HUNTINGTON – A Huntington man has sued the city days after it approved a $2.1 million contract with Flock Safety for surveillance technology that includes license plate readers and video cameras.
Greg Jamison’s petition was filed July 16 in Cabell Circuit Court against the city and Mayor Patrick Farrell. It alleges the city neglected several procedural matters in awarding the contract.
City Council approved the contract early Tuesday morning on a 6-4 vote after a long and contentious meeting. More than 50 people spoke against the technology, and protesters circled City Hall.
If the city goes through with the contract, critics say Huntington soon will be blanketed with license plate recognition cameras with vehicle fingerprint technology, live video cameras, gunshot detection audio devices and even automatically dispatched drones.
The petition alleges City Council neglected several key procedural matters in the process of awarding the contract.
Aubrey Sparks, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia said more litigation could follow.
“The legal issues with this contract are numerous, but we are starting with how it was awarded in the first place,” Sparks said. “Simply put, the city acted hastily and did not follow its own laws when approving this contract, so it should be considered null and void from the start.”
Sparks said city code is clear that a private company can’t use property for commercial purposes.
“If the city wanted to grant Flock the right to use property belonging to the City of Huntington, there’s a proper process by which to do that,” she said. “That process includes public notice, a public hearing and other procedural safeguards to make sure that city property is used appropriately.”
Sparks says none of these steps were followed.
ACLU-WV Executive Director Eli Baumwell said contracts such as Huntington’s pose grave concerns about civil liberties.
“As other towns and cities are waking up to the egregious abuses of this technology, Huntington officials worked behind closed doors for months to thwart the will of their constituents and push this invasive surveillance on the city,” Baumwell said. “We will not stand by while the city runs roughshod over the will of the people and the privacy rights of every person in Huntington.”
In the petition, Jimison seeks a writ of mandamus ordering Farrell and the city to comply with “clear, non‑discretionary obligations” under city and state code and the Flock contracts. He also seeks a declaration finding that, without further action by the respondents, no lawful right has been conveyed to Flock permitting such corporation to use conduct private business on city-owned property. He also seeks attorney fees, court costs and other relief.
In the petition, Jimison alleges that over several months, members of the Huntington Police Department and the mayor’s office met with Flock representatives. Emails show meetings with council members were structured to avoid a quorum and thus public transparency.
Last week, the city responded to a FOIA request providing more than 1,000 pages of documents showing undisclosed nine‑month efforts to develop and implement plans to work with Flock, the petition states. On July 13, shortly after residents first learned of the proposed Flock contract, City Council met and voted on resolutions authorizing the mayor to enter into the contract.
City documents indicate plans to install about 44 license plate readers, 17 live video cameras, audio recorders and two drones, with at least some devices to be mounted on utility poles and other city‑owned property.
The petition says Flock’s installation and operation of surveillance equipment on public property is “the conduct of a private, for‑profit enterprise” because Flock intends to use data collected in Huntington to train proprietary systems and sell services to other customers.
According to the contract language quoted, Flock retains ownership and control of the data generated by its devices. The city retains “customer data” but grants Flock a perpetual, worldwide license to use and disclose customer data to provide services and improve Flock’s products.
The contract states that Flock controls the method, timing, format, and medium of access to data through its web interface, and is not obligated to provide data in any alternative format. The petition says the city must pay for services to maintain access to data collected on its own residents and property.
The petition says authorizing this use of public property for private profit is ultra vires and void because no ordinance authorizes such a use, and none of the required procedures for granting a franchise, lease, or other property interest were followed.
Flock has been at the center of numerous controversies across the United States in recent years. Major cities such as Los Angeles have allowed their Flock Safety contracts to expire, while numerous smaller municipalities have banned the technology. Hours before the Huntington lawsuit was filed, the sheriff’s department in neighboring Putnam County said it would not activate technology purchased or work with Flock.
Numerous lawsuits already have been filed related to Flock technology.
A class action lawsuit was filed against Flock in California federal court earlier this year alleging its automated license plate reader cameras track millions of Californians’ movements and illegally share data with out‑of‑state law enforcement, violating state privacy laws.
Last year, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU of Northern California filed a lawsuit against San Jose and its police department challenging warrantless searches of millions of ALPR records. This litigation centers on Flock’s system and its nationwide reach.
In 2024, the Institute for Justice filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Norfolk, Virginia, over its use of more than 170 Flock ALPRs, alleging mass surveillance and unconstitutional data access.
And last year, the California Attorney General’s office sued the City of El Cajon for systematically violating state law by sharing Flock ALPR data with out‑of‑state agencies.
The Huntington petition was filed by Sparks and Robb Livingood with ACLU-WV as well as by Tyler C. Haslam of Haslam Law Office in Huntington and by Hoyt Glazer and Abraham J. Saad of Glazer Saad Anderson in Huntington. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge David Amsbary.
Cabell Circuit Court case number 26-P-218
