Residents urge Oakland County commissioners to reconsider Flock drone surveillance

At a meeting of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners, several residents used the public-comment period to press the board to re-examine commercial drone and automated license-plate reader (ALPR) programs and any county or sheriff's Office relationships with vendors such as Flock.

A resident who identified herself only as a parent said she was "disappointed" that what she called a standalone resolution on drones had been folded into other agenda business and urged the board to "please get these contracts out" and to restore a fuller public discussion. "I will be here at every meeting until this technology is gone," she said.

Phillip, another public commenter who cited published program data, said the county's own flight logs show heavy concentration of flights in majority-Black neighborhoods: "Of the 670 drone flights that occurred, 637 of them, literally 95% were in majority black neighborhoods," he said, and argued that the county should consider redirecting surveillance funds to housing, education and youth services.

A second commenter, who said she had filed Freedom of Information requests with municipalities across the county, told commissioners some local governments reported not holding direct contracts with the vendor and suggested the sheriff's Office may be operating as the contracting authority on behalf of municipalities.

County staff and the chair clarified during the meeting that the county itself does not currently have a direct contract for all municipalities: "Our sheriff's department has a grant contract with Flock; cities, villages, and townships have their individual contracts," the chair said during the public-comment exchange. Staff also said a planned countywide drone policy had been delayed to allow additional departmental and local input.

Commissioners did not vote on any surveillance-specific ordinance or contract at the meeting. Several residents framed their remarks as a request for the board to bring the topic back to the agenda with fuller stakeholder participation and clearer review of existing county or municipal contracts.

Next steps: commissioners did not schedule a follow-up vote during the meeting; public commenters urged the board to hold a dedicated public forum and to review existing contracts and grant arrangements.