Bridgeport’s Flock Safety Drone Program Collapses Five Days After Launch Amid National Backlash

Just five days ago, we reported on Bridgeport, Connecticut officially launching its Drone as First Responder program with Flock Safety. Mayor Joe Ganim was demonstrating the drones on rooftops. Police Chief Roderick Porter was calling it “re-imagining policing.” Council President Jeanette Herron was praising the technology as a “major step forward.“

That program is now effectively dead.

On Tuesday, two Bridgeport City Council committees voted nearly unanimously to reject the Flock Safety contract in a meeting that drew around 40 protesters carrying signs reading “Flick Flock” and “Absolutely No Flocking Way.” Only one council member present, Maria Valle, voted in favor of the deal. The stunning reversal puts $500,000 in state funding at risk and adds Connecticut’s largest city to a growing list of municipalities walking away from Flock Safety, as first reported by the Connecticut Post.

The Real Issue: Process, Not Technology

What’s remarkable about Bridgeport’s rejection is that council members repeatedly insisted they weren’t opposed to drone technology itself. The problem was how the administration handled the rollout.

“At the end of the day it was the way it was presented,” said Councilwoman Dasha Spell after the vote.

Police Chief Porter and other officials within Mayor Ganim’s administration had been working behind the scenes for roughly two years to bring Flock drones to the city. State Senator Herron Gaston secured $500,000 in state funding. But somewhere along the way, the 50-page Flock contract never went before the city council for proper vetting.

“We put the cart before the horse,” said Councilman Richard Ortiz, who co-chairs the contracts committee.

Then, just last week, Ganim and Porter held a splashy press conference at the Margaret E. Morton Government Center downtown to formally announce the program with a rooftop drone demonstration. Officials touted 86-second response times and the ability to give first responders a bird’s-eye view before they arrive on scene.

The council learned about all of this the same way the public did: from the news.

“My concern is you get told at a press conference this is going to happen,” said Council President Jeanette Herron, the same official who praised the program just days ago.

Flock Safety’s National Reputation Crisis

Bridgeport’s rejection doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The council meeting came amid an unprecedented wave of municipalities across the country canceling or reconsidering Flock Safety contracts.

In December, Flagstaff, Arizona unanimously terminated its Flock contract and deactivated all 32 cameras after months of privacy concerns. Staunton, Virginia ended its partnership after the police chief publicly rejected an unsolicited email from Flock CEO Garrett Langley that characterized privacy critics as part of a “coordinated attack” by activists who “want to defund the police, weaken public safety, and normalize lawlessness.”

Other cities that have canceled or reconsidered Flock contracts include Austin, Denver, Oak Park, Sedona, Evanston, and Eugene. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, the city terminated its contract after Flock technicians installed cameras without authorization following a work order that should have been canceled.

At the Bridgeport meeting, council members specifically cited news of other municipalities canceling Flock contracts. They raised concerns about Bridgeport already having too many cameras, becoming a “surveillance state,” and questions about how Flock would safeguard and delete collected data.

“I have received a lot of negative feedback,” said Councilwoman Eneida Martinez.

The Money Problem

Councilman Ernie Newton warned that rejecting the contract could have consequences beyond Bridgeport. The $500,000 in state funding was secured through State Senator Herron Gaston’s efforts, and turning it down might damage the city’s standing with lawmakers in Hartford.

“The state’s going to say, ‘You all didn’t want our money.’ So we get a black eye up in Hartford,” Newton cautioned.

Police Chief Porter seemed to acknowledge the financial reality. “I guess we’ll have to give the money back,” he lamented after the meeting.

But for other council members, the process failures outweighed the funding concerns. Councilwoman Michelle Lyons, a public safety committee co-chair, said her group should have been briefed on the pros and cons of drone usage much earlier. “Now we’re sitting here with contracts,” she said.

Councilman Galen Murray asked why the city proceeded with obtaining drones before drafting policies on how they would be employed. “Those are questions we could have asked six months ago,” complained Council President Herron.

Not the End of the Story

Despite the decisive vote, multiple council members indicated the door isn’t completely closed.

Herron, Lyons, Ortiz, and Spell all suggested Tuesday’s vote may not be the final word. Flock Safety’s director of municipal engagement, Hector Soliman-Valdez, said he would have no problem holding additional meetings with the council and conducting community outreach.

“We have a full team dedicated to that. We’re happy to do that,” Soliman-Valdez said. “I think this is part of the public process. What I got out of the meeting is there’s opportunities for education.”

Herron also questioned whether the Ganim administration had considered any other drone providers. When she asked Police Chief Porter directly, his answer was blunt: “We focused on Flock. We felt Flock was the best one.”

“I’m willing to bring Soliman-Valdez back to do presentations,” Herron said afterward. “But I’d also like to see other drone companies and see what they have to offer.”

The Lone Supporter

Maria Valle was the only council member present who voted for the Flock contract. Her reasoning was personal and practical: she cited instances where senior citizens have wandered off in the city and died, cases where drones could have been used to locate them and save lives.

Outside the meeting, protester Todd Sample, who had brandished the “No Flocking Way” sign, offered a different perspective.

“We don’t need more surveillance. This is a highly risky technology. The risks way outweigh the rewards. We need to pause, study this technology and control it as a community.”

DroneXL’s Take

This story isn’t really about drones. Bridgeport’s council members made that clear. The technology itself has proven effective in cities across the country, with 86-second response times that genuinely save lives. Even the protesters weren’t universally opposed to aerial emergency response.

This is a story about what happens when local governments skip the democratic process on surveillance technology. It’s also a story about Flock Safety’s deteriorating reputation at the exact moment they’re trying to expand from license plate readers into the Drone as First Responder market.

We’ve covered Bridgeport’s drone ambitions since May, when the program was first announced. We reported on the official launch just last week, noting that the “real test will be how often the drones are used, how transparently the data is handled, and whether faster eyes in the sky actually translate into safer outcomes on the ground.”

Turns out, the first test was whether the program would survive contact with democratic oversight. It didn’t.

The prediction here is straightforward: Bridgeport will eventually get a DFR program. The technology is too useful and the funding is too attractive. But it won’t be a Flock program launched through press conferences. It will come after proper council vetting, community input, and possibly a competitive review of vendors like BRINC, Skydio, and others who haven’t spent the past few months becoming national symbols of surveillance overreach.

For other cities watching Flock Safety’s expansion, the lesson is clear: the technology matters, but the process matters more. Skip the democratic steps, and you might find yourself giving half a million dollars back to the state.

Editorial Note: This article was researched and drafted with the assistance of AI to ensure technical accuracy and archive retrieval. All insights, industry analysis, and perspectives were provided exclusively by Haye Kesteloo and our other DroneXL authors, editors, and Youtube partners to ensure the “Human-First” perspective our readers expect.