April 13, 2026 — Dunwoody, GA City Council Meeting
by H.C. van Pelt8 min read
Dunwoody, GA held a city council meeting in March, 2026 where two Flock contracts were proposed.
Strong voices spoke out against Flock; Flock even sent its Chief Legal Officer. Since then, evidence
of Flock senior staff using Dunwoody cameras (incl. those at the local pool and gymnastics center)
has surfaced. The sequel drops this Monday.
Meeting Information
The meeting will be held on Monday, April 13, 2026, at 6 PM Eastern.
Near the start of the meeting there will be 30 minutes of public comment (3 minutes per speaker).
Additional public comment takes place at the end of the meeting, after the action items.
The contracts were up for discussion at the previous council meeting in March (video
link). During the March meeting, the items were tabled to allow the city attorney
and Flock time to draft a master service agreement. A severely flawed security assessment was also
presented to council at the March meeting.
Dunwoody resident Jason Hunyar spoke out against the proposed contracts; to support his point, he
brought evidence about Dunwoody’s use of the system from audit logs.
Between Then and Now
A few things have happened between then and now: the city attorney and Flock hammered out a master
service agreement; I posted about the flawed security assessment, and about how Bob Carter and other
Flock employees have been using their accounts in the Dunwoody system to
track lawncare equipment deliveries.
The city’s event logs also showed that Bob Carter and other Flock employees were using Dunwoody’s
Flock account to look at cameras in a pool, daycare center, and gymnastics center.
When additional logs were requested, the city asked for prepayment of $5,417,978.45.
He ends his video on the question we should all be asking:
“Will someone please explain to me how the fuck this makes anyone safer?”
In an apparent response Bob Carter does not address the pertinent question, but instead delivers a
missive about “a vision set forth many years ago by (now retired) Chief Grogan”:
Trust and credibility are earned. Not given.
These words were on my mind a lot this week as I thought about my long journey with the Police
Department in Dunwoody.
I remember meeting Dunwoody Chief Billy Grogan more than 15 years ago to talk about his goal to
build a technology program and provide situation awareness to his officers. That was the start of
this journey and since that day, I’ve worked with members of DPD in various capacities,
representing four different companies, chipping away at that goal for more than a decade.
These efforts finally came to fruition when our paths intersected with Flock. Today, Dunwoody PD
has built an amazing real time operation, powered by Flock, that is achieving the vision set forth
many years ago by (now retired) Chief Grogan.
I am proud to have played a role in their achievement and I am honored to have become a trusted
partner in the process and I am excited for what the future holds.
Trust and credibility is earned continuously and something that I do not take for granted. —Bob
Carter, Flock Safety, Linkedin post
This was posted at 11:28 PM on a Friday. The next morning, at 9:39 AM, the Georgia Attorney General
amplifies Bob Carter’s message about Dunwoody via its Linkedin page:
The Agenda Items
There appear to be numerous smaller and larger drafting errors and issues, and several substantive
problems with the terms, but we won’t get into those too much here. Some highlights (or lowlights)
include:
The FlockOS 911 order form incorporates Flock’s online terms and conditions, which contain
language saying those terms supersede any prior agreements. That could force the city right back
into Flock’s standard terms, and its arbitration requirements.
The Master Services Agreement sets restrictions on data usage, but Invictus (the company that
owns Prepared911) gets a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sublicensable license to use that
same data for its product development. That’s your 911 calls.
It is maintained online and allows for retroactive modifications to terms.
The liability cap is the greater of $1,000 or 24 months of fees paid ($0 — no fees are paid to
Invictus). Invictus also explicitly disclaims liability if its service fails to reduce response
times or prevent incidents.
The MSA (§ 4.1) says “Flock retains the exclusive right to determine and control the method,
timing, format, and medium of access or delivery of Customer Data … and is not obligated to
provide Customer Data in any alternative form, format or transmission method outside of the Web
Interface”. See also,
“You Will Own Nothing: How Flock Safety Keeps Cities From Their Own Surveillance Data”
The DFR order form incorporates “the previously executed agreement.” It is unclear what agreement
this is, or will be at the time of execution. It could refer to the trial agreement that it’s
extending, not the MSA, placing the $200k DFR agreement outside the MSA’s scope.
The PCID letter commits $180k/year for all Flock services. The DFR contract alone is $200k,
payable up front. The summary memo claims “no fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund” and “fully
funded by PCID.” This deserves scrutiny.
If there is a conflict, the city could argue that it negotiated the MSA with Flock and that the MSA
controls. And a court could agree with the city, but that’s not a foregone conclusion. The situation
is highly ambiguous and would require costly litigation to resolve.
But no matter what the Dunwoody-Flock MSA says, the city is separately agreeing to Invictus’ terms.
No Invictus product is mentioned on the order forms, and the city council hasn’t been asked to
approve a contract with Invictus/Prepared911. That likely makes the Dunwoody-Invictus contract
invalid, which would mean no terms govern what Invictus can or can’t do — there are no contractual
restrictions on 911 call data, and statutory restrictions are likely thin for public data
voluntarily handed to a third party.
A few questions that don’t appear answered: “What happens to the pre-paid $200k if the FAA’s rules
change?”, “What happens if Flock violates airspace restrictions or other FAA regulations?”, “What
are the operational parameters for drones? Flying over private residences? At night?”, “Who will
have access to 911 call recordings and transcripts?”
The Meeting
Dunwoody PD has starred in Flock commercials, and, as Bob Carter points out in
his post, has an especially close relationship with Flock. Dunwoody’s log files show Flock employees
deep inside Dunwoody accounts, apparently using it for non-police purposes, including R&D and
viewing live feeds from cameras at a daycare center, pool, and gymnastics center.
But while the relationship with the police department (and the AG) appears tight, the council
expressed some level of skepticism at the March meeting.
Even if you’re far outside Dunwoody, I recommend tuning into the livestream. I don’t know who will
speak, or what they will bring to the table, but if city council is paying as much attention as
Flock, it could get interesting.
And don’t forget to take a shot any time you hear “Force Multiplier.”
