Flock cameras dominate city council discussion in St. Paul despite not being on the agenda
- Harry Colbert, Jr.

- 4 hours ago
- 2 min read

On paper, the agenda looked pretty monotonous, but it was anything but during Wednesday’s St. Paul City Council meeting.
That’s because on Tuesday, Council President Rebecca Noecker posted on Facebook she would be authoring a resolution to end the city’s Flock camera contract. The post was enough to attract nearly two dozen people in support of canceling the city’s contract. But the resolution didn’t make the agenda as Noecker was absent from the meeting.
That didn’t stop those opposed to the Flock cameras and police operated drones from voicing their opinions. But without an agenda item pertaining to the cameras, individuals began presenting their arguments during time for the appointed items, “Amending the City's Capital Improvement Budget and Operating Budget to reflect the final sale details resulting from the issuance of the G.O. Capital Improvement Bonds, Series 2026B and the G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2026C” and “Authorizing the Police Department to accept the second amendment to the sub-grant agreement from the Saint Paul and Ramsey County Domestic Abuse Intervention Project and add grant activity budget.”
“We’ve seen that police use Flock cameras to track their girlfriends, wives and exes,” said Cedar Larson, a resident of St. Paul.
Flock cameras are stationed surveillance units that can read and track a car’s license plate. It also has the ability to collect and store data on an individual. St. Paul has two operational Flock cameras, both located at the intersection of Kellogg Boulevard and Smith Avenue.
In addition to the opposition of Flock cameras, those who spoke opposed the city’s use of Skydio drones.
“These drones and that company have blood on their hands from Palestine to the Philippines and we cannot allow St. Paul to be complicit in these human rights abuses,” said Larson, referring to the use of Skydio drones by Israeli military in Gaza.
With no item on the agenda to correspond with the overwhelming majority of those wanting to offer public comment, Councilmember Cheniqua Johnson, Ward 7, presented a motion to close comments not related to the topics. The motion was approved unanimously, although prior to approval, Councilmember Anika Bowie, Ward 1, asked for a suspension of the rules to allow for comment.
“As we’re here and we’re reading the room, people are here and they want to be heard, and I think we should provide a structure for that,” said Bowie.
Ultimately, the council’s attorney advised against a suspension.
Before adjourning, Johnson encouraged those wishing to speak to attend next week’s Aug. 26 Public Safety Committee meeting.



Comments