Posted on 08/20/2026 5:06:48 PM PDT by Red Badger
A township in Ohio just made a huge statement against the highly-controversial Flock surveillance cameras popping up around the nation.
Last week, a grand jury refused to indict a man accused of damaging a Flock camera system in Union Township, Ohio.
Cody Morelock was facing felony charges for the incident. But now, the whole case has been dismissed.
Here are the details:
Kacee Allen
@KaceeRAllen A Clermont County man who faced felony vandalism charges for allegedly destroying a Flock safety camera in Union Township has had his case dismissed.
Cody Morelock was accused of damaging the camera system located on Mount Carmel-Tobasco Road near Glenrose Lane on June 13, according to Union Township police.
Investigators claimed he removed the bolts holding the equipment in place, causing the camera, solar panel, and support pole to fall before he destroyed them.
Police said footage from other nearby cameras helped identify him as the suspect. The Flock camera was leased by the Union Township Police Department, and authorities estimated the damage at more than $1,000.
A Clermont County grand jury ultimately declined to indict Morelock on the felony charges.
Ohio is anti-Flock!
A Clermont County man who faced felony vandalism charges for allegedly destroying a Flock safety camera in Union Township has had his case dismissed.
Cody Morelock was accused of damaging the camera system located on Mount Carmel-Tobasco Road near Glenrose Lane on June 13, according to Union Township police.
Investigators claimed he removed the bolts holding the equipment in place, causing the camera, solar panel, and support pole to fall before he destroyed them.
Police said footage from other nearby cameras helped identify him as the suspect. The Flock camera was leased by the Union Township Police Department, and authorities estimated the damage at more than $1,000.
A Clermont County grand jury ultimately declined to indict Morelock on the felony charges.
Ohio is anti-Flock!
Cody Morelock allegedly brought down and then subsequently destroyed a Flock camera on June 13th.
The damages exceeded $1000, which is Ohio’s felony vandalism threshold.
Here’s the real kicker, though.
Authorities identified Cody as a suspect by cross-referencing surveillance footage taken by other Flock cameras in the area.
So, the surveillance network ended up catching the man trying to take down that same surveillance network.
Local 12 reported further on the incident:
Cody Morelock was accused of damaging the camera on Mount Carmel-Tobasco Road near Glenrose Lane on June 13, according to Union Township police.
Investigators alleged Morelock removed bolts securing the camera system, bringing down the camera, solar panel and support pole before destroying the equipment.
Police said surveillance footage from other nearby cameras helped identify Morelock as the suspect.
Don’t get me wrong: vandalism is not a good thing and certainly should not be condoned.
That said, in this specific case, many folks are praising the jury for letting this man off the hook.
Take a look at a few of these responses:
MANY TWEETS AT LINK....................
If you don’t know, the basic function of Flock cameras is to record and store license plate numbers along with other vehicle identification information. The supposed purpose is to help law enforcement find criminals.
But, the widespread use of these cameras is raising a lot of concerns about mass surveillance and violations of the 4th Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Sen. Rand Paul is one voice in Congress who has vocally spoken out against the surveillance cameras:
Cody Morelock’s case isn’t an isolated incident.
Similar cases of Flock camera vandalism are increasing in states like Minnesota.
Straight Arrow News noted:
While details on the grand jury’s decision are limited, it comes amid a growing backlash against Flock and its cameras.
The company’s cameras record the license plate numbers and characteristics of vehicles that pass by. The data is then hosted in a central database that can be accessed not only by local police but often by law enforcement agencies in other cities and states.
The incident in Union Township is part of an ongoing trend that has seen dozens of Flock cameras vandalized across the country. Earlier this month, police in Winona, Minnesota, reported that someone had cut down and stolen each of the city’s eight license plate reader cameras.
Social media users are promoting a loosely organized event known as “De-Flock America Night,” encouraging people to vandalize or obscure Flock cameras on Halloween.
The backlash against Flock has intensified as a growing number of police officers have been accused of or charged with abusing the technology, often to stalk romantic interests. As of Aug. 12, there had been more than 100 cases of abuse by law enforcement, according to the Institute for Justice.
In response, Flock announced new safeguards designed to prevent misuse by police. Critics, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argue that the reforms are largely “cosmetic,” and that warrants should be required for searching license plate reader data.
In addition to violating citizens’ privacy, dozens of incidents of misuse have been reported.
For instance, take this case of a female cop using Flock cameras to stalk her ex:
At least one city in Ohio has already enacted measures against Flock cameras.
Gadget Review explained:
Flock cameras capture license plates, vehicle make and model, and distinctive features, storing that data for 30 days on a rolling basis. Agencies must enter a “reason code” before running a search.
That sounds like a reasonable guardrail. But the ACLU of Ohio warns that an easily overlooked default configuration lets any Flock customer agency search another agency’s camera data — effectively a regional dragnet, like agreeing to a terms-of-service nobody on your city council actually read, except the fine print covers everywhere you drive.
Dayton covered its cameras with trash bags after an internal review found “egregious violations” of city policy, including thousands of immigration-related searches conducted through the system. Cleveland and Columbus have held contentious council hearings over whether to retain or expand their Flock contracts. The Institute for Justice has cataloged at least 22 national cases of alleged officer misuse of license plate readers — a pattern echoed by reports of secretly tracking users through other government-linked platforms. Ohio has no statewide ALPR law — governance falls to departmental policy and vendor terms alone.
The no-bill doesn’t legalize destroying cameras. It doesn’t cancel Flock’s Ohio contracts. But when a grand jury declines to treat smashing a surveillance camera as serious felony business, that signals something real about where public sentiment sits — and that tension isn’t resolving anytime soon.
When asked for his opinion on Flock cameras recently, President Trump said that there are pros and cons to the system.
He promised to study the controversial cameras further and share his stance within the next few weeks.
Watch what President Trump had to say here:
What’s your take?
Do you think that people who vandalize Flock cameras should be punished?
Should Flock cameras be allowed, in the first place?
What are your thoughts?
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
1.) The Civil Rights Lawyer
When the Columbine Valley Police Department (Colorado), using their dystopian flock surveillance system, saw a green Rivian truck driving down the same street, in the same town, 20 times over the course of a month, they became suspicious. But even more suspicious than that, the driver of the Rivian truck was a woman with blonde hair...
So when a $25 package went missing from a porch in that neighborhood that the blonde bandit was driving her 70 thousand dollar truck through on a daily basis, it obviously must have been her. At that point the government did what any good dystopian government agency would do, they sent a rude, bald member of their goon squad to the woman’s front door to lie to her; gaslight her; and threaten her.
https://x.com/johnbryanesq/status/2089799020365414434
Reason
“Florida woman spent 7 months in legal hell after cops used Flock surveillance to ID the wrong car.”
https://x.com/reason/status/2089072978654892365
Just wait until ha ha Halloween
Jury nullification. This example may seem good to some Freepers — until it is used against them. The left can, and does, use it too.
A lot of Déjà vu in your post.
They can say there is no crime because nobody ever gets charged or convicted.
Jury nullification is the name of the game now. The rule of law is a joke. There is nothing fair about it anymore.
I agree, but I also don’t think you’ll find many flock vigilantes.
“Jury nullification. This example may seem good to some Freepers — until it is used against them. The left can, and does, use it too.”
As Rush often said: “The Aggressor Sets the Rules” In this case, the Left not only uses nullification, they TRAIN their locals (people in the jury pool) on how to use it.
Unless we can stop the Left from using Nullification, we might as well join them - they will use it ANYWAY, they don’t give a shit about ‘moral high ground’ or anything else. I would ‘hope’ that people on our side are starting to pick up on that.
Law abiding Americans have NO RIGHT to know who is surveilling their homes, or their business location, or vandalizing their property, or stealing from their garage, or driving at life threatening speeds.
Every criminal has a Constitutional Right to privacy!
If I had a nickel for every time some "good citizen" on FR either whined about jury duty or tried to find some "out" I would be able to take a really nice vacation.
People like to moan about how the "left this and the left that" but they would have had no place if the right had decided God, family and country was the goal.
Instead they decided Mammon, toys and dopamine hits were their goal. All that "civic stuff" could be safely disregarded.
Mouse double posts all the time...........
Do these cities not realize that some ones could hack into their cameras and use them for nefarious purposes?..............
Last time I actually got into voir dire one of the lawyers (I think it was the prosecutor) asked the potential jurors if anyone heard of jury nullification. I raised my hand and gave too detailed of explanation. He made a smart ass comment that maybe I was on the wrong side of the railing. Unsurprisingly, I was sent home early.
Be honest.
Shoulda told them they are on the wrong side of a jail cell door.
.
He’s a hero. You don’t indict heroes.
In certain cases, I’m all for it. This happens to be that case. Too many innocent people are getting caught up in these cameras.
These cameras are yet another incremental violation of the fourth amendment. My guess: Americans are more interested in what’s on TV or what’s for dinner. Constitution? Rights of Man? What’s that?
The country deserves what’s coming.
Nothing good comes of government surveillance, nothing. History proves this time and time again. The longer the people accept wide spread surveillance, the harder it will be to escape the Gulag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.