In 1957, Cleveland police caught two bank robbers and their getaway driver with help from a new crimefighting innovation: a hidden surveillance camera.
The camera, built by the military to be mounted on an aircraft gun and adapted by the Cleveland police photography lab, was primitive by today’s standards. It shot motion-picture film that had to be retrieved and processed. But when it captured a stick-up during a trial run in a bank on St. Clair Avenue, “detectives learned more in one minute and 15 seconds of film than had ever been anticipated,” according to an account on the Cleveland Police Museum web site.
The detectives immediately shared the story with local reporters, and within a week it was national news. The suspects turned themselves in and later pleaded guilty. The police museum collection includes photos of them reading a Plain Dealer article about their accidental roles in law enforcement history.
Since then, surveillance technology has evolved at warp speed, expanding to include vast networks of video cameras, license plate readers, audio sensors and more. But police aren’t as eager to reveal how they use those tools.
A few years back, the Cleveland Community Police Commission and some outside experts researched the use of surveillance technology by Cleveland police. The report on the committee’s findings raised concerns about transparency.
The committee recommended a full accounting of what devices and systems the Cleveland Division of Police was using and how. It also recommended establishing a privacy commission to advise the mayor and city council and to “ensure the community is well informed and involved in the adoption of any surveillance technology” in the future.
Neither of those things has happened. And Signal Cleveland recently learned that Mayor Justin Bibb’s administration quietly dissolved its police technology advisory committee after just a couple of meetings in 2024.
But the city continues to expand its surveillance capabilities under the belief that, as Bibb said recently, it “gives us more intelligence, gives us more data to keep our streets safe.”
Here’s a look at what surveillance technology Cleveland police currently use, who makes it and what we know about how they use it. Signal Cleveland is still investigating. If you have questions or insights, email Frank W. Lewis or send a text to 216-220-9398.
ShotSpotter
ShotSpotter, made by SoundThinking, is a network of sensors that can detect and report gunshots. Cleveland started using it in 2020. The city’s first contract with the company, to cover three square miles, expired in November. A second contract, for another 10 square miles of coverage, expires on April 26.
Two Cleveland State University professors spent two years studying the city’s use of ShotSpotter. Their report, released last fall, described it as an effective tool that Cleveland police are unable to use well — and in some ways are hampered by — due to how much the force has shrunk in recent years.
Most gunshots are not reported to 911, and “police would likely not know about 90% of the shots fired” in the city without the technology, according to the report. And because of the alerts, there are more opportunities to treat injured victims and collect evidence such as shell casings. But neither of those happen often.
And the volume of alerts — an average of 21 per day — increased police response time for lower-priority calls like burglar alarms and some domestic violence incidents, the report said.
In late 2025, the Department of Public Safety asked city council to approve a contract for similar technology made by a different company, Flock Safety, to replace ShotSpotter. Flock says its system, called Raven, can also detect street takeovers and vehicle crashes.
A city spokesperson told Signal Cleveland that officials have discussed response times with Flock Safety and are confident that it won’t present the same challenges as ShotSpotter. “When integrated with our existing tools, the Flock system can provide added context to help [police] better prioritize calls,” the spokesperson said.
Automatic license plate readers
Automatic license plate readers (commonly called LPRs) are cameras that capture images of every vehicle passing through their field of vision. They use machine learning (a type of artificial intelligence) to alert police when they see a vehicle that’s been added to the “hot list” because it was reported stolen or its driver is suspected of a crime.
Last year, a Norfolk, Virginia, resident sued that city to find out how many times his car had been captured in LPR images. The answer: more than 500 times in a little more than four months.
Cleveland police use LPRs made by Flock Safety. The company says its LPR system also allows users to “search for vehicles with unique characteristics, such as ‘blue SUV with a racing stripe’ or “white F-150 with a ladder in the back,’” in addition to plate numbers.
Flock says on its web site that its LPR system is used by more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies and 1,000 businesses in the U.S. “in a shared network built to stop crime.” But they aren’t necessarily all participating in that network all the time. Each user has options within the software settings for sharing access and data with other users. According to this demonstration video, shared by the ACLU, users share access automatically or require a request.
But Flock tries to “incentivize maximum sharing” with trade-offs, according to the ACLU of Massachusetts, which has investigated out-of-jurisdiction use. Restricting access to your system means limiting your access to others’ networks. In effect, the ACLU said, “You show me yours, I’ll show you mine.”
In 2025, the technology news web site 404 Media and the University of Washington reported that local law enforcement agencies around the country were running searches on vehicles at the request of federal
immigration officers who did not have direct access (and still don’t, according to Flock). Cleveland Division of Police was not mentioned in either report.
In Texas, sheriff’s deputies used Flock’s system to track a woman they suspected of having had an abortion, according to 404 Media and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Signal Cleveland asked the city for details about the settings used by Cleveland police but has not received an answer.
The Cleveland Community Police Commission, the final authority on police policies, approved rules for LPR use last year. They allow sharing the city’s data with other law enforcement agencies.
Video cameras and Fusus
The Real Time Crime Center is where Cleveland police access the LPRs and the more than 2,700 city-owned video surveillance cameras (also made by Flock Safety). They do this through a software platform called Fusus.
They can also check in on security cameras owned by businesses that have opted in through the SAFE SMART CLE program. A small device called a CORE allows privately owned cameras to connect to Fusus. The camera owner controls the settings on the CORE device and does not have to allow real-time access. If a camera owner opts to provide real-time access, public safety personnel only tune in when a crime or emergency has been reported at that site or close by.
Fusus is made by Axon, a Flock competitor. The two companies used to work together on integrations, but Axon ended that relationship last year.
Drones
Cleveland police own several Skydio X10 drones. They weigh less than 5 pounds, measure under 14 inches and can be launched in about 40 seconds. The X10’s cameras can identify a human at 2,600 feet and read a license plate at 800 feet.
The drone policy approved by the Community Police Commission is unique in Ohio, and unusual in the country, because it prohibits “surveillance of individuals or groups within large gatherings” like protests. The policy also requires Cleveland police to maintain an online drone tracker, showing when, where and why they used drones.
Skydio is a partner with Axon.
