Lubbock residents have launched a petition to prohibit the city’s use of Flock Safety cameras and automated license‑plate readers (ALPR). The petition, organized by the activist group Save Lubbock, requires at least 2,410 verified signatures before Oct. 30. If that threshold is met, the Lubbock City Council would be obligated to consider an ordinance that would ban future acquisition, installation, operation and data collection by the system.
Petition details and community response
Save Lubbock’s petition language calls for the termination of existing contracts, removal of the cameras, purging of stored data and a permanent ban on any similar technology. The group’s leader, former mayoral candidate Stephen Sanders, told supporters, “We’re gonna continue to hold them accountable to hold their feet to the fire,” and warned that the council must involve citizens in any future planning for public‑safety tools.
Information on how to sign the petition is posted on the Save Lubbock website. The group previously succeeded in forcing the council to consider a moratorium on data centers after gathering more than 3,000 signatures.
Law‑enforcement perspective
Lubbock Police Chief Seth Herman defended the technology in a recent council hearing, stating that there have been no documented cases of officers abusing the system for personal reasons. Herman said, “Without these cameras and technology similar to that, we’re going to need a heck of a lot more officers. I’ll just be honest with you.” He also cited a recent case in which a teenager with suicidal ideation was located because of a Flock camera alert.
According to Herman, the number of stolen vehicles recovered since the system’s inception has risen by 75‑80 percent statewide. He noted that Lubbock Police Department (LPD) searches using the system dropped from 49,008 last year to 37,119 in the first seven months of this year, while overall use of the cameras increased by more than 45 percent compared with the same period in 2025.
Sheriff Kelly Rowe echoed the chief’s support, describing the proposed ban as “a monumental mistake” given the system’s contributions to law‑enforcement investigations since its introduction.
Current deployment and budget
Lubbock and Lubbock County together operate 145 Flock cameras, with an additional 15 units under repair or awaiting installation, for a total of 160 cameras when fully operational. Roughly half of the searches are conducted for stolen‑vehicle investigations; less than a third target wanted persons, while theft, assault and robbery rank third, fourth and fifth among the most common reasons for accessing the system.
City Manager Jarrett Atkinson indicated that the 2026‑27 budget allocates more than $67,000 for the Flock program. In prior years the expense has been covered by the LPD asset‑forfeiture fund or the abandoned‑vehicle fund, though it is unclear whether state assistance will offset the cost this cycle.
Accountability measures
County attorney Jennifer Irlbeck reported that the Texas Anti‑Gang (TAG) task force spent $315,000 on the system in the 2025‑26 budget and conducted 14,667 searches as of Sept. 11. Irlbeck emphasized that the cameras have been instrumental in solving homicides, drive‑by shootings, robberies, human‑trafficking cases and locating missing persons.
Both Lubbock County and the city conduct regular audits of camera usage. An “audit‑assist” function automatically flags any officer who is the sole user searching for a particular license plate. Irlbeck wrote that no improper or nefarious activity has been identified through these weekly manual audits or the new audit‑assist tool.
Next steps
If the petition reaches the required signature count, the city’s citizen‑petition process will compel the council to schedule a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. The ordinance would not become law automatically; it must still pass the council’s standard procedural requirements.
Save Lubbock urges residents to review the petition details and consider signing if they believe the city should limit or eliminate the use of automated surveillance technology that they view as an intrusion on privacy and a misuse of tax dollars.
Original reporting: Lubbock Lights — read the source article.
