Unplugged Investigation: Lorain Already Uses Flock Cameras. Now Officials Are Quietly Pushing Drone Surveillance and Trying to Move the Discussion Behind Closed Doors
By Aaron Christopher Knapp
Unplugged NewsBreak | Investigative Journalism
© 2025
Lorain’s Current Surveillance System
Lorain already operates a full Flock Safety automated license plate reader network across the city. According to Flock’s public dashboard, Lorain Police Department uses forty ALPR cameras, stores data for thirty days, and detected more than two hundred ten thousand vehicles in the past month. Nearly three thousand hotlist alerts were generated and more than four hundred investigative searches were conducted during that same period.
These cameras capture license plates, vehicle characteristics and timestamps. They do not capture facial features, race or gender. Lorain’s stated policy is that data is used only for law enforcement purposes and is never sold to third parties.
Fixed cameras raise significant privacy questions, but they still operate within an established legal framework. Drone surveillance does not.
Introducing Drones: A Major Shift in Surveillance Power
Despite having no drone program, no FAA waivers, no policy, no equipment and no funding authorization, drone surveillance appeared unexpectedly at the most recent Lorain City Council meeting. Council members discussed potential drone flight routes and operational patterns.
During this discussion, Councilman Joshua Thornsberry argued that the public should not hear details about drone routes. He insisted that potential routes should be treated as “operational data” and moved into executive session.
Thornsberry’s argument has no basis in law. You cannot declare something “operational” when no operation exists.
Executive session is permitted only for narrow statutory reasons, such as personnel, litigation and actual security operations. Hypothetical drone routes do not qualify. Attempting to hide drone discussions before a drone program even exists raises serious transparency concerns.
The Misuse of the Plain View Doctrine
Failing added that drone routes would only be shown to the public after flights have occurred. He also implied that drone surveillance is justified because of the plain view doctrine.
The plain view doctrine only allows police to observe what an ordinary person could naturally see from a lawful position. A normal person cannot fly.
The doctrine applies to what a human being can see standing on a sidewalk or driving down a road. It does not apply to hovering twenty feet above a backyard, zooming into windows, or silently floating over fences.
Fixed ALPR cameras see what a person could see from ground level. Drones do not. This is why drone surveillance triggers significantly stronger constitutional protections.
Regional Drone Landscape: Who Actually Has Drones?
The regional context makes Lorain’s interest in drones even more significant.
Amherst, Ohio does not have police drones.
They operate twelve Flock cameras, but have no drone program, no FAA filings and no drone acquisition records.
North Ridgeville, Oberlin, Sheffield Village, Grafton and the Lorain County Sheriff’s Office also do not have drones.
Only two departments in Lorain County currently operate drones:
Elyria Police Department: 2 drones
Avon Police Department: 1 drone
If Lorain adopts drones, the county goes from two drone-equipped departments to three, significantly expanding regional aerial surveillance capacity.
Why Drones Are Legally Different from Cameras
Police drones today are capable of hovering silently at low altitudes, approaching windows, filming fenced yards, observing private gatherings and streaming real time footage. They can use night vision, thermal imaging and zoom lenses that go far beyond natural human perception.
The Supreme Court’s older decisions allowing aerial surveillance involved loud helicopters or airplanes flying hundreds of feet above property. They did not consider modern drone technology.
Drone surveillance is not plain view. It is an artificial, invasive vantage point that human eyes cannot reach.
Ohio has no statewide law governing police drone surveillance. A proposed bill that would require warrants and transparency has stalled. Any drone program in Lorain would operate inside an unregulated constitutional vacuum.
Costs, Liability and Data Control
Lorain’s existing Flock camera system cost more than five hundred thousand dollars over five years. Drone systems in other cities have cost several hundred thousand dollars up front plus yearly subscription fees.
Misidentification, improper surveillance, drone crashes, FAA violations and privacy lawsuits all create liability that cameras do not. Drone footage becomes evidence, subject to storage, chain-of-custody requirements and legal discovery.
Flock controls the backend database for both cameras and drones. While Lorain Police Department may access the system, the underlying infrastructure belongs to Flock, and data can be shared with thousands of agencies unless the city opts out.
Why Other Cities Have Rejected Flock Drone and ALPR Expansions
Evanston, Illinois cancelled its Flock program due to privacy concerns. Oak Park, Illinois reversed an expansion. Ferndale, Michigan suspended a drone initiative over constitutional questions. Redmond, Washington withdrew because Flock systems conflicted with city privacy rules. Hays County, Texas ended its contract over data handling concerns.
These cities discovered that Flock’s advertised benefits did not outweigh the risks.
Ohio’s Surveillance Vacuum and Lorain’s Transparency Problem
Ohio has no binding state law governing ALPR or drone surveillance. Departments rely on internal policies that can be changed without public notice. In such an environment, transparency becomes critical.
Moving drone discussions into executive session before drones even exist is a red flag for any community.
Drone surveillance affects privacy, civil liberties, taxpayer spending and community trust. It cannot be legally or ethically developed behind closed doors.
Conclusion
Lorain already operates forty Flock cameras with significant data collection capabilities. Drone surveillance would take the city into entirely new territory. It would expand police vantage points far beyond what ordinary citizens can see, raising unresolved constitutional and ethical concerns.
The plain view doctrine does not justify drones. Ordinary people cannot hover over homes or film private spaces from above. Government should not be permitted to do so without strict legal safeguards.
Before Lorain adopts drones, the city must hold public hearings, conduct legal review, disclose costs, publish policies and comply with Ohio’s transparency laws. This decision cannot be made in executive session.
Surveillance must be debated in public, not hidden behind closed doors.
About The Author
