The “Free Trial” Police State
by Jo Ellen Nott
In the world of modern policing, there is no such thing as a free lunch, only a more expensive and expansive surveillance state. A disturbing trend is sweeping through local governments: the acquisition of high-tech spying tools through “gifts,” pilot programs, and federal grants that bypass the democratic process and erode civil liberties.
Surveillance vendors like Flock Safety and Axon frequently offer police departments free trials of automated license plate readers (“ALPRs”) and drones. Because these are framed as “tests,” they often sidestep the public hearings and city council approvals required for taxpayer-funded contracts. Critically, because these trials are not subject to the same procurement standards as permanent equipment, they often lack rigorous cybersecurity oversight. In late 2025, security researchers discovered dozens of Flock’s AI-powered “Condor” cameras were misconfigured and streaming live footage to the open internet, accessible to anyone with a browser without any authentication.
In Denver, police are currently conducting a trial of “drone-as-first-responder” programs from competing vendors, creating a permanent eye in the sky before the public can even debate its necessity. The difficulty of removing these “tests” is already manifest: in May 2025, Denver’s city council unanimously rejected a $666,000 contract extension for Flock Safety following public outcry, yet the Mayor’s office used a “task force review” loophole to keep the cameras operational without a valid contract.
When local governments refuse to fund surveillance, private interests step in. In San Francisco, billionaire Chris Larsen donated $9.4 million to fund a Real-Time Investigation Center (“RTIC”), effectively buying a more invasive police state. The influence is not just financial but physical; the RTIC was relocated from public facilities into a private downtown building sublet from Larsen’s own company, Ripple, further blurring the line between corporate headquarters and police command centers. Similarly, police foundations, private entities often exempt from transparency laws, act as middlemen to put surveillance tech in the hands of local law enforcement without public buy-in. These “gifts” allow police to build massive data infrastructures that remain outside the reach of public records requests.
Perhaps the most dangerous “free” tech comes from federal grants. Programs like the Homeland Security Grant Program reimburse cities for “counterterrorism” equipment that is used for everyday policing. These grants act as a backdoor for federal agencies; once a city is locked into these systems, local data is often funneled into “fusion centers.” This creates a pipeline for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to track individuals in self-described sanctuary cities. Legal filings in February 2026 allege that “side-door” access features allowed federal agencies to bypass California’s sanctuary protections, performing over 1.6 million searches of local plate data without the knowledge of city officials.
Senior staff at the Electronic Frontier Foundation rightly call “free” surveillance a predatory business model. Once the initial grant or trial expires, taxpayers are left footing the bill for recurring software fees, while their most intimate data remains in the hands of private corporations and federal agents. To protect civil liberties, communities must demand that no surveillance tool, regardless of price, be deployed without strict oversight, public audits, and the power to simply say “no.”
Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation; PetaPixel; Courthouse News; Denver Gazette
As a digital subscriber to Criminal Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
