COMMUNITY PROFILE
Michigan City, Indiana
Michigan City's published Flock Safety agreements document purchases of license plate reader and Raven audio-detection services. This profile separates what the records establish from reporting, current operational questions, and evidence still needed.
PROPOSAL STATUS · REVIEWED OCTOBER 16, 2026
$300,000 expansion proposal withdrawn October 6
The four sponsors withdrew the proposed expansion ordinance on October 6, 2026, before a vote, as reported by WSBT. The withdrawal ended that proposal; it did not terminate Michigan City's existing Flock agreements.
The published draft ordinance documents a proposed $300,000 appropriation, not an adopted purchase. Its ordinance number, passage vote, and approval fields are blank. The proposal's historical scope appears below; its withdrawal should not be confused with cancellation of existing agreements or confirmation of which equipment is currently operating.
The original order and the 2024 addition have different renewal provisions. Exact renewal dates and non-renewal deadlines remain unconfirmed because the published records do not establish the relevant installation and validation dates.
Whether the city should continue its existing services remains a separate question. Any subsequent proposal or council action requires separate verification.
At a glance
Published records reviewed: October 16, 2026; current operations and later council action unverified
The 2022 order (pages 1–2) lists 30 Falcon cameras and four one-mile Raven audio-detection coverage units. The 2024 order (page 2) adds 30 Falcons: 60 cameras contracted across the two orders. That is not a verified count of installed, activated, or currently operating cameras. The published collection does not contain the Deployment Plans or establish installation and validation dates. Their absence from this collection does not establish that the records do not exist or that the city failed to meet an obligation.
PUBLIC COST
What does it cost?
First-year total
$187,000 recurring amount stated in the agreement
30 additional cameras for two years
$90,000 annual recurring amount in the order; COPS grant funding identified in the purchase records
These are contracted amounts, not a verified payment history or current annual spending total. See the 2022 pricing (page 2) and 2024 pricing (pages 2–3). The October 30, 2024 purchase request says subsequent years must be included in the annual budget; the November 4 minutes excerpt (page 2) discusses future grant or city funding. The $180,000 award (page 1) lists a project and budget end date of March 31, 2026, which is not a camera-service expiration date. Current invoices, grant amendments, and post-grant funding remain unverified. The historical recurring figures should not be added and presented as today's confirmed annual expense. The withdrawal of the expansion does not resolve the cost of existing services.
The agreement
The original agreement and the 2024 additional-services order both provide for automatic renewal, with different renewal lengths. Contractual renewal does not by itself establish current funding, payment, or the approvals required under local law. Read the separate renewal and termination provisions below.
WHAT DOES THE SYSTEM COLLECT?
Your vehicle has a “fingerprint.”
Michigan City's agreement says Flock can identify vehicles using more than a license plate number.
The agreement calls these characteristics a “Vehicle Fingerprint.” Authorized users can search recorded vehicle data using characteristics such as color, make, decals, bumper stickers, and vehicle accessories, not just a license plate number.
How long is the data kept?
The 2022 agreement (page 3) describes ordinary rolling 30-day deletion of Flock-hosted footage and agency extraction, downloading, and archiving. Section 4.2 (page 10) permits saving or transmitting footage before deletion and specifies seven days for Wing Replay; its inclusion in standard terms does not establish local deployment. Section 4.1 (page 9) also addresses preservation in specified legal circumstances. The 2024 order lists 30-day retention. This is not a universal deletion deadline for exported evidence, audit logs, or every data type. The agreement separately addresses aggregated data in §4.5; current settings, amendments, and agency retention practices remain unverified.
RENEWAL & TERMINATION
Two orders, different renewal provisions.
Actual renewal dates and non-renewal deadlines are not established. The published collection does not establish the relevant commencement dates, subsequent amendments, or term adjustments. Approval dates, signatures, grant dates, and annual invoices should not be substituted for that evidence. Section 2.7.2 of the original agreement also addresses term tolling for specified service interruptions. Section 9.11 (pages 15–16) governs notice delivery.
Unresolved invoice term discrepancy
Flock invoice INV-80747, dated December 4, 2025, describes Michigan City's service as “Co-Term: Year 3 of 60 Month Term, 2025–2026.” The signed 2022 order lists a 24-month initial term and 24-month renewal periods, while the 2024 addition lists a 24-month initial term and 12-month renewal periods. The invoice note does not, by itself, establish an amended 60-month contract.
FlockIt.info requested clarification from the City's Deputy City Attorney on October 21, 2026, concerning any additional agreement, the original installation and validation dates, and the current expiration and notice deadlines. The request was resent from another email address on October 23 following a reported email-filtering issue. These questions remain unresolved pending a documented response.
Non-renewal is not the only provision to examine.
The original §6.2 (page 11) permits agency termination for convenience effective immediately, with a $500 removal fee per Flock Hardware and stated prorated refund provisions. Wing Suite products are excluded from early-termination refunds. Physical removal occurs later within a commercially reasonable period.
The 2024 order (page 3) has separate language limiting termination after its 60-day opt-out period, except as provided in the agreement. These provisions and any amendments must be reconciled before claiming identical cancellation rights for both orders or quoting a total removal cost.
Original §6.4 says certain complimentary hotlist and non-agency access can survive the paid term and has separate termination provisions. Ending a paid subscription should not be presented as proof that every form of Flock access has ended.
HISTORICAL 2026 PROPOSAL · WITHDRAWN OCTOBER 6
What the $300,000 draft proposed.
The unsigned draft proposed using $300,000 from the Rainy Day Fund for the following revised expansion. This describes the proposal's historical scope, not an approved purchase or a pending vote verified by this review.
The proposed ordinance says Michigan City's existing Flock license plate reader and Raven gunshot detection systems are “frequently used” and have become “integral to patrol operations and criminal investigations.”
WVPE's September 17 report attributes to Assistant Chief Kyle Shiparski an estimate at the September 15 meeting that Flock has a “meaningful impact” on 20 to 30 cases per month. This review has not independently verified the report, full meeting record, definition, or underlying outcome data. Earlier site reporting said records supporting the estimate had been requested; the request correspondence and latest response status are not published here. That gap does not establish that no supporting records exist or that an agency failed to comply.
KNOW THE TECHNOLOGY
“Flock cameras” are not all the same thing.
The published orders and historical expansion draft describe several different surveillance technologies; the draft is not proof those additional products were deployed. They collect different kinds of information and create different capabilities.
WHO MAKES THE RULES?
Not every safeguard has the same permanence.
When officials say safeguards are in place, it matters where those safeguards come from and who has the authority to change them.
ONE GOVERNANCE MODEL
Community Control Over Police Surveillance
Some communities have adopted laws commonly known as CCOPS, or Community Control Over Police Surveillance. The basic idea is that decisions about surveillance technology should not rest only with a police department or technology vendor.
SOURCE RECORDS
Records used for this profile.
FlockIt.info bases this profile on government records, Flock's own transparency data, and attributed public reporting.
Includes the 2022 agreement, 2024 camera addition, Board of Public Works records, and federal grant documentation.
Read the published source documentsVendor-published information; current contents and permission definitions require independent rechecking.
View transparency portalDescribed in earlier site reporting; an official copy and any later disposition still need independent verification.
Official source copy not published hereReporting on the Common Council discussion and Assistant Chief Kyle Shiparski's statements about access, retention, and data sharing.
Read the reportReports on the September 15 Common Council public hearing, including Assistant Chief Kyle Shiparski's estimate that Flock has a “meaningful impact” on 20 to 30 cases per month.
Read the reportDocuments the historical proposal's scope and stated justification; blank approval fields do not establish adoption or withdrawal.
Read the original draftOPEN QUESTIONS
What we still don't know.
What are the commencement dates, next term-end dates, and notice deadlines for each order and service?
How often does Flock information materially advance a Michigan City investigation?
How often is Flock essential to an investigative outcome rather than one of several useful tools?
Who controls outside-agency access to Michigan City's Flock data, under what authority, and is there an auditable record of when those permissions change?
What do current invoices and funding records show about the annual cost of existing services and funding after the original grant period?
Other evidence still needed includes Deployment Plans, installation and validation records, current policies, amendments, and dated request correspondence. These are gaps in the published collection, not findings of wrongdoing or noncompliance. No complete request ledger is published here, so this page does not establish which requests remain outstanding. FlockIt.info will update the profile as records and verified information become available.