Where we're fighting

These cameras are already up across the Northwoods, in small towns people assume are too small to bother with. Pick your area to see what's there and how to fight it where you live.

Ashland County, WI

754agencies in 38 states can search it
$3,000a year, one camera
Sept 10renewal date, now passed
What's here
One Flock camera, at WIS 13 and WIS 77, costing the county $3,000 a year with nationwide search turned on. We asked for the records in July and heard nothing for a month. The Sheriff's Office then produced all of it, in writing, on August 17, 2026.
What the county's own records show

Records obtained from the Ashland County Sheriff's Office, August 17, 2026. The county produced its Flock sharing list, its camera policy, its contract, and its full network audit log.

The sharing list is the plainest document in the whole campaign. It is the county's own export, and it shows 754 law enforcement agencies across 38 states holding access to Ashland County's camera network. 274 of those agencies also share their own networks back with Ashland County. Wisconsin is the largest single share at 165 agencies, then Illinois at 81 and Michigan at 68.

The county has one camera. It costs $3,000 a year. We have found no record of a public vote on any of it.

The audit log is the other half. Ashland County has one camera, nationwide search is turned on, and the county's own audit log for that account records 4.2 million searches by 3,856 agencies in 47 states since January. Of those searches, the Sheriff's Office ran 107 itself. The reasons it gave are ordinary local work, including nine welfare checks and a copper theft out of Gogebic.

Two things that log does not say, and we will not claim it does. It does not say whether any of those searches returned a read from the camera at 13 and 77. The Chief Deputy told us plainly: the audit does not say if the camera returned anything. And the officer names, plate numbers and case numbers are redacted, so nothing in it can show whether any individual officer misused it. We are not going to pretend otherwise.

The deadline, now passed

The contract was set to renew automatically on September 10, 2026. Chief Deputy Dave Dawson, in writing: "It is handled administratively within the Sheriff's Office and it renews automatically." We asked whether the county gave notice to stop it. His answer: "No notice was given. As far stepping away from the contract, that would have to be run through the legal department."

The order form Dawson signed on March 3, 2025 sets the initial term at 12 months and the renewal term at 24, and it requires notice of non-renewal at least thirty days before the term ends. Thirty days before September 10 was August 11. So this was never a one-year rollover. That August 11 deadline passed with no notice given, and September 10 has now passed as well. Unless something happened that the county has not told us about, Ashland County is in for two more years, and the way out runs through the county legal department.

Who decides
The Ashland County Board and the Sheriff. The Sheriff is independently elected, so the Board cannot order a camera switched off. What the Board controls is the money, and Wisconsin law requires the county to hold a public budget hearing no later than the first Monday in November.
The win so far
The City of Ashland is a separate government with its own police department. On May 27, 2026, the city's police chief notified Flock it would not renew its one-year contract and asked that the camera be removed. He told the City Council the same day. He later told Fox21 the reasons were significant downtime and concerns about Flock's responsiveness. The department that actually used the camera decided it was not worth keeping.

One regional group covers all these fights right now.

Bayfield County, WI

$17,500a year, three agreements
2video cameras, not plate readers
0records of a public vote
What's here
At least eight Flock devices county-wide, and two of them are video cameras rather than plate readers. One plate reader is confirmed on US-63 in Cable. 100,721 vehicles logged in a single 30-day period, from a county portal reading in June 2026. The Sheriff told his committee on August 17 that data retention has been cut to seven days and that searches are now limited to specific reasons, such as missing persons or felony offenses. The county's Flock portal still listed 30 days on October 1. That portal lists 217 agencies with access to the data as of October 1, 2026, and 23 of them are outside Wisconsin, in Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan and Indiana. Sheriff Williams put limits on sharing, in writing, in July 2026: all federal-agency access is turned off, and out-of-state agencies are approved one at a time. No federal agency appears on the portal list. This is not the nationwide free-for-all we found one county over.
What the county's own records show

Records obtained from the Bayfield County Sheriff, July 29, 2026. The county's Flock program runs on three separate agreements, not one. The signed order forms and the invoices add up to about $17,500 a year. Together those three agreements cover six license plate readers and two solar video cameras. The Sheriff signed the video-camera agreement in October 2025, and the order form describes the cameras as an addition to an existing plate-reader install. We have asked the county when they were installed and do not yet have that answer. I have not found any record of a public vote on any of the three.

A plate reader photographs a car and reads the plate. A video camera watches a place, and the people in it. Flock's own website describes a "Guardian Mode" that "automatically detects and locates people and vehicles in the camera's field of view," and under a heading reading "Follow Movements Automatically" says it will "identify people and vehicles, zooming in for identifying details."

In fairness to Flock: the company says that feature "captures fixed points in time, not continuous tracking," and it states plainly that its cameras do not use facial recognition. We have seen nothing to contradict that. Our objection is not that the county bought something sinister. It is that a camera that watches people is a different decision than a camera that reads plates, and we have found no record that either decision was ever put to the public.

Bayfield's plate readers are not up for renewal this fall. The invoices show a 60-month term on the original agreement and a 48-month term on the expansion, which run into 2028 and 2029. Anyone telling you there is a Bayfield deadline in September has it confused with Ashland County. The Bayfield lever is the county budget, not a contract clock.

A solar-powered Flock license-plate camera on a pole beside US-63 in Cable, Wisconsin, near the American Birkebeiner Trail sign
One of Bayfield County's Flock cameras: US-63 in Cable, quietly logging every car through town.
Who decides
The Bayfield County Board (13 districts) and the Sheriff. The Sheriff is independently elected, so the Board cannot order a camera switched off. What the Board controls is the money. Wisconsin law requires the county to hold a public budget hearing no later than the first Monday in November, and that hearing is where the funding decision actually gets made. On September 16 the Executive Committee took the Flock money out of the 2027 budget and moved it to vehicle mileage, according to the county's own memo. The same memo says the contracts carry a non-appropriation clause "allowing for contracts to be broken without penalty if funds are not allocated." The full County Board holds the 2027 budget hearing on Tuesday, October 27, at 6:00 PM in Washburn. That vote is what makes it final.
One approval, finally
On August 18, 2026, the City of Bayfield's public works director told us the county approached the city about mounting a camera on a city-owned light pole roughly two years ago. It went to the city's Public Works Committee and the Bayfield Police Department, and both agreed. That is the only committee-level approval we have found anywhere in this campaign, in any county. It was also described to the city as being for amber alerts. He added that he was not aware a public vote was needed.

One regional group covers all these fights right now.

Hayward / Sawyer County, WI

not yetrolled out to deputies, per the county
nonepublic transparency portal
nonepublished use policy
What's here
We asked Sawyer County what it runs, starting July 6, 2026. The Sheriff's Office told us in writing that its Flock system has not been rolled out to deputies yet. Hayward Police answered the same request in a day and told us they have no Flock system at all. What we can show is that Sawyer County has search access. It turns up in another county's audit log running eleven searches on one day in May, all on a single stolen-vehicle case. A resident has also reported a camera in Winter, on Highway 70 unverified. That is a neighbor's sighting, not a record. There is no published use policy and no public transparency portal.
No public transparency portal. Flock gives every agency a public page that shows camera count, retention, and who the data is shared with. Bayfield publishes one. Sawyer hasn't turned it on. Ask why, and demand they publish it.
Who decides
Sawyer County and Hayward PD.

One regional group covers all these fights right now.

Superior / Douglas County, WI

Jan 29trial agreement signed
Jul 21trial ended early, by letter
nonecurrent contract with Flock
What's here
The Douglas County Sheriff's Office signed a Flock Safety trial agreement on January 29, 2026, and ended that trial early by letter dated July 21, 2026, according to records the county produced on September 1, 2026. The county's Public Safety Committee minutes for August 27, 2026 state that the demo agreement "has been terminated," that there is "no current contract with Flock," and that the county "will not be pursuing company for camera use." During the trial the Sheriff's Office ran 19 camera units at nine locations around Superior. The county produced no written use policy and ran no public transparency portal. Its records also show data going to agencies in Texas, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin while the trial was running. We have found no record of a public vote on the trial.
Who decides
Douglas County and the City of Superior.

One regional group covers all these fights right now.

Hurley, WI / Ironwood, MI

20 billionplate scans a month, nationwide
nonepublic transparency portal
nonepublished use policy
What's here
Records confirm one Flock camera in Ironwood, MI, on Silver Street near South Hemlock, and its reads do not stay local. Plates are kept 30 days and fed into a nationwide Flock network of more than 20 billion plate scans a month across 5,000-plus communities. We can find no published use policy setting limits on it. The DeFlock map shows more in the twin cities, including on the Wisconsin side in Hurley unverified. The real count is higher than the paperwork, and no one has pulled the Wisconsin records yet.
No public transparency portal. Flock gives every agency a public page that shows camera count, retention, and who the data is shared with. Bayfield publishes one. Ironwood, Hurley, and Iron County publish nothing. Ask why, and demand they publish it.
Who decides
Two states meet here. The Ironwood camera is Michigan (Gogebic County); the Hurley cameras are Wisconsin, a separate decision and a separate records request.
Neighbors here are already on it. Hurley and Ironwood have their own local Facebook group, where the on-the-ground organizing happens: leafleting, records, and turnout. If you live in or near the twin cities, that group is your first stop.

This area is organized locally by neighbors in the twin cities.

Where these numbers come from

Every county figure on this page came out of a public records request to the agency that runs the cameras. Bayfield County's came from the Sheriff on July 29, 2026. Ashland County's came from the Sheriff's Office on August 17, 2026. Not from a leak, not from an estimate, and not from Flock's marketing. We asked, and they answered in writing.

We do not post the records themselves. The productions contain personal information, and republishing that would do to other people exactly what we are objecting to.

You do not have to take our word for it. The same records are available to you, from the same agencies, under Wisconsin's Public Records Law. It is one email and it takes about ten minutes.

Get the records request guide

If you are checking a specific figure and want to know which agency and which request it came from, use the contact form and ask. We will tell you.

Don't see your town? Check the DeFlock map to find cameras near you, then reach out and we'll help you start a local page.