Police Are Spending Opioid Settlement Funds on Flock Cameras, Sparking Accountability Debate

When state attorneys general secured historic opioid settlements promising billions for addiction treatment and prevention, communities devastated by overdose deaths envisioned expanded access to medication-assisted treatment, recovery housing, and harm reduction services. What many received instead were automated license plate readers.

A Mother Jones investigation published August 27 reveals a troubling pattern: police departments across the United States are tapping into opioid settlement funds to purchase Flock Safety camera systems—automated surveillance technology originally marketed for tracking stolen vehicles, now increasingly deployed for general law enforcement monitoring.

The diversion of settlement dollars toward surveillance infrastructure represents a significant departure from the stated intent of the agreements, which were designed to remediate the public health damage caused by pharmaceutical companies' deceptive marketing of prescription opioids.

How Settlement Dollars Became Surveillance Budgets

The opioid settlements—totaling more than $50 billion nationally—established broad categories for allowable spending while granting states and municipalities considerable discretion in allocation. This flexibility, intended to accommodate local needs, has created openings for expenditures that bear little connection to addiction treatment or overdose prevention.

Flock Safety cameras, which cost approximately $2,500 to $3,000 per unit plus annual subscription fees, automatically capture and store license plate data from passing vehicles. The systems can track vehicle movements across jurisdictions, creating comprehensive travel histories accessible to participating law enforcement agencies.

Police departments have justified these purchases by citing connections to drug trafficking interdiction. The argument—that tracking vehicles helps identify dealers transporting opioids—technically fits within settlement guidelines that permit spending on "drug interdiction" activities. However, public health advocates argue this interpretation stretches the definition beyond recognition.

"There's a world of difference between funding treatment for someone with opioid use disorder and buying cameras to track cars," said one addiction policy researcher who requested anonymity due to ongoing work with state agencies. "Both might involve opioids, but one addresses the crisis. The other addresses... something else entirely."

The Accountability Gap

The Mother Jones investigation highlights a persistent challenge in opioid settlement oversight: the gap between promised remediation and actual expenditure. While some states have established public dashboards tracking settlement spending, many allocations occur with minimal transparency or public input.

The Flock camera purchases illustrate how quickly settlement funds can be redirected toward existing law enforcement priorities rather than the addiction-specific interventions the money was intended to support. In some jurisdictions, police departments accessed settlement dollars through existing interagency agreements or by framing surveillance technology as "opioid-related" spending based on tangential connections to drug enforcement.

The surveillance purchases also raise equity concerns. Communities hardest hit by the opioid crisis—often rural and economically disadvantaged areas with limited treatment infrastructure—have the most to lose when settlement dollars are diverted. A $50,000 camera installation represents dozens of additional treatment slots, hundreds of naloxone kits, or sustained recovery support services that never materialize.

What This Means for Settlement Integrity

The Flock camera revelation arrives amid growing scrutiny of opioid settlement spending nationwide. Previous investigations have documented funds directed toward general government operations, law enforcement equipment, and even corrections facility construction—expenditures with questionable connections to the addiction crisis the settlements were designed to address.

For communities tracking settlement accountability, the surveillance purchases represent a canary in the coal mine. If automated license plate readers qualify as opioid remediation, virtually any law enforcement expenditure could be justified under settlement guidelines, rendering the agreements' public health intent meaningless.

Several states have begun tightening oversight in response to similar reports, implementing stricter documentation requirements and public reporting standards. However, the Flock purchases suggest that enforcement mechanisms remain inconsistent, and creative accounting continues to redirect resources away from treatment and prevention.

The coming years will test whether settlement oversight can be strengthened sufficiently to ensure the remaining billions flow toward evidence-based addiction interventions—or whether the historic pharmaceutical payouts will ultimately fund the expansion of surveillance infrastructure instead.