Several communities across the United States are testing Flock Safety’s Drones-as-First-Responder (DFR) program, which uses remotely controlled aircraft housed in rooftop docking stations. The drones can be dispatched automatically following certain emergency alerts, including 911 calls, license plate reader notifications, and gunshot detection reports. Once airborne, they transmit real-time video to emergency dispatch centers and responding police officers, according to Military.com.

Flock expanded into drone operations after acquiring Aerodome, a company specializing in unmanned aircraft equipped with high-definition cameras, thermal imaging, and other technology. Other businesses are also developing comparable systems. One startup, for example, has promoted a Starlink-enabled emergency response drone designed to maintain connectivity beyond the operating range of its ground station.

Among the jurisdictions that have explored, tested, or entered agreements for Flock’s DFR technology are Fort Worth, Texas; Castle Rock, Colorado; Dunwoody and Fulton County, Georgia; and Middletown, Connecticut. Fort Worth reported that its two-month trial resulted in 162 drone deployments connected to emergency calls, with an average arrival time of 112 seconds. The aircraft reached the scene before other responders in 76 incidents and helped authorities resolve 11 calls without dispatching officers. City officials emphasized that the drones are sent out in response to specific calls rather than conducting routine aerial patrols. They also said the cameras remain directed toward the horizon while the aircraft travel to an incident.

Flock has faced mounting criticism over concerns involving the potential misuse of its surveillance technology and questions about the security of its systems. The company has maintained that it has never experienced a data breach. Nevertheless, Middletown Police Chief Erik Costa defended the drone program in comments to CT Insider, saying, “The drone’s purpose is not surveillance; it’s first response.” He further stated that recordings from Middletown “would not be shared…outside the building unless there is a search warrant” and that footage not needed for an investigation “would be erased within 30 days.”

Several other municipalities have opted against adopting the technology, despite receiving proposals from Flock. Berkeley, California, rejected a $2 million package that would have added drones, additional cameras, and software to its existing license plate surveillance network. Bridgeport, Connecticut, also declined a proposed $500,000 lease covering two emergency response drones. In Middletown, the mayor ultimately declined to finalize the agreement, even after the city had authorized an earlier trial. Privacy remains a major factor behind the opposition, particularly concerns that information collected locally could become accessible to federal agencies without a warrant. These objections have persisted despite Flock’s statements that it does not collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Although emergency personnel see potential benefits in using drones to reach incidents more quickly, opposition to Flock’s expansion appears to center largely on broader concerns about the company’s practices and the agencies using its technology, rather than the aircraft themselves. Questions about data retention, access, oversight, and the possibility of information being shared with outside authorities remain central to the debate. Without greater public confidence and clear safeguards addressing these issues, surveillance technology is likely to encounter resistance whether cameras are installed along roadways or carried by drones flying overhead.