St. Lucie County ends camera deal but leaves seven unpermitted units unaccounted for

Local surveillance infrastructure in Florida has become a focal point for privacy advocates as authorities struggle to track private security devices. St. Lucie County has decided not to investigate the ownership of seven unpermitted Flock cameras that disappeared following a countywide removal initiative.

County officials identified a total of 12 Flock cameras during the sweep. Five of these units were claimed by city law enforcement agencies. The remaining seven devices were never identified, and their current location is unknown. The county ended its contract with Flock, an arrangement valued at nearly half a million dollars, but stated it lacks the resources to trace the missing units.

Erick Gill, a spokesperson for St. Lucie County, explained that the primary objective was the physical removal of the hardware rather than the identification of the operators. To achieve this, the county provided owners a 30-day period to take down their equipment without requiring them to answer specific questions about their installation or data practices.

Financial records indicate the scale of the private surveillance network. The Port St. Lucie Police Department’s contract with Flock increased from $22,000 to $470,000 over a three-year span, peaking in 2025. That year preceded the county’s mandate to remove cameras situated on county roads. The sudden termination of this high-value agreement leaves questions about the long-term funding of the remaining private units.

Confusion persists regarding the permitting process. A Flock representative told the Washington Post that a police department had incorrectly advised officers that multiple cameras could be mounted under a single permit. The county required an individual permit for each device. Neither Flock nor the police departments in Port St. Lucie and Fort Pierce, which claimed the five identified cameras, confirmed which agency issued that conflicting guidance.

Hannah Galindo, a 31-year-old resident who led a petition for the removal of the Flock cameras, expressed concern over the lack of oversight. She noted that residents remain uncertain about who installed the devices and how the collected data was utilized. Galindo told the Post that she worried that data could be anywhere.

Galindo criticized the county’s decision to prioritize removal over accountability. She described the approach as an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug, suggesting that the strategy allowed owners to avoid scrutiny for their actions.