Florida Police Use 3D-Printed Camera Decoy to Catch Suspected Vandal

Police used a 3D‑printed decoy to bait a suspected camera vandal—then charged him with three felonies after he cut it down.

Story Snapshot

Oviedo police replaced vandalized license-plate readers with fake lookalikes and made an arrest.
The suspect, 24-year-old Evan Meyer, faces three felony charges after cutting down a decoy.
Meyer told police he believed the device was an expensive real camera, not a replica.
The case highlights national backlash against surveillance cameras and questions about charge severity.

Police Tactic: Decoys After Real Cameras Were Hit

Oviedo police said several automated license-plate reader cameras were stolen or damaged along Lockwood Boulevard in late July and early August. In response, officers installed decoy cameras that looked like Flock Safety devices but did not record data. An officer 3D-printed the replicas to resemble the real units. Police then watched the area to catch whoever was targeting the equipment. The setup led to an arrest within days, according to multiple reports.

Authorities and local coverage described the decoys as part of an active operation. Officials said the goal was to protect the city’s surveillance network and identify who was cutting cameras down. Reporting states the device destroyed in this incident was a plastic replica, likely cheaper than a real Flock unit. A national outlet also noted an officer crafted the decoy using a 3D printer, underscoring that it was nonfunctional and built for the sting.

The Arrest And The Charges Filed

Police arrested 24-year-old Evan Meyer after he allegedly used pruning shears to sever the decoy from a pole and then smashed it on the ground. He now faces three felony counts: criminal mischief causing more than one thousand dollars in damage, grand theft of property valued between seven hundred fifty and five thousand dollars, and damaging a computer or electronic device. Those charges mirror what police say they file when a real surveillance unit is destroyed.

The arrest report quoted in local coverage says Meyer believed the camera cost between one thousand and five thousand dollars to replace. Police cite that statement to argue he targeted what he thought was a valuable, real device. Reports also say Meyer told officers he felt uneasy about a nearby Flock camera and had read negative stories online about the company and its systems. Police said he did not know the device he cut down was a replica.

What This Says About Surveillance, Trust, And Valuation

This case fits a wider trend. Across the country, people have damaged or removed Flock Safety cameras in dozens of states. Acts include cutting devices from poles, painting lenses, and even vehicle ramming. An August review found vandalism in at least thirty-six states, showing broad pushback to automated license-plate readers. Supporters call the technology a crime-fighting tool. Critics warn of mass tracking, errors, and data misuse. That split is now landing in local police work and courtrooms.

“Oviedo Police Department has thus far refused to release almost any information about the operation…about how the fake [Flock] camera were made do not have to be released because they have to do with an ongoing criminal investigation” https://t.co/J5RdWGMuF2

— Amy Cook (@AmyCookOC) August 27, 2026

The legal fight here may center on value and classification. Reports say the decoy was 3D-printed and did not collect data, suggesting a lower dollar value than a full system. Yet police filed felony counts similar to those for real units. Prosecutors often argue that intent and the protection of critical public equipment matter. Defense attorneys often focus on actual loss. Those questions will likely decide whether felony thresholds and computer-damage statutes fit the replica device.