Springfield has 41 Flock cameras. On September 22, the council voted 5-3 to send the contract review to committee — without public comment. [1][3]

Mylie Hyder had never been to a public meeting. She walked to the podium, identified herself, started reading three sentences against the ALPRs. Mayor Jeff Schrag interrupted her: “I’m sorry ma’am.” [1] Her microphone was cut. An officer approached. Police handcuffed her and pulled her out of the chamber in under a minute.[1] The citation she received reads, under “offenses”: “Disturbance of City Council MTG — Middle Finger to Mayor.” [2] Court date: December 3.[2]

The arresting officer said on body-cam: “You’re under arrest. I can do this all night. I get paid by the hour.” [1]

Dozens of residents had packed the chamber to speak against Flock. None of them spoke. [3] Freelance photographer Noah Powell was detained and ticketed as the crowd filed out — charge “Disturbing a City Council MTG.” [1][2] Also December 3.

Councilman Brandon Jenson, who authored the review resolution, said on the floor: “This isn’t how government is supposed to run.” [1] A Change.org petition dated September 25 asks the council to drop the charges and bring the contract review back to the full council with public comment.[5]

The editorial question for any Mexican, Brazilian, or Argentine procurement office signing an enterprise CCTV contract in Q4 2026: if the political cost of your selected vendor now includes — operationally, on camera, with a signed citation — your next town-hall ending with arrests of citizens who read 3 sentences against your camera, what clause in your RFP requires the vendor to demonstrate, in writing, that its deployment survives a 30-60-day public-comment window without arrests, without tickets, without the meeting cameras being turned off?

( Every enterprise RFP I review at tv4agent, the question with the most impact is not resolution or FPS. It’s whether the architecture survives a hostile council with the cameras on. )

P.D. How many clauses in your current RFP require the CCTV/ALPR vendor to keep its contract under public review for 30-60 days — meeting cameras on — without arrests or citations? If the answer is “I don’t know” or “none”, today’s a good day to revisit the contract.

📰 Source: 404 Media Sep 23 2026 [1] + KOLR Sep 24 2026 [2] + StateOfSurveillance daily Sep 28 2026 [3] + StateOfSurveillance dedicated Sep 28 2026 [4] + Change.org Sep 25 2026 [5].

Sources

[1] https://www.404media.co/woman-arrested-after-city-council-denies-residents-right-to-speak-on-flock-cameras — Woman Arrested After City Council Denies Residents Right to Speak on Flock Cameras (404 Media, Sep 23 2026, Matthew Gault). [2] https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/video-person-arrested-flipping-off-214327224.html — Springfield woman arrested for flipping off mayor at council meeting (KOLR via Yahoo News, Sep 24 2026, Jesse Inman). [3] https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/daily-surveillance-briefing-september-28-2026/ — Daily Surveillance Briefing, September 28 2026 (StateOfSurveillance, Sep 28 2026). [4] https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/springfield-missouri-resident-arrested-flock-alprs-council-2026/ — Springfield Woman Arrested for Speaking About Flock Cameras (StateOfSurveillance, Sep 28 2026). [5] https://www.change.org/p/drop-the-charges-and-let-springfield-speak-on-flock-cameras — Drop the charges and let Springfield speak on Flock cameras (Change.org, Sep 25 2026).