Amid debate in Toledo City Council regarding the use of Flock cameras, police in Wood County have implemented a different system with more restrictive data sharing policies.
A proposal introduced by Toledo councilmember Adam Martinez last week would restrict Flock data sharing related to reproductive health care, gender affirming care and immigration status, According to WTOL 11. Martinez’s proposal also would require the Toledo Police department to develop a policy that would “prevent the use of emerging technologies to stalk, harass, racially profile, or retaliate against citizens.”
Toledo City Council could vote on the proposal as early as Nov. 4.
Much like Toledo, Bowling Green has used automated license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras for almost four years. However, Toledo expanded its partnership with Flock in late 2025 through a three-year, $800,000 contract that brought 107 cameras to the city.
Unlike Toledo, the Bowling Green Police Department uses Rekor, an ALPR system used to record license plates and vehicle images, but that does not provide continuous GPS tracking and does not have facial recognition like the Flock system.
This means that BGPD only tracks vehicle information, rather than personal information with its Rekor cameras and does not share its data nationwide.
Bowling Green Deputy Chief of Police Adam Skaff said the city has not seen a legislative push against ALPR cameras like Toledo has, as the department has developed its own internal policies regarding data sharing.
“We have not had any legislation taken up that would restrict the use because, in my opinion, we are doing a lot of the things that legislation would potentially solve. We have restricted use and we do not share our data, so it’s much more difficult for someone to feel like we are violating their sense of privacy,” Skaff said.
BGPD provides limited access of its Rekor data to the Wood County Prosecutor’s Office. For outside law enforcement partners like the Ohio State Highway Patrol, they must call BGPD, provide a reason for pulling up someone’s plate in order to obtain that information, and will be reviewed during a monthly audit.
“We use our cameras more locally. The concern with Flock is that people are sharing information across the country. In Bowling Green, we want to balance privacy but also security,” Skaff said. “Our cameras are not telling us who’s driving the car. It is only taking a picture of the car and the license plate.”
The cameras are positioned across the city at major roadways like East Wooster Street and Main Street. While BGPD does not provide a public map with the locations of its Rekor cameras, multiple websites have been used to track exact locations, such as this one here.
While approximately seven Flock cameras have been vandalized in Toledo during the ongoing push by citizens and City Council members to end the city’s contract with the company, the problem has not made its way to Bowling Green.
“Most of our cameras are at a location or spot that would be very difficult to get to. The city of Bowling Green owns its own utilities, so we control the poles and the power,” Skaff said. “The Flock cameras in other jurisdictions, a lot of times you will just see a pole on the side of the road, which is easier access for someone to try and vandalize.”
Skaff said Bowling Green worked to provide transparency with its use of ALPRs.
“We remained transparent when we first got the cameras, Skaff said. “Like everything in life, if you use things responsibly, there won’t be too many issues. We have access to a lot of sensitive information and it’s incumbent on us to use it responsibly.”
