Flock Ignores Contract, Bypasses Approval for Invoices

When cameras break, Flock’s contract says a customer has to request a hardware replacement and approve the fee before it happens. Records from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department show Flock skipping both steps. The company sends a technician, replaces the part(s), and bills after the fact. It only asks for permission when it needs the county to sign off on moving a camera, even without permits.

Here’s the relevant language, as currently published:

Replacements. In the event that Flock Hardware is lost, stolen, or damaged, Customer may request a replacement of Flock Hardware at a fee as set forth in the Reinstall Fee Schedule. In the event Customer chooses not to replace lost, damaged, or stolen Flock Hardware, Customer understands and agrees that Flock is not liable for any resulting impact to the Flock Services, nor shall Customer receive a refund for the lost, damaged, or stolen Flock Hardware.

The companion clause on “Deployment Plan” changes goes further:

After installation of Flock Hardware, any subsequent requested changes to the Deployment Plan, including relocating, re-positioning, adjusting of the mounting, removing foliage, replacement, and/or changes to heights of poles will incur a fee as set forth in the Reinstall Fee Schedule. Customer will receive prior notice and confirm approval of any such fees.

A MuckRock production linked from Joey Scott’s “FOIA Friday” piece on “The case of the missing and destroyed Flock Cameras” shows Moreno Valley contracts its policing to River County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD), so a request for Moreno Valley PD records returned RCSD’s correspondence. Scott’s piece covers the theft and vandalism costs in that file — I encourage you to read it. This article will focus on the approval bypass that Flock and RCSD (and likely many other agencies) appear to be employing.

RCSD’s Flock contract, a five-year Master Services Agreement from August 2023, carried substantively the same two “approval required” provisions as above, under different section numbers.

In the emails, however, Flock unilaterally decides there’s a problem, dispatches a technician, replaces the unit, and only then tells the county an invoice is coming:

Cam #05 SB Harvill @ Cajalco, 5/1/23 (p.144):

We will need to replace the pole to ensure the location is functioning properly as soon as possible. Due to the damage being physical in nature, we will be sending an invoice for the damage in conjunction with our reinstall fee schedule. This invoice ($500) will be emailed to [redacted]@riversidesheriff.org shortly.

Cam #48 WB Ave of the States @ Washington, 5/24/23 (p.146):

The technician noticed that the location experienced third-party damage after an apparent vehicle accident. We went ahead and replaced the pole to ensure the location would be functioning properly as soon as possible. Due to the damage being physical in nature, we will be sending an invoice for the damage…

Cam #14 WB Allesandro @ Gillman Springs, 8/3/23 (p.203):

The technician noticed that the location experienced third-party damage as all equipment has been destroyed in an apparent vehicle accident. We went ahead and replaced all equipment to ensure the location would be functioning properly as soon as possible. Due to the damage being physical in nature, we will be sending an invoice for the damage in conjunction with our reinstall fee schedule. This invoice ($1,300) will be emailed to [redacted]@riversidesheriff.org shortly.

Cam #34 NB Lyon @ Esplanade, 8/14/23 (p.207/340):

The technician noticed that the location experienced third-party damage as the solar panel is stolen and the wire to the camera was cut. We went ahead and replaced the panel to ensure the location would be functioning properly as soon as possible. Due to the damage being physical in nature, we will be sending an invoice for the damage in conjunction with our reinstall fee schedule. This invoice ($350) will be emailed to you shortly.

None of these are requests. Three of the four predate the August 2023 MSA, meaning whatever earlier agreement was in force governed them — the record doesn’t establish what that agreement said, but it’s unlikely to be meaningfully different.

None of the four emails even cite a section that applies: each points to “Section 7.1” or “Section 8.1,” neither of which covers replacement fees in the August 2023 MSA (7.1 is the contract’s term length; 8.1 is manufacturer defects, a different subject). The clause has been under at least three different numbering schemes since 2023 — the 2023 MSA, a December 2025 rewrite, and the current terms quoted above. Flock support is quoting something else.

Anyway, Flock does know how to ask first … when it wants to move the pole somewhere new, at the customer’s expense:

Cam #14, second incident, 8/16/23 (p.203):

Would you like to move forward with a relocation at this time to avoid damaged equipment reinstall fees ($1,300)? … Do you agree to pay for the relocation fee of $350 to an existing pole or $750 to Flock pole?

RCSD’s fiscal staff say they can’t reconcile what they’re billed for:

RCSD has over 250 cameras, multiple networks and planning to add another 250 this upcoming FY. With these many cameras, it is very difficult to keep track of repairs and their subsequent billing. I’ve mentioned this to Tonya Crump before, but I’d like to have notes on each invoice specifically identifying the network and specific camera name, so we know which station needs to approve the invoices and have a way to track repair costs by station over time.

… and things even get a little spicy over it:

Your invoice has a “Notes” section already. Would it be too much to ask that this section include the network name and camera name? (CA-Riverside Sheriff – Lake Elsinore - #21 Main @ Cross St). If you can help with this and resubmit these invoices, I’d be happy to get them all process[ed] and paid immediately.

Flock’s billing side seems equally clueless about what they’re billing for:

FYI, the first invoice note mentions Los Angeles/ Long Beach but is invoiced to the RSO.

and:

The relocation invoices. I do not have the camera locations for. I cc’d Tonia Crump… Maybe she can assist with the camera location for all that I did not note.

Whether local procurement rules require the same kind of pre-authorization before staff can pay an invoice received outside an existing contractual arrangement is a question for a city or county attorney, not me. Public contracting rules vary too much by state and agency.

But if a fee is conditioned on an approval step that didn’t happen, and staff pay the invoice without checking for that approval, they’re relying on Flock’s invoice as their only authorization. That seems like a dicey proposition for everyone involved.

If you’re using open records requests to obtain Flock contracts from your city or county, request the procurement/purchasing policy, the full invoice history, and whatever internal authorization exists for each payment. The chaos and patterns shown in these emails suggest there may be plenty of unauthorized — or improperly authorized — Flock payments out there.