On September 8, Waltham police officers went to sixteen poles around the city and pulled black plastic trash bags over the Flock Safety cameras mounted on them. Mayor Jeannette McCarthy had ordered it. She did not tell the City Council, and the council learned of it the way residents did, from photographs online. Captain Tim Maher confirmed the mayor’s order and offered no reason for it.
The bags are the visible part. The legal story is how sixteen surveillance cameras came to be watching a city of 65,000 without its elected council ever voting on them, and why that turned out to be entirely lawful.
How the cameras got there
Flock’s automated license plate readers photograph every passing vehicle, log plate, time and location, and make the record searchable by the department and, by default, by other agencies on Flock’s network. Waltham’s were bought with money from the police department’s drug asset forfeiture account.
Forfeiture funds are the proceeds of property seized in drug cases and forfeited under chapter 94C, section 47. The statute directs the money to the district attorney and the police department, and the department’s share is to be used for law enforcement purposes. What the statute does not require is an appropriation. Ordinary police spending goes through the city budget, which the council votes on. Forfeiture spending does not. A chief can buy equipment from the forfeiture account on his own authority, and in Waltham that is how a citywide camera network was purchased.
The council says it never approved the cameras and was never asked to. Residents first noticed them through forum posts. A council committee took up the question of a privacy policy in November 2025, and a town hall on the cameras in April drew what the Waltham Times called passionate community voices. The council’s understanding as of this week is that the city is ending the contract.
What the bags do and do not do
A bag over a camera stops it from photographing plates. It does not end a contract, and it does not delete the data already collected. Whether Waltham has formally terminated its agreement with Flock, or is waiting for a renewal date to lapse, has not been disclosed. In Verona, Wisconsin, emails obtained by 404 Media in July showed the town bagging its cameras after Flock was slow to disable them following non-renewal, with a Flock employee suggesting the bags. Flock’s position there was that non-renewal and mid-term cancellation are different things. Waltham’s contract terms have not been published.
The data question is the one the council should be asking. Flock cut its default retention from 30 days to seven in August in response to pressure nationally. Records already shared with other agencies through the network are not recalled when a town leaves. A resident whose plate was logged in Waltham in 2025 may have that record sitting in another department’s search results.
Why this is different from the other towns
More than 25 Massachusetts communities have dropped or paused Flock in 18 months; we keep the running list. Most did it by a select board vote after a public hearing. Waltham’s is the first case we have found where a mayor acted alone, without notice, on cameras a council never approved, and the reason it could happen in both directions is the same: the cameras never passed through any body that votes. The purchase was executive. So was the bagging.
That is the argument for the bill pending in the House. H 3755 would require a warrant for outside access to plate-reader data, cap retention at 14 days, and bar monitoring of protected activity. It would not require a council vote to install cameras. A municipal surveillance ordinance would, and New Bedford’s council is drafting one after its own officer-misuse case. Waltham’s council, which found out about its cameras from the internet twice, has the same option.
What happened to Waltham’s Flock cameras?
On September 8, 2026, Mayor Jeannette McCarthy ordered police to cover all 16 cameras with black plastic bags. The City Council was not notified in advance.
How were the cameras approved?
They were not, by the council. The police department bought them with drug asset forfeiture funds, which under G.L. c. 94C, § 47 can be spent by the department without a city appropriation.
Is the contract canceled?
Councilors say they understand the city is ending it. No termination has been announced, and the contract’s renewal terms have not been published.
What happens to the data already collected?
Flock’s default retention is now seven days. Records already shared with other agencies through Flock’s network are not recalled when a town leaves.
Can a city require a council vote before installing cameras?
Yes, by ordinance. Several communities have adopted or are drafting surveillance-technology ordinances requiring council approval and public policies before deployment.
Facts as reported by Hoodline, September 2026, Rolling Out, September 12, 2026, and the Waltham Times; Verona, Wisconsin details from 404 Media, July 22, 2026. Forfeiture statute read at malegislature.gov. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.