Cincinnati City Council unanimously passed a motion Thursday requesting an ordinance to put limits surveillance technology like license plate readers. It's not clear whether the eventual ordinance will have majority support, however.
Council member Anna Albi introduced the motion. She says surveillance tech is a "hot topic" and that these tools are important to solving and preventing crime.
"But we need to balance that need with ensuring we're protecting our citizens, frankly, from government overreach and abuse of these very powerful technologies," Albi said, adding this motion is intended to start a larger discussion.
"Let's talk publicly about what type of surveillance technologies the city is using ... because honestly, from everything I've heard from CPD and [the] Law [Department], Cincinnati is doing it right. We have great oversight from our law department when it comes to these contracts."
The motion requests a report and presentation from city administration within 30 days with an overview of how the city uses cameras, drones, and license plate readers.
Many other communities in Greater Cincinnati have faced publish pushback for using Flock cameras, and several have paused their use or even canceled contracts as a result. Those include: Lebanon, Hamilton County, Oxford, and in Northern Kentucky, Fort Thomas, Newport, Independence, Fort Mitchell, Bellevue, and Florence.
Cincinnati does not use Flock Safety technology, but contracts with Axon for body cameras and license plate readers. The city put out a Request for Proposals about a year ago, indicating the Cincinnati Police Department is undergoing a five-year expansion; the RFP sought quotes for installing 30 to 50 cameras throughout the city. Submissions are under review, according to the city website.
Two people registered as paid lobbyists for Flock Safety in 2025 but terminated their registration this year. A third person registered as a lobbyist for Flock Safety early this year: Katherine Ott Zehnder of Politicom Law. The city charter requires lobbyists to update or terminate their registration each July; Ott Zehnder did not.
Council members Jeff Cramerding and Seth Walsh co-sponsored Albi's motion.
"I want to make sure that we continue to use technology to deter crime and track down shooters and do whatever is necessary," Cramerding said.
Earlier this year, Council passed a motion prohibiting the city from sharing any data from city-owned surveillance technology with any third-party for the purpose of civil immigration enforcement, unless mandated by law, a court order, or judicial warrant.
The motion passed this week also requests a draft ordinance that would establish a surveillance use policy, limit data sharing and storage, require an annual "state of surveillance" report, and require City Council approval of related contracts.
The details of the requested ordinance are not spelled out, and it's not clear whether a majority of Council will support it.
Council member Scotty Johnson, a retired Cincinnati Police officer and current chair of Council's Public Safety and Quality of Life Committee, expressed concern.
"We must stay 10 steps ahead of the bad guys, and the bad guys have surveillance, the bad guys have technology," Johnson said. "The reality is that there are things, there are surveillances, there are investigations that the citizens of Cincinnati do not need to know about — this body [City Council] doesn't need to know about — because of the sensitive nature in which the Cincinnati police operate. I understand that's a little disturbing to some people, but law, but crime is solved as a direct result of [these] investigations."
Even Council members who indicated support for limits on surveillance technology also expressed their belief that Cincinnati is already doing it "the right way."
"It's my understanding that the Cincinnati Police Department is using best practice," Cramerding said. "I will not support anything that in any way handcuffs our police or prevents them from doing their jobs."
Vice Mayor Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney said in committee on Tuesday that she supports the motion because it's good to get more information.
"But we know that cameras help us solve crime. They also deter crime," she said.
The eventual presentation is expected at a meeting of the Public Safety and Quality of Life Committee, which means every other week. The presentation is expected to be ready by the meeting scheduled for Oct. 6.
Full text of the motion
Title: Motion on City Surveillance Technology and Ordinance
WE MOVE that the Administration present to Committee within 30 days on an overview of the City's use of surveillance technology, including cameras, drones, and license plate readers, covering current deployment, data retention, and any data-sharing agreements.
WE FURTHER MOVE that the administration draft an ordinance for Council's consideration, including limits on data sharing and storage; a state of surveillance annual impact report; surveillance use policy; and Council approval of related contracts.
Read more:
