OCEAN SPRINGS, MS — Last week, Police Chief Ryan Lemaire erroneously and publicly accused this reporter of spreading “100% not true” claims about the city’s controversial Flock Safety contract. He told taxpayers — and the Board of Alderman — a hidden expenditure was merely for security cameras. It wasn’t.
The Chief may have fooled the aldermen, but those who actually read the contract know the purchase was for one of the most advanced security operating systems on the market. The platform’s described capabilities include using artificial intelligence for tracking and analyzing vehicle movements — details clearly outlined in Flock’s own product descriptions.
This week, in a follow-up interview with WLOX, the Chief doubled down, repeating again the city’s expenditure was for cameras and downplaying the system’s invasive capabilities.
To be clear, this controversy is not about whether cameras can help police solve or even prevent crimes — it’s about transparency and honesty when dealing with the taxpaying residents of Ocean Springs.
The Chief’s remarks are part of a larger effort to dismiss valid concerns raised by residents and the press, all while sidestepping the real issue: how the city silently approved $55,200 for a surveillance platform without public debate or discussion.
What the Chief Said on TV
The following is a breakdown of the interview aired December 23rd on WLOX:
Chief’s Claim: “The new cameras we just bought from them is a new pan, tilt, zoom camera.”
The City of Ocean Springs did not purchase cameras from Flock Safety. Instead, the city approved a $55,200 contract granting access to Flock’s public safety operating system, a sophisticated software platform designed to track and analyze vehicle movements using advanced features like license plate recognition (LPR) and “Vehicle Fingerprint” technology. The cameras the Chief repeatedly mentions were free with the purchase of the operating system access. Together with the city’s existing Flock LPR cameras, the operating system is capable of quite a lot.
According to Flock’s website, their most basic service tier, the Community package, includes tools like:
- Vehicle Fingerprint Search Features: Allowing searches based on time, location, license plate, and unique vehicle characteristics like make, color, decals, and even damages.
- Real-Time Alerts: Integrating with law enforcement databases like NCIC to provide instant alerts for vehicles flagged on hot lists.
- Custom Hot Lists: Allows the city to place certain vehicles on a “hot list” that get flagged and tracked as it moves past cameras. The system can use saved data to predict where a vehicle is going.
- Community Network Access: Allowing access to shared Flock cameras within the region.
The Chief’s assertion that the city only purchased cameras conveniently ignores the fact that the expenditure was for a computer operating system that powers these advanced capabilities.
Chief’s Claim: “There is no AI technology, there is no facial recognition software. Even if it had it, we would not use it.”
The statement that “there is no AI technology” is contradicted by Flock Safety’s own materials. Flock advertises its platform as using artificial intelligence, advanced analytics, and state-of-the-art tools to enhance crime detection and prevention.
As for facial recognition, the article he is still trying to debunk never claimed the system includes this feature. The Chief’s mention of facial recognition appears to be a red herring, intended to exaggerate and discredit the publication’s original reporting.
Finally, his assurance that the city wouldn’t use these advanced features raises an important question: Why did the city deliberately choose an expensive system designed specifically for such capabilities, when cheaper alternatives could have met basic surveillance needs?
Adding to the controversy, anonymized data from vehicles driving in Ocean Springs will be sent to Flock for use in improving their system’s capabilities. This is a mandatory requirement in the contract.
Chief’s Claim: “Flock is known for their tag readers, which we have several of those as well.”
This admission contradicts the Chief’s earlier public statements, where he led the public to believe the city’s cameras were not capable of reading tags. The city’s existing tag reading cameras would be compatible with the advanced tools in the operating system. Flock Safety is, indeed, widely recognized for its license plate readers and Vehicle Fingerprint technology. The Chief’s acknowledgment of having “several” tag readers confirms the city has all it needs to access the advanced technology in the most basic tier level of the software — technology which he has repeatedly downplayed.
Pattern of Evasion
Monday’s WLOX interview continues a troubling pattern of evasion and misrepresentation by city officials. Instead of providing clarity about the purpose and scope of the Flock Safety contract, the Chief chose to obscure the facts with half-truths and misleading statements.
For instance, the Chief claimed that “even if it had it, we would not use it,” yet the city intentionally purchased an operating system known for its ability to track vehicles using cutting-edge AI technology. The city could have opted for basic security cameras and storage systems, which would have been far less expensive and lacked the invasive capabilities of the Flock platform.
Why It Matters
The Chief’s statements fail to address the public’s core concerns:
Transparency: The contract was approved without public discussion or notice, buried in a consent agenda.
Accountability: City officials have repeatedly provided conflicting information about the purpose and capabilities of the Flock Safety system.
Trust: The public has been asked to take officials at their word, even as their claims are contradicted by official documents and Flock’s own materials.
Transparency Takes a Backseat
The city’s decision to approve the Flock contract without public debate has been a central issue throughout this controversy. The contract was passed as part of the consent agenda, a tool typically reserved for routine or non-controversial matters. Residents only learned about the system when cameras began appearing around town, and even then, the details remained vague.
The city’s lack of transparency in the Flock situation, when added together with a growing list of questionable decisions — including dealings with Securix, the automated ticketing system which was canceled for a myriad of controversial reasons — have muddied the waters further.
A Debate Beyond Cameras
The debate about whether cameras can help solve or prevent crimes isn’t the issue here. What’s at stake is transparency and honesty about how local government is spending taxpayer money.
If the city’s intent was merely to enhance public safety with basic surveillance, cheaper and simpler alternatives were readily available. Industrial-grade pan, tilt, and zoom cameras cost a fraction of what the city is paying Flock and come without the recurring $24,000 annual fee for access to the operating system.
Instead, the city opted for one of the most advanced surveillance platforms on the market — and has done everything possible to downplay or even hide its capabilities, just like they did with the spending.
