Michigan cannabis store wins fight over Flock camera
- Jars Cannabis, after a settlement with Madison Heights city officials, was required to install a Flock surveillance camera at their store’s parking lot, giving police live access to footage and data.
- The camera, installed around the store’s September 2025 opening, faced backlash from customers and Jars itself, leading the company to block the camera’s view with a “No Flock Zone” sign.
- The city threatened punishment if the sign was not removed, but eventually agreed to take down the parking lot camera after a new agreement, while a street-facing Flock camera remains nearby.
- Resistance to Flock cameras is growing due to privacy concerns and misuse by law enforcement and ICE, with the ACLU accusing the company of misleading city officials about data usage.)
Amid a nationwide uproar over privacy, city authorities in a Detroit suburb have removed a Flock surveillance camera aimed directly at a licensed cannabis store.
The situation counts as a win for Jars Cannabis in a long-running feud with Madison Heights city officials, who mandated the camera be installed as part of a legal settlement with the retailer, Detroit-based Local 4 reported.
Jars, a retail chain with 54 cannabis stores across Michigan, Arizona and Colorado, could only open its Madison Heights store after settling a lawsuit with the city over a denied license in November 2023, according to Cybernews.
The settlement required Jars to install a Flock camera at the parking lot entrance and grant the Madison Heights Police Department “unhindered live access” to the camera, footage and all collected data, according to records.
The camera went up around the store’s September 2025 grand opening. Customers didn’t like it – and neither did Jars.
Sometime after the camera was installed, Jars mounted a “No Flock Zone” sign directly in front of the device, blocking its view.
“We share our community’s concern about increased surveillance, which is why we placed the No Flock Zone sign in front of the camera to block its ability to record,” the company wrote in a post on X.
“Jars does not control the camera or have access to any of the data it collects.”
That set up yet another showdown between the retailer and the city, which as of Aug. 3 threatened “unspecified” punishment if Jars didn’t remove the sign, Cybernews reported.
But it appears the city caved.
After a new agreement was negotiated, the parking-lot-facing camera came down, pending final City Council approval, Detroit-based Local 4 reported.
However, a second Flock camera remains roughly 50 yards away, but it faces the street and not Jars’ parking lot, the station reported.
Exclusive industry data and analysis to help you make informed business decisions and avoid costly missteps. All the facts, none of the hype.
What you will get:
“We think everyone who spoke up, shared information and held us accountable,” Jars said, according to Local 4. “This is not a flex. It was a situation we had a responsibility to address.”
Resistance to Flock cameras, which have been abused by local law enforcement and leveraged by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is building with privacy advocates increasingly objecting to placements near sensitive sites.
The company has also come under fire for misleading city officials over how the data collected by the camera is used, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.