City Council — August 26, 2026

ALPR Technology and Flock Surveillance System Report

• The Sheriff's Office presented an overview of ALPR operations, highlighting successful case resolutions and current data retention policies.
• Officials clarified that non-evidentiary data is deleted after one year and that a 2025 nationwide access incident was attributed to a vendor error or bug.
• Council members discussed funding sources, legal liability protections, and the status of ALPR contracts with neighboring agencies.
• The item was designated as "Receive and File" with no formal vote taken on policy changes or contract termination.

Public Comment and Community Concerns

• Speakers expressed divided views, with some opposing the system due to privacy risks while others supported its utility in solving crimes.
• Specific concerns were raised regarding camera placement near schools and churches, as well as the lack of transparency in vendor data practices.
• Council members acknowledged these concerns and proposed exploring alternative vendors and enhancing community outreach efforts.

Council Discussion and Next Steps

• The Vice Mayor requested a Policy Committee review of the Flock contract to strengthen oversight language and suggested forming a citizens' committee.
• Other council members emphasized the need for transparency while recognizing the current system's value as a crime-fighting tool.
• The City Manager was directed to follow up on resident concerns regarding specific camera locations near sensitive community sites.

Agenda Item: Receive and File Report on Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Technology and Flock Surveillance System

Presentation by Ventura County Sheriff's Office (VCSO)

• Commander Tennyson presented an overview of the VCSO's use of ALPR technology, specifically the Flock system. The presentation highlighted several recent cases where ALPR data assisted in arrests for mail theft, gang-related firearm possession, retail theft, cash robbery, and stolen vehicle recovery. Commander Tennyson stated that mobile ALPRs have been used by the agency since 2013 and that fixed cameras are currently operational in Camarillo.
• Key points regarding system operations and safeguards included:
• Data Retention: Non-evidentiary data is retained for one year from the date of capture and then permanently deleted. Data identified as evidence is retained until case adjudication and appeals are complete.
• Search Capabilities: The system allows searches for specific license plates, partial plates, vehicle makes, colors, types, and accessories (e.g., bike racks). It does not allow searching for individuals by name or identity.
• Audits: Audits are conducted weekly by the Crime Analysis Unit to ensure no searches are performed by agencies outside California or federal agencies. Audit findings are available via public records request but are not currently posted on a transparency dashboard.
• Data Sharing: An MOU exists with 58 other law enforcement agencies in California, allowing them to search the database provided they enter a case number, offense code, and reason. Agencies without an MOU must make a request verified by a human operator.
• 2025 Data Incident: Commander Tennyson addressed a previous incident where data was accessible nationwide. He stated that no VCSO personnel toggled the setting to allow this access. The likely causes were identified as a Flock employee action or a system bug during updates. Flock has since updated its code to prevent agencies outside California from accessing California law enforcement data.
• Vendor Status: The current contract with Flock extends through September of the following year. The agency is monitoring competitors, including Axon, and testing their products but has not made a decision to switch vendors.

Council Questions and Staff Responses

• Council members inquired about specific operational details:
• Funding: The Organized Retail Theft Task Force, which funds 12 of the cameras, is supported by a state grant that covers personnel through the end of the current year and camera costs for one additional year.
• Legal Liability: The City Attorney stated that under general law, ALPR use does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. The city's contract with the Sheriff's Office includes indemnification, meaning the city is not liable for claims related to the Sheriff's services. Accountability for personnel misuse lies within the Sheriff's internal investigation process.
• Other Departments: Commander Tennyson clarified that the Oxnard Police Department and LAPD did not cancel their ALPR contracts but are at the end of their terms and evaluating vendors. He noted Oxnard has added ALPRs to all patrol vehicles.
• Public Works Cameras: The Public Works Director confirmed that temporary traffic study cameras used by the city are independent of the Flock system and collect only vehicle volume and direction data.

Public Comment

• Twelve members of the public provided comments. Speakers expressed a range of views:
• Several speakers opposed the Flock system, citing concerns over mass surveillance, privacy violations, potential misuse for immigration enforcement or tracking political activities, and the lack of control over data held by a private vendor. Some referenced recent Supreme Court rulings regarding aggregate movement data and cited incidents of ALPR misuse in other jurisdictions.
• Other speakers supported the technology, emphasizing its role in solving crimes such as theft and locating missing persons. They noted the value of the tool relative to cost and expressed trust in the Sheriff's Office's implementation of safeguards.
• Specific concerns were raised regarding camera placement near schools and churches, the opacity of vendor system updates, and the lack of transparency regarding data retention by the vendor itself.

Council Discussion and Action

• Following public comment, Council members provided statements:
• Vice Mayor Santangelo: Acknowledged valid community concerns regarding privacy, surveillance, and data sharing. Stated support for exploring alternative ALPR vendors to ensure preparedness if a change is needed. Requested that the Policy Committee review the Flock contract for potential language changes to enhance oversight. Proposed establishing a citizens' committee to provide regular updates and dialogue with law enforcement on this issue.
• Council Member Kildee: Supported the use of ALPRs as a crime-fighting tool, citing court rulings on legality, the lack of false arrests in Ventura County, and the effectiveness of guardrails. Noted that while not "married" to Flock, the current system provides value. Expressed willingness to consider other vendors if they offer better protection for residents.
• Council Member (Speaker 17): Supported public safety tools while emphasizing the need for privacy and transparency. Agreed with the Vice Mayor's proposal to review alternative vendors and contract language. Suggested expanding outreach through town halls at accessible locations like the library and engaging with schools and parents.

Decision and Vote Outcome

• The item was designated as "Receive and File." No formal motion, second, or vote was taken on the adoption of a policy or the termination of the Flock contract during this session. The Council received the report and public comments for informational purposes. The City Manager was requested to follow up on specific camera placement concerns raised by residents near schools and churches. The meeting concluded with the item filed.