News

Ohio Grand Jury Refuses to Indict Man Caught on Video Destroying Flock Surveillance Camera

August 31, 2026

A grand jury in Ohio has refused to bring felony charges against a man accused of destroying a Flock automatic license plate reader, delivering another blow to the embattled surveillance company as public opposition to its cameras continues to grow.

Cody Morelock, a resident of Clermont County, was arrested in June after police accused him of dismantling and destroying a Flock ALPR in Union Township, a suburb of Cincinnati.

According to investigators, Morelock allegedly removed bolts from the camera pole, toppled the structure, and destroyed both the surveillance device and its solar panel.

Police said they identified him using footage from multiple nearby cameras, along with information linked to a credit card and customer rewards account.

But despite that evidence, the grand jury declined to indict him.

As a result, all charges were dropped.

Grand Jury Refuses Felony Charges

The outcome is unusual because grand juries overwhelmingly approve charges presented by prosecutors.

The old legal joke that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich” exists for a reason.

Yet in Morelock’s case, the grand jury said no.

That makes the result particularly striking given the extent of the evidence police said they had assembled.

Flock Faces Growing Public Backlash

The decision comes as Flock Safety continues facing intense scrutiny over its growing network of license plate readers.

The company’s cameras have become deeply controversial across the political spectrum.

Critics are warning that the technology enables mass surveillance of ordinary, law-abiding Americans.

Flock systems automatically capture vehicle information.

They can be used by law enforcement to track movements across jurisdictions.

Those capabilities have sparked concerns about privacy, misuse, and the creation of centralized databases containing detailed information about where Americans travel.

The backlash has already led some communities to reconsider or cancel contracts.

Vandalism Cases Draw Public Support

Flock cameras have also increasingly become targets of vandalism.

Each new case tends to trigger a wave of support online for the people accused of damaging the equipment, reflecting the depth of public anger toward the surveillance network.

The Morelock case now suggests that hostility toward Flock may not be confined to social media.

A grand jury was presented with a case involving an accused man, damaged equipment, and surveillance evidence allegedly tying him to the scene.

It still declined to indict.

A Bad Sign for Flock

The decision does not establish that jurors rejected Flock itself, and grand juries do not typically explain their reasoning.

But the result lands at a particularly difficult moment for the company.

Flock is already battling criticism over privacy, law enforcement misuse, and the expansion of its surveillance infrastructure.

Now, prosecutors in Ohio have failed to secure felony charges against a man accused of physically destroying one of its cameras.

For a company trying to convince Americans that its technology belongs on their streets, that is hardly reassuring.

And for Flock critics, the message is hard to miss: resistance to the surveillance network is no longer just rhetorical.