When Inside Investigator reporter Katherine Revello first FOIA’ed the Hartford Police Department (HPD) on Jan. 21, requesting their most recent contract with Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based provider of police surveillance technology, she was told that no such contract existed.
“The Hartford Police Department has identified no records that appear to be responsive to your request,” replied Sgt. Gary Benway of HPD’s FOI Unit, on Jan. 28. “I have been advised that the Hartford Police Department does not have a contract with Flock Safety. This request is now considered closed.”
Responding to a follow-up FOIA Revello submitted on Feb. 18, HPD officials recently provided Inside Investigator with a trove of documents that would imply otherwise, such as: a $590,000 invoice sent by Flock to Hartford Police Chief James Rovella, hundreds of alerts sent from Flock-integrated cameras and microphones to various HPD officers, meeting and webinar invites, and even discussions regarding three buildings that HPD intended to use as drone bases.
“Frank, I looked for structural plans for three buildings HPD wants to base drones on top of,” reads an email sent by Keith Rapoza, Hartford city engineer, to Frank Dellaripa, assistant director of the city’s engineering department, on Dec. 1, 2025.
On January 6, CT Insider reported an announcement that Bridgeport’s police department would begin testing the use of Flock Safety drones to respond to emergencies. Joe Rosenberg, an Account Executive for Flock, reportedly told CT Insider that Flock also had contracts with the cities of Hartford and Southington for these drones. After Benway closed Revello’s initial request, she responded to him with a link to the article highlighting Rosenberg’s statement and requested clarification.
“Do you know if this is simply inaccurate or whether there’s a different city department that would have entered into the contract?” Revello asked. She received no response. Revello’s follow-up FOIA requested all communications between HPD and Flock officials from Dec. 1, 2025, to Feb. 18, 2026.
After reviewing the FOIA documents, Inside Investigator requested that HPD clarify their working relationship with Flock. An unnamed press contact from HPD responded by saying the department had entered into a “no cost, MOU [Memorandum of Understanding] agreement” with Flock “for a test and evaluation period of their solar powered gunshot detection system,” but has no plans to enter into business with the company long-term.
“The purpose of this evaluation was a possible cost savings to the City of Hartford over its current gunshot detection system,” reads the email. “If the system met our expectations, we would keep it at a cost of approximately $590,000, which would include a pair of drones [as] first responder (DFR) drones. At the end of the evaluation period, the department decided to not keep the system or pursue any further products from Flock, to include drones. The department has no current, past or future contracts with Flock and has never paid Flock. The department has no plans to pursue Flock products at this time.”
HPD also provided Inside Investigator with a Nov. 20, 2025, press release, which stated that HPD had been testing “solar powered gunshot detection devices, in addition to the ShotSpotter gunshot detection system we currently use.”
“The test solar devices were placed in various areas of the city,” reads the statement. “After the Test and Evaluation Phase, it was decided to remove the solar devices. We will continue to monitor gunfire incidents using our current ShotSpotter technology.”
Furthermore, HPD told Inside Investigator that the $590,000 invoice Flock first sent to HPD in December 2025, which documents show had not been paid as of Feb. 15, 2026, was “in error (at the end of the test and evaluation) and later retracted, since we did not choose to use their products.”
Despite this statement, the emails provided via FOIA showed HPD officers continued to communicate with Flock officials — discussing the expansion of Flock-integrated microphone coverage, troubleshooting issues with Flock’s shot-detection system, and engaging in planning conversations for the proposed drone bases — from December 2025 to February 2026. The invoices sent by Flock came due on Jan. 25; HPD told Inside Investigator this came due at the end of its evaluation period, but the statement HPD provided Inside Investigator indicated its evaluation period ended in November. Either way, HPD continued to discuss proposals to expand Flock’s services with Flock officials for the following months. HPD claims this was the result of Flock’s “continued sending [of] proposals, which spurred discussions, but were ultimately declined.” HPD never clarified when the evaluation period actually ended, but said that despite the discussions, they still have not gone forward with adopting Flock services long-term.
“We continued discussion with Flock on alternative product options, outside of the original MOU and test and evaluation phase, until May of this year,” said HPD. “We decided to decline any products or services from them.”
Since the company’s founding in 2017, Flock has provided police departments across the country with cameras used for automated license plate recognition (ALPR) and video surveillance, and microphones used to detect gunshots, car crashes, and even street takeovers, which it refers to as “sideshows.” The company’s user base has exploded in recent years; Flock’s website claims its services are employed by over 5,000 law enforcement agencies and 6,000 municipalities. In 2024, Flock purchased Aerodrome, a producer of police drones, adding “drone first-responders” (DFRs) to its service catalog.
Given the nature of Flock’s business, its growing ubiquity has garnered no shortage of controversy or legal challenges. Flock’s contentious technology has led some police departments to attempt to obfuscate their use of it. In 2024, the Colchester Board of Selectmen chastised their own police force for entering into a memorandum of understanding with Flock without the board’s approval. In November 2025, a security deficiency was discovered that allowed members of the public to access the live feeds of 60 Flock cameras across the country, bringing additional scrutiny upon the company. Revello’s most recent FOIA revealed that Flock sent the same crisis-response emails to HPD as it did to Manchester PD. One such email, sent by Flock CEO and Founder Garrett Langley, claimed that Flock and “the law enforcement agencies we partner with, are under coordinated attack.”
“The attacks aren’t new. You’ve been dealing with this for forever, and we’ve been dealing with this since our founding, from the same activist groups who want to defund the police, weaken public safety, and normalize lawlessness,” continued Langley’s email. “Now, they’re producing YouTube videos with misleading headlines. They’re also trying to turn a public records process into a weapon against you and against us. Make no mistake, we’re fighting this fight for you, and, I hope, with you.”
HPD Sgt. Chris Mastroianni, whose name appears prominently throughout the FOIA’ed communications, responded to Langley’s communication with approval.
“Amen, well said,” replied Mastroianni.
The bulk of the documentation HPD provided to Inside Investigator consisted of automated alerts from Flock cameras and microphones emailed to various HPD officers during the requested period: officers were alerted to at least 251 stolen vehicles, six auto-thefts, six street takeovers, 199 car crashes, three gunshots, and three incidents in which multiple shots were fired. From Jan. 6 to Jan. 8, 2026, HPD Sgt. Chris Mastroianni and HPD investigator Krista O’Reilly emailed Rosenberg, asking how Flock’s shot-detection system works, after noticing competing reports between Flock and ShotSpotter’s shot-detection system.
On Jan. 22, Rosenberg sent an email to Mastroianni, continuing the conversation on troubleshooting Flock’s shot-detection system. It contained an agenda for a meeting between Mastroianni and Rosenberg and other Flock employees, with one objective being to “agree on plan [for] complete citywide deployment.” The notes under this agenda item implied that HPD has received citizen complaints regarding the location of Flock microphones, and an intent by Flock and HPD to potentially mount some on private property.
“I don’t know whether the city or Shotspotter obtained those permissions, but if there are any we can use (especially private property) it would be good to know,” reads the agenda. “Finally, ask whether we can keep any of the existing Flock poles intact. It sounds like the PD hasn’t heard any further complaints since we removed that set in the northeast corner of the city.”
Another interesting topic on the agenda was “contract updates.” While HPD still denies entering into a contract with Flock, the notes under the agenda item reveal an intent to split Flock’s ALPR and audio services into separate contracts from its drone services. Per the notes, HPD planned to enter into a “standard contract” for Flock’s drone services, while entering into an “extended PPI,” or public procurement initiative.
On Jan. 23, Greg Sheehan, a Flock customer service rep, sent an email to Mastroianni and O’Reilly, revealing that HPD has approximately 500 Flock-integrated microphones across the city. These microphones are connected to Raven, the name for Flock’s proprietary AI-powered gunshot detection system.
“Your 2 separate Raven audio networks are now merged into 1 single network,” said Sheehan. “It now contains all ~ 500 Raven devices currently deployed. We will ensure that any subsequent Raven audio device installations are registered here.”
On Dec. 19, James Markert, Flock’s Regional Operations Manager, emailed Mastroianni a link to a map with locations of every Flock microphone in the city, which Inside Investigator was able to access. The email also provided a comprehensive microphone inventory; of HPD’s 741 total mics, 284 have been installed on Flock poles, 217 on pre-existing poles, and 32 have been removed. At that time, Flock and HPD had 208 planned locations for additional mics. It also contained insight into Flock and HPD’s plans for future expansion.
From the email:
“As discussed, alternative solutions we are currently exploring include: Traffic Sign Attachments: This would entail adding an extension to DPW U-channel sign posts (e.g. no parking signs) and attaching the panel and device to this extension above the sign. I have vetted this solution internally and should be able to install a test location for you in the coming weeks.
Cable Provider Strand Attachments: This would entail attaching our sensors to the cable strands running between utility poles and powering the devices through ethernet. This will require an agreement with Xfinity (Comcast) and some hardware solutioning. While this is still in testing phases we have made recent progress on this front with another cable provider in the region.
Private Property: Obtaining permission to install devices on private property is another alternative. We are currently evaluating install options and messaging around this solution. The biggest challenge I see here is the sheer number of permissions that would be required especially if limitations on install methods lead to smaller capture areas and in turn require more devices.
Eversource: Reengaging with Eversource is also an option. I am of the opinion
that as things currently stand this would not be especially productive.”
On Feb. 6, Flock sent an email to HPD Sgt. John Cavanna with the subject line “Are Your Officers Good Articulators in Court?” The email contained an invitation to a webinar that would coach police officers on how to receive court approval to use Flock drones.
“A strong and responsible Drone as First Responder (DFR) program relies on defensible policies and officers who can clearly articulate the reasons for using a drone,” reads the email. “Register now for the Flock Safety and Blue to Gold webinar, which focuses on how agencies can: Develop policies that meet the expectations of attorneys and judges; Equip officers to clearly explain how, why, and when a drone was used; Balance officer safety, operational efficiency, and constitutional limits; Take a proactive approach to policy development.”
This was the second such invitation Cavanna received. On Jan. 29, Flock sent him an email saying “it’s essential to understand the constitutional pitfalls that could jeopardize your program,” when using drones.
“In this live webinar, we will discuss the Fourth Amendment considerations that can make or break the use of a drone in court,” reads the email.
HPD emails reveal proposals to use the rooftops of three buildings — HPD headquarters, at 253 High St., the Frog Hollow Fire Station, at 721 Park St., and HPD’s Southeast Substation, at 830 Maple St. — as drone bases. On Dec. 23, 2025, Eric Tetreault, an aviation project manager for Flock, emailed Mastroianni to tell him he would work with “our engineering design partner” to get started on plans for HPD headquarters and the Frog Hollow station.
“As for 830 Maple, I will work with them to determine what needs to be done to properly work up drawings for that location,” said Tetreault. “If anything is needed, I will get back to you on that. Merry Christmas and looking forward to working this forward!”
Mastroianni replied to Tetreault, sending him drawings of 721 Park and 253 High, and forwarding him the email thread between Rapoza and Dellaripa in which Rapoza shared his findings after reviewing city structural plans for each building. On Jan. 2, Tetreault responded to let Mastroianni know that “all 3 locations are at our design partner for evaluation and drawings,” and to request additional photos and information for HPD’s headquarters and Southeast Substation.
“We are needing some details our site assessment pictures didn’t have,” wrote Tetreault about the Southeast Substation. “Overall, getting pictures of the overall upper building from the main roof height would suffice, but also of the walls that make up that upper building, for the engineers use related to antenna attachment.”
All of Flock’s technology is integrated into a database, allowing departments to share information with various state, municipal, and federal law enforcement agencies across the country, if they so choose. While the full breadth of HPD’s data-sharing policies was unclear, several alerts to HPD had CPIC codes, standing for the Canadian Police Information Center. These alerts were likely to inform HPD that vehicles flagged as being of interest by CPIC had been spotted. On Dec. 3, Mastroianni received one email highlighting information requests made by several external departments.
“Great news, your network is growing!” reads the email. “There are multiple Flock Camera share requests pending your acceptance.”
The email showed requests filed by the police departments of Milford, Putnam, Berlin, and Newtown, as well as a request from the US Postal Inspection Service. Most requested permissions are either to run license and “hot list” (vehicles flagged by a department as being of interest) searches, or both. Putnam PD also appears to have requested direct access to HPD’s cameras.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
