Communities are pushing back.
Local decisions changed under scrutiny
- Lucas County, Ohio Commissioners voted 2–1 to rescind the approval one week after it passed. But the Sheriff had already signed the 25-reader agreement, so the cameras were installed anyways. By March 2026, local reporting described a 28-camera County system in use; it did not separate the 25 contracted readers from earlier cameras. County payment records later matched the agreement’s full annual charge.
Lucas County commissioner minutes, July 22, 2025 ↗ Lucas County’s signed 25-reader agreement ↗ Toledo Free Press report on the County’s camera system ↗ Lucas County February 2026 payment report ↗ Lucas County June 2026 payment report ↗
- Dayton, Ohio After an internal review found broader-than-intended sharing and missing safeguards, Dayton suspended its fixed-site reader program on May 1. By May 27, every fixed-site camera was covered while an independent audit and final decision remained pending.
City of Dayton ALPR review update ↗ City of Dayton ALPR community FAQ ↗
- Cleveland, Ohio Council cut a proposed one-year, $250,000 renewal to six months and $125,000, added data-access penalties, and kept the cameras while the City prepared an RFP for a different vendor. The program was constrained, not cancelled.
Cleveland City Council meeting highlights, July 15, 2026 ↗ Cleveland Ordinance 683-2026 ↗
- Cambridge, Massachusetts The City terminated its contract after privacy, security, and trust concerns.
- Flagstaff, Arizona Council cancelled the contract and police deactivated the system immediately.
- Mountain View, California Council voted unanimously to terminate after resident feedback and an audit.