Last year, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Chief Chris Bailey made a clear statement about gunshot detection technology.
“We think that there’s much more worthy investments at this point for our city,” he told reporters at a March 2024 news conference.
What was clear then has become murky. It’s true, according to an IMPD spokesperson, that the department is still not planning to lease gunshot detection at this time.
But it’s also true that IMPD recently agreed to a no-bid contract with a vendor that would allow the police department to obtain gunshot detection technology. And it’s also true that a member of the IMPD command staff gained approval for that contract from two oversight boards whose members were unaware of all the items they were approving.
Those items could cost IMPD up to $6 million over four years. The contract with Flock Safety will largely be used to lease 400 license plate reading cameras.
But included in the pricing sheet for the cameras — which will cost on average $2,500 each for the first year — were two larger ticket items: Flock’s gunshot detection sensors, which cost up to $35,000 per location, and so-called drones as first responders, which can cost up to $466,000.
Get the backstory
Neither technology was discussed as part of the contract by IMPD Deputy Chief Kevin Wethington when he appeared in front of the Board of Public Health and Safety in November. And he only briefly mentioned the drones in front of the city’s Information Technology Board. Both boards, which are tasked with reviewing and approving contracts, held hearings on the contract in November.
IMPD spokesperson Alexa Boylan said the city does not plan to lease gunshot detection technology or drones from Flock. But the department included those items in the contract in case IMPD wanted to explore the technology in the future. Any money spent through the contract would need to be allocated through the city’s annual budgeting process.
If IMPD pursues that technology, it will do so only after conversations with councilors, the mayor’s office, residents and the media, she said.
The agency piloted gunshot detection technology on the near east side in 2022. An IMPD report on the results of that pilot recommended ShotSpotter over Flock and a third company that also participated in the pilot.
IMPD ultimately decided against pursuing the technology, a decision that was criticized by the Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police. An IMPD official has previously called gunshot detection technology “not fiscally responsible.” The sensors have attracted criticism elsewhere for the high cost of the technology that some have argued is ineffective.
A professor of criminology who has studied law enforcement technology for nearly two decades told Mirror Indy last year that the gunshot detection technology “didn’t translate to meaningful safety enhancements.”
Funding confusion
Wethington told one board that IMPD is planning to spend about $4 million on license plate reading cameras. That’s $1 million a year over four years.
The other $2 million in the contract, he said, is a cushion. But where that $2 million would come from, and what it would pay for, is a harder question to answer.
Wethington told the IT board that the money would allow the agency to experiment with some of Flock’s other technology and specifically mentioned software to aggregate and analyze security footage and drones as first responders. And he told both boards that the cushion would give city-county councilors flexibility to use the funds they received in this year’s budget to install cameras in their districts.
But councilors can’t spend the money like that, according to the city’s budget. Each of the 25 city-county councilors received $1 million to spend in their district through either the parks or public works departments.
That was clear when the budget was proposed in August, according to council spokesperson Sara Hindi, who said councilors talked to constituents in September and October about how they should spend the money. They had until Nov. 1 to pick a project, which preceded both meetings where IMPD’s Wethington pitched the $6 million Flock contract.
Now, IMPD denies it ever anticipated using the councilors’ funds on Flock.
Here’s how Wethington pitched the contract last year:
“With the councilors who have some special funding … some have expressed interest in some of their dedicated funds to lease additional cameras. So we have to have it in the contract but it wouldn’t be from our budget,” Wethington told the health and safety board on Nov. 6.
“The money that individual councilors have in 2025, some of them have expressed interest in putting cameras in their respective districts. And for that we have to be the customer, then we would use the council’s money to add those additional cameras. But we need a ceiling to allow us the ability to spend during the four years,” he told the IT board on Nov. 19. “Right now we are on target for an annual spend of $1 million per year but the extra (money) gives us a ceiling to spend more if we have budget or expand in other areas.”
Mirror Indy sent these excerpts with timestamps to IMPD’s public affairs unit, which said it initially thought some of the $1 million project money could be used for technology, but “later learned that was not a permissible use.”
A spokesperson later denied the agency ever planned to use those funds to pay for Flock technology, despite Wethington’s statements.
“IMPD did not anticipate using these funds for Flock cameras. We did not ask for these funds to be used for the purchase of Flock cameras,” a spokesperson said via email.
What board members think
Three board members who spoke to Mirror Indy said they largely defer to IMPD for what it needs.
“We sort of rely on what IMPD is telling us,” said Marion County Assessor Joe O’Connor, who chairs the IT board.
He said his board is more focused on making sure the city and county government as a whole is making wise decisions about how it spends money on technology.
“We’re not probably going to ever dive that deep into what the agency needs,” he said.
Martine Romy Bernard-Tucker, the former head of the Office of Public Health and Safety and then-chair of the health and safety board, said she did not know that gunshot detection technology or drones were part of the contract.
Although it probably would not have changed the way the board voted, she said it should have been discussed.
“I think it would have been important for us to know all of the parts of the contract because we’re supposed to make informed decisions,” she told Mirror Indy. “Those items I don’t find problematic, but certainly what I would find problematic is the fact that (IMPD) didn’t present any of that.”
Duane Ingram, vice chair of the health and safety board, also said that while he would have liked to have known what was in the contract, it would not have changed his vote.
Mirror Indy asked the three board members to comment on how Wethington pitched the contract by incorrectly referencing councilors’ funds. Bernard-Tucker declined to comment. O’Connor said that is a level of detail beyond what his board would look into.
Ingram did not respond to that question. But earlier, he sent a text to Mirror Indy:
“I’ve been instructed to direct all media requests to IMPD.”
Emily Hopkins is a Mirror Indy reporter focused on data and accountability. You can reach them on phone or Signal at 317-790-5268 or by email at emily.hopkins@mirrorindy.org. Follow them on most social media @indyemapolis or on Bluesky @emilyhopkins.bsky.social.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
