Ohio Lawmakers Proposed Surveillance Camera Moratorium
A new bill introduced in the state legislature seeks to pause the use of Flock Safety cameras for one year.
Updated on Sept. 29, 2026 in Legislative Policy
Live Poll
Should the government restrict the use of surveillance cameras to protect individual privacy?
State Representative Gary Click has introduced House Bill 1011, known as the 1984 No More Act, to enact a 12-month moratorium on the use of Flock Safety surveillance cameras. The legislation aims to address growing public privacy concerns regarding the rapid deployment of surveillance technology.
Why it matters
The proposal reflects a legislative attempt to balance modern crime-fighting technology with civil liberties. Sponsors believe current oversight mechanisms have not kept pace with the rapid advancement of surveillance infrastructure.
House Bill 1011 proposes a 12-month pause on Flock Safety camera operations across Ohio. The legislation includes specific exemptions for active Amber, Silver, and Blue alerts, as well as federal immigration enforcement activities by ICE.
The players
Gary Click
Representative Gary Click is an Ohio state legislator representing the Vickery area who introduced the new surveillance bill.
Heidi Workman
Representative Heidi Workman serves as an Ohio state legislator from the Rootstown area and is a co-sponsor of House Bill 1011.
The details
The bill mandates a formal period of public discussion and police engagement to review privacy impacts. It seeks to implement legislative checks on surveillance systems that sponsors argue have outpaced existing state policy.
Timeline
The proposed moratorium on surveillance camera use is set to last for a 12-month duration.
Political Context
Opponents of similar surveillance restrictions often argue that such measures undermine law enforcement efficacy and the ability to solve time-sensitive crimes. Advocacy groups and police agencies may raise concerns that a moratorium could limit investigations into vehicle-related offenses.
If passed, this moratorium would directly halt the operations of existing Flock Safety camera networks used by law enforcement agencies across the state. Residents should expect continued debate over whether these systems provide essential security or represent an overreach of privacy.
The takeaway
The bill underscores the ongoing tension between public safety initiatives and individual privacy rights in the digital age. Lawmakers will now begin the process of debating how much oversight is necessary for private surveillance tech deployed in public spaces.
Further reading
For additional updates on state legislative trends, visit the Legislative Policy section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by The News-Messenger.
Live Poll
Should the government restrict the use of surveillance cameras to protect individual privacy?
