrawPoll showed approximately 84% against county tax dollars funding Flock, Axon, or other mass AI surveillance.

These are voluntary polls, not a representative survey of every Erath County resident. Percentages reflect the results reviewed for this page.

Read the petition and its current signature count ↗
SEPTEMBER 14, 2026
Funding continues

Opposition did not stop the funding

A published summary of the September 14 Commissioners Court meeting reports that the court adopted a budget including Flock funding after hearing public objections. Heather Anderson says commissioners ignored the petition of approximately 1,200 people and the two polls showing more than 80% opposition among respondents.

Residents spoke up, but their demand to end taxpayer funding was not followed. The meeting summary also records officials’ willingness to review the agreement further.

Read the meeting summary and follow its video source ↗
1,200+

Signatures on the removal petition. The live petition count continues to change.

90% opposed

In the September 11 Erath County News poll on public funding.

84% opposed

Approximately, in the StrawPoll on county funding for Flock, Axon, or other mass AI surveillance.

WHO HAD THE AUTHORITY?

A sheriff’s signature is not unlimited power to bind taxpayers.

The sheriff signed before the November 25 public approval. Texas Attorney General opinions explain that commissioners courts generally contract for counties, and a sheriff needs specific legal authority to bind the county. No prior authorization for this agreement is identified in the records displayed here.

County officials should identify the statute or prior authorization that permitted the October 25 signature—and explain why the agreement was signed before public consideration.

Read the Attorney General’s explanation of contracting authority ↗
A SIGNATURE THAT POINTS TO CHANGING ONLINE TERMS

Flock can change the terms again and again—taxpayers are still on the hook.

The signature page expressly incorporates terms hosted on Flock’s website. Flock has already revised its online terms and conditions several times since the sheriff signed on October 25, 2024. Published versions and update notices show repeated changes after signing. Taxpayers still fund the county’s obligations under the signed agreement; a change to the online terms does not by itself cancel the contract.

Residents deserve to know which version applies, what can be changed, how often changes can be made, what notice is required, and how the county can reject a change or exit.

Which revised terms apply to this county agreement—and what rights the county has to reject changes or end the deal—depends on the contract and applicable law.

See the signature page’s incorporation of online terms ↗
Publicly archived terms marked updated December 19, 2025 ↗
Archived terms marked updated February 16, 2026 ↗
Independent documentation of changes in 2025–2026 ↗
Republican platform accountability

Republican labels should come with Republican principles.

The commissioners run as Republicans, yet continuing government use of Flock conflicts with the Republican Party of Texas’s stated position.

The Texas GOP’s September 28, 2026 resolution reaffirms 2026 Platform Plank 55’s opposition to government use of Flock, ALPRs, and similar vehicle-tracking systems. It calls for legislation prohibiting government use and urges Republican officials to uphold the party’s privacy and surveillance platform.

That creates a clear accountability question: why continue supporting a system the state party expressly opposes?

Read the Texas GOP resolution and its reference to Plank 55 ↗

The 2026 platform position and September resolution postdate the original 2024 agreement. They are cited here to assess continued support, not as rules already in place when the contract was signed.

Stephenville and Dublin end their Flock contracts

The City of Stephenville and the City of Dublin have voted to end their Flock contracts. According to local research, Flock cameras or agreements associated with Tarleton State University, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and Erath County remain. The city decisions do not automatically remove cameras operated by other agencies.

Stephenville’s city manager said the city had not installed its own Flock cameras. The complete current inventory of contracts and cameras in Erath County has not been independently verified.

Read local reporting on the Stephenville agreement ↗
THE RECORDS / SEE THE DATES AND DOLLARS

SIGNED OCTOBER 25.
PUBLIC MEETING NOVEMBER 25.

The original signature, agenda, order form, billing schedule, and service description are available here. The order form lists a 24-month initial term, $41,900 for year one, $30,000 in annual recurring charges, and a $71,900 contract total.

Sheriff signature dated October 25, 2024Sheriff signature dated October 25, 2024 ↗Download original image ↓
Agenda posted November 22 for November 25, 2024 — Flock item 13Agenda posted November 22 for November 25, 2024 — Flock item 13 ↗Download original image ↓
Order form — 24 months and a $71,900 contract totalOrder form — 24 months and a $71,900 contract total ↗Download original image ↓
Billing schedule — $41,900 at signing and $30,000 after year oneBilling schedule — $41,900 at signing and $30,000 after year one ↗Download original image ↓
Contract product and services descriptionContract product and services description ↗Download original image ↓
01 / START HERE

Erath County deserves clear answers.

The supplied packet includes a November 25, 2024 meeting notice and a Sheriff’s Office records response posted September 2, 2026. The response says vendor contracts and sharing agreements were not maintained by that office, and that its ALPR policy was attached. These records raise practical questions about oversight.

Who checks the searches—and who checks the people doing the searching?

The packet’s records response states that audit or usage logs are kept by the Flock system rather than maintained by the Sheriff’s Office. That alone does not establish whether local audits take place. Residents can ask to see the review process and its results.

See the records response in the packet, page 3 ↗

Who has access?

Which users and outside agencies can search local records, and for what documented purposes?

Who audits for misuse?

How often are search reasons reviewed? Who investigates suspicious searches and informs affected residents?

What is stored and shared?

What retention periods, deletion rules, export limits, and sharing settings apply locally?

What are taxpayers buying?

Where are the contract, total costs, documented outcomes, and public decisions authorizing the program?

County agendas and minutes ↗

Check the county’s current agenda and public-comment procedures before attending. Historical documents in this packet are not notices of an upcoming meeting.

Conceptual artwork of a family car beneath roadside cameras and symbolic network lines
Conceptual illustration. Network lines are symbolic, not a map or depiction of actual tracking data.
FAMILY SAFETY / WHEN THE TOOL IS TURNED AGAINST YOU

A TOOL SOLD FOR SAFETY.
USED TO STALK PEOPLE.

Flock is promoted as a way to find missing people and help solve crimes. But reported misuse cases show the same access being used to stalk former partners, harass people, and search for personal reasons. The system that records a family’s movements can put those records within reach of an abusive user.

Pedophiles and sexual predators can submit public-records requests.

The public-records request process is not a test of good intentions. A person with harmful intentions can ask for Flock-related files just as other members of the public can.

If released files show vehicle sightings, timestamps, and camera locations, a predator could piece together parts of a family’s routine: when they leave, where they regularly go, when they return, and which places they visit repeatedly.

Submitting a request is not the same as receiving every record. The danger described here is what sensitive information could reveal if it is released.

Claims about rescuing people do not erase the harm done when this technology is turned against them. Every person harmed deserves to be counted, too.

Read reported stalking and misuse cases at IJ.ORG ↗

Your family’s routine should not become someone else’s weapon.

Repeated sightings can expose parts of daily life: going to work, attending church, visiting a doctor, or seeing family. In the wrong hands, those records can help someone intimidate, follow, or harass another person.

A timestamp can show when a vehicle was seen. A camera location can show where. Repeated entries can reveal a pattern. Residents deserve to know whether released records expose those details—and how families are protected from someone using them to stalk or harass.

Families should not have to wait until someone is stalked to demand accountability.

Flock Records and Risks to Families

Flock Records and Risks to Families information sheet
See the reported misuse cases ↓Open full-size image ↗Download image ↓
ERATH COUNTY / CAMERA LOCATIONS

Where cameras have been reported

DeFlock map centered on Stephenville and Dublin showing reported camera locations
Illustration based on a DeFlock screenshot; marker positions are approximate. Tap the image to open the interactive map and zoom in on reported locations.

Explore community-reported Flock and license plate reader locations in and around Erath County.

For more locations across the county and beyond, explore the community map and zoom in to Erath County.

Open DeFlock camera map ↗View Stephenville source ↗

Locations: OpenStreetMap contributors via DeFlock, as listed by Are You Flocked. Community reports are not an official county inventory.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

The Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

— Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

04 / REPORTED MISUSE

Behind the searches
are real people.

These lists compile reported abuse cases involving harassment, stalking, tracking former partners, and unauthorized searches for personal reasons.

Each search used to commit stalking or criminal harassment is a criminal act made possible by access to Flock and other ALPR systems.

Case names, places, and counts below are reproduced from the supplied packet, pages 12–13. The compilation includes allegations and investigative findings. Listing a person does not establish a conviction, and a reported search count is not a count of separately charged offenses. These are nationwide cases, not 35 Erath County cases.

PERSONLOCATIONREPORTED IMPROPER SEARCHES
Zachary KleinLufkin TXMore than 25,000
James HeneghanHancock County INMore than 6,190
Gabriel GarciaKingsville TXAbout 5,300
Michael RogersIndianapolis INMore than 4,400
Sierra CarrollHouston County GAAt least 4,018
Laurie MooreAlbany County NYMore than 4,000
Nathan RomeJefferson Parish LAMore than 3,000
Ruben CarterColleton County SCMore than 2,700
Asad ZahirShively KY2,048
Skylar ThompsonJackson County INAbout 2,000
Jonathan SchultzIndianapolis IN1,396
Cassandra CrawleyIndianapolis IN1,270
Heidi TaylorDallas GAAbout 1,200
Jose FerrerRichmond County GAAt least 1,146
Matthew BinfordIndianapolis INMore than 1,000
James KeinardBraselton GAAt least 891
Emily PachecoNew Bedford MA887
Christopher GoodsonHaines City FL717
Michael SteffmanBraselton GAAbout 600
Abigail CramerIndianapolis INMore than 400
Josepher CrutchfieldFort Pierce FL382
Cory WaitersSarasota FL358
William CoppPrairie Grove and Holiday Hills ILNearly 250
Lee NygaardSedgwick KS228
Coty HallNiceville FL192
Josue AyalaMilwaukee WI179
Ellie HammondMauldin SCAt least 166
Oscar MaldonadoNaperville ILAbout 150
James MarinelliNew Bedford MA87
Christian EderAmarillo TX76
Jeffery BornesKokomo IN18
Frank McGrathKenosha County WI16 to 17
Jason OrellanaHall County GA10
Cristian MoralesMenasha WI7
Gerardo SolisWest Chicago ILAt least 1
Full compilation approximate subtotal70,283

The subtotal always refers to all 35 cases. “More than” and “at least” figures use the stated number as a baseline; approximate figures remain approximate; the 16–17 range uses 16.

Explore abuse cases at IJ.ORG ↗
Separate totals reported in the packet

These categories are kept separate from the 70,283 subtotal. They use different units and should not be combined into one total.

982

Reported criminal counts across 82 defendants in the broader misuse ledger.

22,373 + a range

Additional figures needing qualification, including mixed databases, access events, or searches not all established as improper.

More than 1,964,000

Reported unauthorized outside-agency dataset queries in San Francisco and Ventura County.

These are figures reproduced from page 14 of the supplied compilation, not a new national investigation.

05 / ASK FOR EVIDENCE

THE ABUSE IS DOCUMENTED.
DEMAND THE EVIDENCE.

There is no verified information proving that Flock or other ALPR systems have helped solve more cases than the number of crimes made possible through Flock and ALPR misuse.

The packet documents reported abuse, stalking, harassment, and unauthorized searches. A verified comparison counting these against cases solved was not identified. The available sources therefore do not establish which total is larger. IJ’s analysis discusses limits in the crime-reduction evidence.

Read the Institute for Justice analysis ↗
PRINT IT / READ IT / SHARE IT

PUT THE INFORMATION
IN PEOPLE’S HANDS.

Original pages and artwork from the information packet. Open an image to read or save it. These are source materials and advocacy graphics; the website’s text gives context for legal claims and reported figures.

More harm than good — source packet page 11
More harm than good ↗ORIGINAL PACKET • PAGE 11
The Fourth Amendment argument — source packet page 4
The Fourth Amendment argument ↗ORIGINAL PACKET • PAGE 4
Phones and private cameras — source packet page 7
Phones and private cameras ↗ORIGINAL PACKET • PAGE 7
Business cameras versus ALPRs — source packet page 8
Business cameras versus ALPRs ↗ORIGINAL PACKET • PAGE 8
Falcon capabilities and privacy — source packet page 10
Falcon capabilities and privacy ↗ORIGINAL PACKET • PAGE 10
Records and risks to families — source packet page 15
Records and risks to families ↗ORIGINAL PACKET • PAGE 15
Open any of the 17 packet pages as an image
Page 01 ↗Page 02 ↗Page 03 ↗Page 04 ↗Page 05 ↗Page 06 ↗Page 07 ↗Page 08 ↗Page 09 ↗Page 10 ↗Page 11 ↗Page 12 ↗Page 13 ↗Page 14 ↗Page 15 ↗Page 16 ↗Page 17 ↗
Download the full PDF ↓
06 / READ & SHARE

Start with the records.
Keep asking questions.

Read the packet, check the underlying material, and use the questions above when talking with local officials. The website summarizes its main Flock and ALPR topics; the full 17-page packet remains available below.

Original resident information packet ↗

17-page PDF supplied for this website. Includes local records, privacy arguments, the case compilation, and additional clippings. Historical dates and statements belong to their source documents.

Institute for Justice abuse database ↗

Reported ALPR misuse incidents, including stalking and non-law-enforcement use, with links to original reporting. Counts may change as the database is updated.

Erath County agendas and minutes ↗

The official place to look for meeting notices and public decisions. Confirm current dates and procedures with the county.

Texas Public Information Act ↗

Government Code Chapter 552. Requester rules and disclosure protections must be considered together.

IJ on the evidence for crime reduction ↗

September 17, 2026 analysis explaining methodological limits in a study of ALPR deployment.

Chatrie Supreme Court opinion ↗

Digital location privacy context. A different technology from ALPRs; read the opinion for the scope of its holding.

TAKE ACTION / ERATH COUNTY

Join the fight against Flock

Call or email the County Judge and Commissioners. Tell them why you oppose Flock cameras and ask them to remove the cameras from Erath County.

Contact your county officials

County Judge Brandon Huckabee
254-965-1452 · bhuckabee@co.erath.tx.us

Precinct 1 Commissioner Dee Stephens
254-965-7178 · pct1@co.erath.tx.us

Precinct 2 Commissioner Albert Ray
254-445-3122 · pct2@co.erath.tx.us

Precinct 3 Commissioner Sherman Edwards
254-918-2113 · pct3@co.erath.tx.us

Show up and speak at Commissioners Court

If your calls and emails go unanswered, attend Commissioners Court and share your concerns in person during public comment.

9:00 a.m. on the second and fourth Monday of each month
Second-floor courtroom, Erath County Courthouse
100 W. Washington St., Stephenville, TX 76401

Check the posted agenda and public-comment procedures before attending.

View court agendas ↗
Heather Anderson

Contact Heather Anderson

To join Heather Anderson in the fight against Flock cameras and protect our Fourth Amendment rights, please email heatheranderson1776@gmail.com.