{"id":425493,"date":"2026-10-12T12:32:09","date_gmt":"2026-10-12T12:32:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/425493\/"},"modified":"2026-10-12T12:32:09","modified_gmt":"2026-10-12T12:32:09","slug":"doctor-sues-flock-safety-over-126-cameras-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/425493\/","title":{"rendered":"Doctor Sues Flock Safety Over 126 Cameras [2026]"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Port St. Lucie, Florida physician is doing something almost nobody attempts: fighting a surveillance-technology company and his own city government in federal court without a lawyer. Dr. Steven E. Greer filed an amended federal lawsuit against the City of Port St. Lucie, Mayor Shannon Martin, and Flock Group, Inc., the Delaware corporation doing business as Flock Safety, arguing that the city\u2019s network of automated license-plate-reader cameras violates the Fourth Amendment. As first reported locally by WPEC CW34<\/a>, Greer is representing himself, something he is legally entitled to do under 28 U.S.C. Section 1654, which allows any party to conduct their own case personally or through counsel.<\/p>\n

What the Amended Complaint Actually Alleges<\/a>Relief Sought: What Greer Is Actually Asking the Court For<\/a>Representing Yourself Against a City and a Surveillance Vendor<\/a>Port St. Lucie\u2019s Flock Network, by the Numbers<\/a>Port St. Lucie Isn\u2019t Alone: Flock Safety\u2019s Wider Legal Exposure<\/a>Why the Fourth Amendment Argument Matters Here<\/a>The Database-Sharing Problem<\/a>Selective Disclosure to the Press<\/a>The Current State of the Case<\/a>Competitive and Market Context: Flock Safety\u2019s Position<\/a>Historical Context: Surveillance Tech and the Courts<\/a>Market and Civic Impact: What\u2019s Actually at Stake<\/a>What Happens Next in the Litigation<\/a>Predictions: Where This Case and the Broader Flock Fight Are Headed<\/a>Why This Case Resonates Beyond Florida<\/a>Frequently Asked Questions<\/a>Who filed the lawsuit against Flock Safety in Port St. Lucie?<\/a>Who are the defendants in the case?<\/a>What is the case number and where was it filed?<\/a>How many surveillance cameras does the lawsuit allege Port St. Lucie operates?<\/a>What legal claim is at the center of the lawsuit?<\/a>Has a judge ruled on the case yet?<\/a>What is Greer asking the court to do?<\/a>Is Port St. Lucie the only city facing pushback over Flock Safety cameras?<\/a>Related Coverage<\/a><\/p>\n

The case, filed as Greer v. Flock Group, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-14319-AMC, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is one of a growing number of legal challenges aimed at Flock Safety\u2019s automated license-plate-reader network nationwide. What makes this one notable is not just the Fourth Amendment claim itself, but who is bringing it: a self-represented plaintiff taking on a city government, its mayor, and a well-funded surveillance-technology vendor at the same time, over a system that now blankets much of the Treasure Coast.<\/p>\n

Industry insights, the latest tech news, and special interviews, all in the Tech Insider Newsletter.<\/p>\n

One email a week. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.<\/p>\n

Google \u00b7 Preferred Sources<\/p>\n

Don’t miss new tech stories on Google<\/p>\n

Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.<\/p>\n

Add Now<\/a><\/p>\n

What the Amended Complaint Actually Alleges<\/p>\n

Greer\u2019s amended complaint, filed in August 2026, names three defendants: the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida; Shannon Martin, sued both in her official capacity as mayor and in her individual capacity; and Flock Group, Inc., the Delaware corporation operating as Flock Safety. According to the filing, as detailed by the Greer Journal<\/a>, Port St. Lucie operates 53 Flock cameras and 73 Axon license-plate readers, a combined total of 126 surveillance devices across the city.<\/p>\n

Greer\u2019s central argument is that collecting license-plate data from every vehicle passing through those 126 camera points, and sharing it through a searchable national database, amounts to a warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment. The amended complaint goes further than a general privacy objection: it alleges the defendants used Flock cameras to track a specific pedestrian, obtained footage of that tracking, and then selectively disclosed police-sourced Flock video to members of the press. If proven, that combination, tracking an individual and then releasing footage to reporters, would move the case from an abstract constitutional question into a concrete claim about how the data was actually used.<\/p>\n

The complaint also alleges that license-plate data captured by Port St. Lucie\u2019s cameras is retained in a searchable national database that other agencies can access without a warrant backed by probable cause. That allegation echoes concerns raised elsewhere about how Flock\u2019s network functions once data leaves a single city\u2019s control, a theme that has also surfaced in cybersecurity reporting on credential and data exposure more broadly, including recent coverage of a large-scale credential leak affecting thousands of exposed files<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Relief Sought: What Greer Is Actually Asking the Court For<\/p>\n

Rather than simply asking a judge to shut the cameras off, Greer\u2019s amended complaint requests a layered set of remedies. He wants a formal declaration that Port St. Lucie\u2019s surveillance program, as currently operated, violates constitutional protections. He is also seeking an injunction that would restrict how the network operates, or at minimum require a warrant supported by probable cause before footage is shared into the national Flock database. Beyond the constitutional claims, the complaint disputes certain public records the city produced, or failed to produce, during Greer\u2019s research, and seeks statutory damages under federal privacy law along with litigation costs.<\/p>\n

That mix of remedies, a declaratory judgment, an injunction tied to warrant requirements, a public-records dispute, and statutory damages, reflects months of groundwork. Greer has said he spent much of August researching Flock\u2019s technology and preparing the federal lawsuit himself, work he credits to his background as a surgeon and later a Wall Street analyst, which he says prepared him for the technical research and writing a case like this demands.<\/p>\n

Representing Yourself Against a City and a Surveillance Vendor<\/p>\n

Pro se litigation against a municipal government is rare enough. Pro se litigation against a municipal government and a well-capitalized technology vendor, in the same federal complaint, is rarer still. Federal law gives any individual the right to represent themselves in civil proceedings, but that right comes with no safety net: no discovery team, no litigation budget to match outside counsel, and no second chance if a procedural deadline is missed.<\/p>\n

Greer has acknowledged the gap between his resources and those of the defendants. He has said he would be willing to accept help from an attorney if one came forward, while continuing to prepare the case himself in the meantime. That stance, pursuing the litigation alone but staying open to assistance, is consistent with how he has framed his background: years of surgical training followed by a stint as a Wall Street analyst, a combination he argues gave him the research discipline and technical writing skills the case requires, even without a law degree.<\/p>\n

The stakes of going it alone are real. Flock Safety has faced a wave of legal and political pushback across multiple states, and it has typically responded with experienced outside counsel. A self-represented plaintiff taking on that kind of institutional defense bears a heavier burden just to keep the case alive past early motions, let alone to reach a ruling on the constitutional merits.<\/p>\n

Port St. Lucie\u2019s Flock Network, by the Numbers<\/p>\n

The scale alleged in Greer\u2019s amended complaint puts Port St. Lucie\u2019s automated license-plate-reader footprint in context. The table below breaks down the devices named in the filing.<\/p>\n

Device CategoryVendorCount Alleged in ComplaintFunction<\/p>\n

Fixed license-plate camerasFlock Safety (Flock Group, Inc.)53Automated license-plate capture and database logging
\nLicense-plate readersAxon73Automated license-plate capture, law-enforcement integration
\nCombined surveillance devicesFlock Safety and Axon126City-wide license-plate tracking network<\/p>\n

That combined device count is central to Greer\u2019s argument that the city\u2019s network is not a handful of isolated cameras at known checkpoints, but a dense, overlapping grid capable of tracking nearly any vehicle movement within city limits. Whether a federal judge agrees that this density, on its own, crosses a constitutional line is the question the case is built to answer.<\/p>\n

Port St. Lucie Isn\u2019t Alone: Flock Safety\u2019s Wider Legal Exposure<\/p>\n

Greer\u2019s case lands amid a broader reckoning with Flock Safety\u2019s license-plate-reader network across Florida and beyond. Port St. Lucie itself has already taken some defensive steps separate from the lawsuit: city officials paused parts of the Flock program and moved to remove 18 cameras by September 30, according to CBS12<\/a>. St. Lucie Voice also reported that the city agreed to audit its Flock camera usage after what it described as national outcry over the program.<\/p>\n

The pressure extends well past Port St. Lucie. Trestlewire reported<\/a> that a judge in a separate case elsewhere in Florida described Flock\u2019s network as \u201cindiscriminate mass surveillance,\u201d while also noting that one Florida county could not account for the location of 11 of its own cameras, a detail that underscores how difficult these sprawling networks can be to audit even for the agencies that deploy them. Truthout has also reported more broadly on how fights over Flock cameras and AI-driven policing tools are becoming a flashpoint in Florida state politics, with advocacy groups like DeFlock Tampa organizing local opposition to the technology.<\/p>\n

That pattern, a city quietly scaling back a program while a resident sues over it in federal court, is not unique to Port St. Lucie. Tech Insider has covered a similar dynamic in Elgin College\u2019s dispute with Flock Safety over six cameras and a lack of response to public concerns<\/a>, suggesting that institutional pushback against the company\u2019s camera network is becoming a recurring storyline rather than an isolated incident.<\/p>\n

Why the Fourth Amendment Argument Matters Here<\/p>\n

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and courts have long wrestled with how that protection applies to technology that did not exist when the amendment was written. License-plate-reader networks sit in a particularly contested spot: a single photograph of a plate on a public road has traditionally not required a warrant, but a dense, networked system capturing location data continuously, and funneling it into a searchable national database, looks much more like the kind of persistent tracking that the Supreme Court has flagged as constitutionally sensitive in other contexts.<\/p>\n

Greer\u2019s complaint tries to draw that distinction explicitly. He is not arguing that a single camera photographing a single car is unconstitutional. He is arguing that 126 devices, feeding a searchable database accessible without a warrant, change the legal character of the surveillance entirely, especially when the data can allegedly be used to track specific individuals and then selectively shared with the press.<\/p>\n

The Database-Sharing Problem<\/p>\n

A recurring theme across Flock-related litigation nationally, and one that appears in Greer\u2019s complaint, is what happens to license-plate data after it leaves the city that collected it. If Port St. Lucie\u2019s data flows into a searchable national network that other police departments, in other states, can query without a warrant, the city\u2019s own privacy policies become largely irrelevant once the data crosses its borders. That is the mechanism Greer\u2019s injunction request specifically targets: not just stopping local collection, but restricting national data sharing absent a warrant supported by probable cause.<\/p>\n

Selective Disclosure to the Press<\/p>\n

The allegation that police-sourced Flock video was selectively disclosed to reporters adds a second, separate legal thread. Even if a court were to find that routine license-plate capture does not require a warrant, selectively releasing footage tied to an individual, allegedly obtained through the tracking system, raises distinct questions about how that data was used internally before it ever became a constitutional issue in open court.<\/p>\n

The Current State of the Case<\/p>\n

As of this story\u2019s publication, no federal judge has ruled that Port St. Lucie\u2019s camera program violates the Constitution. The case remains in its early stages, filed in August 2026 and amended since, with the defendants expected to respond through motions before any substantive ruling on the Fourth Amendment claims. That timeline matters for anyone trying to gauge how quickly this story might resolve: federal civil litigation involving constitutional claims against a municipality routinely takes months, often longer, before a judge reaches the merits, particularly when a pro se plaintiff is navigating procedural requirements without the benefit of counsel familiar with the court\u2019s local rules.<\/p>\n

Greer has framed the slow grind of self-representation as part of the point. His description of spending much of August researching Flock\u2019s technology before even filing reflects the kind of front-loaded work a solo litigant has to do that a law firm would typically distribute across associates, paralegals, and partners. Whether that preparation is enough to survive early motions to dismiss from a city government and a corporate defendant with institutional legal resources is the first real test the case faces.<\/p>\n

Competitive and Market Context: Flock Safety\u2019s Position<\/p>\n

Flock Safety has built its business on selling automated license-plate-reader networks to cities and private communities as a public-safety tool, positioning its cameras as a force multiplier for police departments that cannot staff enough patrol cars to cover every intersection. That pitch has driven adoption across hundreds of municipalities, but it has also made the company the common thread in a growing list of lawsuits and local disputes, from Port St. Lucie\u2019s federal case to Elgin College\u2019s standoff over six cameras and an unanswered public-records request.<\/p>\n

The table below summarizes how the Port St. Lucie dispute compares with other recent Flock-related friction points that have surfaced in reporting.<\/p>\n

Location or EntityNature of DisputeReported Outcome or StatusSource<\/p>\n

Port St. Lucie, FLFederal Fourth Amendment lawsuit, pro se plaintiffAmended complaint filed August 2026, no ruling yetWPEC CW34, Greer Journal
\nPort St. Lucie, FL (city program)City-level program pause and camera removal18 cameras set for removal by Sept. 30CBS12
\nPort St. Lucie, FL (audit)Municipal audit of Flock usage after public pressureCity agreed to audit after national outcrySt. Lucie Voice
\nUnnamed Florida countyJudicial criticism and camera accountability gapJudge called network \u201cindiscriminate mass surveillance\u201d; 11 cameras unaccounted forTrestlewire
\nElgin CollegeSix cameras, unanswered public concernsNo institutional response reportedTech Insider<\/p>\n

What stands out across these cases is the range of challengers: a solo pro se plaintiff in federal court, a city council reversing its own prior camera purchases, a judge weighing in critically from the bench in an unrelated matter, and an educational institution facing community pressure. Flock Safety is not fighting one lawsuit in one jurisdiction; it is managing a distributed set of local and legal pressures that each chip away at the company\u2019s public argument that its network is purely a public-safety tool with minimal downside.<\/p>\n

Historical Context: Surveillance Tech and the Courts<\/p>\n

License-plate-reader litigation did not start with Flock Safety, and it will not end with Port St. Lucie. Automated plate readers have been deployed by police departments for roughly two decades, but the shift toward networked, cloud-connected systems that share data across jurisdictions is relatively recent, and it is that networking layer, more than the individual cameras, that has drawn the sharpest legal scrutiny. Earlier generations of plate-reader challenges tended to focus on retention periods and whether departments followed their own data-deletion policies. Greer\u2019s case, and others like the one flagged by Trestlewire, push further by questioning whether the scale and interconnection of modern networks changes the constitutional analysis entirely.<\/p>\n

That shift mirrors a broader pattern in how courts and the public have responded to networked surveillance and automated decision tools more generally. Just as departments have had to reckon with the limits of automated tip systems, highlighted in incidents like the AI-generated false homicide tip that took 81 days to surface, cities deploying camera networks are increasingly being asked to show not just that a tool works, but that its outputs are governed by the same warrant standards that would apply to a human officer conducting the same search manually.<\/p>\n

Market and Civic Impact: What\u2019s Actually at Stake<\/p>\n

For Flock Safety, the practical risk is not limited to a single Florida courtroom. Municipal surveillance contracts depend heavily on city councils feeling confident that the technology will not become a political or legal liability. Port St. Lucie\u2019s own decision to pause parts of its program and remove 18 cameras, independent of Greer\u2019s lawsuit, shows that local elected officials are already recalibrating in response to public pressure, even before a judge issues any ruling. If more cities follow that pattern, pausing or trimming deployments proactively, that is arguably a bigger near-term commercial risk to the company than any single federal case.<\/p>\n

For residents and civil-liberties advocates, the case is being watched as a potential template. A pro se plaintiff successfully forcing discovery, or surviving a motion to dismiss, would demonstrate that challenging a major surveillance vendor does not require the resources of the ACLU or a large law firm. That alone could encourage similar filings in other cities running comparable Flock or Axon networks, regardless of how the Port St. Lucie case itself is ultimately decided.<\/p>\n

What Happens Next in the Litigation<\/p>\n

The near-term path for Greer v. Flock Group, Inc. follows a familiar federal civil procedure track. The City of Port St. Lucie, Mayor Martin, and Flock Group will each need to respond to the amended complaint, typically through answers or motions to dismiss that test whether Greer\u2019s claims are legally sufficient to proceed. Given that Greer is self-represented against defendants likely to retain experienced municipal and corporate litigation counsel, early procedural motions are the most probable first flashpoint, well before any discovery into the alleged pedestrian-tracking incident or the disputed public records.<\/p>\n

If the case clears that initial stage, discovery would likely focus on two areas the amended complaint highlights directly: how the city and Flock Safety handled the alleged tracking of a specific pedestrian, and what public records the city withheld or disputed during Greer\u2019s research. Those two threads could end up mattering more to the case\u2019s outcome than the broader constitutional argument, since they involve concrete, documentable conduct rather than abstract questions about camera density.<\/p>\n

Predictions: Where This Case and the Broader Flock Fight Are Headed<\/p>\n

Expect the City of Port St. Lucie and Flock Group to file motions to dismiss or for summary judgment within the coming months, testing whether Greer\u2019s Fourth Amendment theory survives early procedural scrutiny before reaching discovery.
\nPort St. Lucie\u2019s own camera removals and promised audit, reported separately by CBS12 and St. Lucie Voice, will likely continue regardless of the lawsuit\u2019s pace, as city officials try to manage political pressure independent of the court timeline.
\nMore Florida municipalities running Flock or Axon networks are likely to face similar public-records requests and community pushback, following the pattern already visible at Elgin College and in the unnamed Florida county flagged by Trestlewire.
\nFlock Safety will likely continue to defend the public-safety value of its network publicly while quietly adjusting contract terms or data-sharing defaults in jurisdictions facing the loudest criticism, a common pattern for vendors facing distributed legal and political pressure rather than a single centralized threat.
\nRegardless of how Greer\u2019s specific case resolves, expect it to be cited by advocacy groups and future pro se or represented plaintiffs elsewhere as a reference point for challenging license-plate-reader networks on Fourth Amendment grounds.<\/p>\n

The surveillance-technology fight playing out in Port St. Lucie also sits alongside a broader pattern of scrutiny facing automated policing and monitoring tools, from ransomware<\/a> groups targeting public-sector data, as seen in incidents like the Warlock ransomware campaign that hit multiple sectors through a SharePoint vulnerability<\/a>, to high-profile arrests in cybercrime cases such as the FBI\u2019s arrest of a CYPFER co-founder tied to the ShinyHunters investigation<\/a> and a separate cyber executive arrest connected to an FBI breach probe<\/a>. Each of these stories, in different ways, reflects growing public and legal attention to how data, whether collected by cameras, cloud platforms, or corporate networks, is secured, shared, and ultimately held accountable in court.<\/p>\n

Law-enforcement use of automated systems more broadly has also drawn scrutiny well beyond license-plate cameras. Police departments nationwide have leaned on drone fleets for search-and-rescue and traffic incidents, a trend visible in Commerce City\u2019s use of four drones to help locate a vehicle after a wrong-way crash on I-76<\/a>, underscoring how quickly automated surveillance tools of all kinds, cameras, drones, and AI-driven tip systems alike, have become embedded in everyday policing with comparatively little judicial guardrail so far.<\/p>\n

Why This Case Resonates Beyond Florida<\/p>\n

Port St. Lucie is not a uniquely large city, and Greer is not a civil-liberties lawyer with a national platform. That is precisely why the case has drawn attention beyond local Florida outlets. If a self-represented physician can mount a credible Fourth Amendment challenge against a national surveillance vendor and a city government using publicly available court procedure, the barrier to challenging similar networks elsewhere looks considerably lower than most residents probably assume. Whether or not Greer ultimately wins, the act of filing, amending, and sustaining the complaint through 2026 already demonstrates that the legal tools exist for ordinary residents to test these systems in court.<\/p>\n

That is also why Flock Safety\u2019s broader legal exposure matters commercially. A network of individually modest disputes, a pro se case here, a city audit there, a critical ruling from the bench somewhere else, can accumulate into a reputational and contractual risk that rivals a single large class action, particularly as local reporting connects the dots between them the way outlets like Truthout and Trestlewire already have.<\/p>\n

Frequently Asked Questions<\/p>\n

Who filed the lawsuit against Flock Safety in Port St. Lucie?<\/p>\n

Dr. Steven E. Greer, a Port St. Lucie resident, filed the amended federal complaint. He is representing himself without a lawyer, something federal law permits under 28 U.S.C. Section 1654.<\/p>\n

Who are the defendants in the case?<\/p>\n

The amended complaint names the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida; Mayor Shannon Martin, in both her official and individual capacities; and Flock Group, Inc., the Delaware corporation doing business as Flock Safety.<\/p>\n

What is the case number and where was it filed?<\/p>\n

The case is Greer v. Flock Group, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-14319-AMC, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.<\/p>\n

How many surveillance cameras does the lawsuit allege Port St. Lucie operates?<\/p>\n

The amended complaint alleges the city operates 53 Flock cameras and 73 Axon license-plate readers, for a combined total of 126 devices.<\/p>\n

What legal claim is at the center of the lawsuit?<\/p>\n

Greer argues that collecting and sharing license-plate data through the Flock and Axon network violates the Fourth Amendment\u2019s protection against unreasonable searches, particularly through retention in a searchable national database accessible without a warrant.<\/p>\n

Has a judge ruled on the case yet?<\/p>\n

No. As of this story\u2019s publication, no federal judge has ruled that Port St. Lucie\u2019s camera program violates the Constitution. The case remains in its early procedural stages.<\/p>\n

What is Greer asking the court to do?<\/p>\n

He is seeking a declaration that the surveillance program violates constitutional protections, an injunction restricting network operation or national data sharing without a warrant, resolution of disputed public records, statutory damages under federal privacy law, and litigation costs.<\/p>\n

Is Port St. Lucie the only city facing pushback over Flock Safety cameras?<\/p>\n

No. Reporting from outlets including CBS12, St. Lucie Voice, Trestlewire, and Truthout describes similar disputes, audits, and judicial criticism of Flock\u2019s camera network in other Florida jurisdictions, alongside separate community pushback at institutions like Elgin College.<\/p>\n

Related Coverage
\n\"NadiaNadia Dubois<\/a><\/p>\n

AI & Innovation Editor<\/p>\n

Nadia Dubois is the AI & Innovation Editor at Tech Insider, where she tracks the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence, from foundation models to real-world enterprise deployment. She previously covered AI and startups for La Tribune and contributed to MIT Technology Review’s European coverage. Nadia specializes in generative AI, AI regulation, and the intersection of technology and European industrial policy. She holds a dual degree in Computational Linguistics and Journalism from Sciences Po Paris.<\/p>\n

View all articles <\/a> <\/p>\n

The Tech Insider Newsletter<\/p>\n

Industry insights, the latest tech news, and special interviews, every week.<\/p>\n

One email a week. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A Port St. Lucie, Florida physician is doing something almost nobody attempts: fighting a surveillance-technology company and his…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":425494,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[171,173,172],"class_list":["post-425493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-port-st-lucie","tag-port-st-lucie","tag-port-st-lucie-headlines","tag-port-st-lucie-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425493","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=425493"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/425493\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/425494"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=425493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=425493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=425493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}