City Council — August 26, 2026

We also had a resident about a year ago who reported subjects attempting to steal mail from a postal drop box in Camarillo and provided a license plate and a vehicle description. Our Advanced Real-Time Crime Center very quickly entered that plate into our ALPR system, and we received an alert on that vehicle in Ventura short time later. Our deputies arrested the subject and found more than 50 victims' stolen mail in that suspect's possession.

We had a gang member about a month and a half ago who was driving in Camarillo, and one of our patrol deputies received an ALPR alert indicating that the driver of that car was on probation. The deputy called down to dispatch, verified that the probation terms were still active, and stopped that gang member. The subject was found in possession of a loaded firearm with a high-capacity magazine Our special enforcement unit authored a search warrant for that person's resident and went back and found another gun at that gang member's resident, and seized that gun as well. And that subject was arrested and taken into custody.

Just last week we had another case of an LPR success story. In July two unknown suspects stole from Target and fled in a car. Video surveillance showed the license plate but investigators were unable to link the license plate with the people they saw on the videos. They entered the license plate onto a hot list. And just last Friday, that vehicle returned to Camarillo and alerted our detectives that it was back in town.

They coordinated with loss prevention at Target and with our patrol deputies and located that vehicle as it was fleeing target after committing another theft. The same suspects from the July theft were in that car and were arrested with another $1,500 in stolen merchandise. We had another Camarillo resident who withdrew a significant amount of cash from the bank before going to another store. An unknown subject followed that victim, broke into the victim's car and stole several thousand dollars in cash.

License plate reader records helped to identify the suspect vehicle which ultimately led to their identification and arrest. In the last one, a Camarillo resident reported her vehicle being stolen. Our Arctic operator found an LPR hit on the stolen vehicle in Thousand Oaks and sent deputies to the area to look for that stolen vehicle. Deputies located the stolen vehicle and arrested two Oxnard residents within one hour of the vehicle being reported stolen to us.

I can tell you, I could spend an hour going over the success stories that we've had because of license plate readers here in Camarillo For those who have been victims of these crimes, they've been eternally grateful when we use tools that are legally available to us to bring them some sense of justice. I want this Council and our residents to know that we hear them when they bring their concerns to us.

We investigate, we speak to other agencies and we research. We take action just like the Sheriff's Office did when we proactively discovered the data issue from 2025 and reported it to the public end of this council. We take action just like we did by implementing audit controls, first daily and now weekly to ensure that our data is secure. We look at the issues that are brought to our attention and we base our requests and recommendation on facts and on evidence.

As we continue to look for responsible technologies that will assist us, we base our strategies on the five principles that you see here. They're the foundation to decisions being made on technology that is changing rapidly. As we've discussed before in other presentations I've made on LPRs, our agency has used mobile ALPR technology in our patrol vehicles for well over a decade now and we still use that with our use of Axon's Fleet 3 in-car video system.

We are also monitoring the market and looking at FLOX competitors to see if another product is available that meets our strict requirements and we will practice good governance in considering making changes to another vendor. I've taken a lot more time than normal tonight because I believe our community and this council deserve accurate information about this technology, the concerns that surround it and exactly how the Ventura County Sheriff's Office uses it.

We've listened to those concerned, we've examined the facts and we put safeguards in place to ensure this technology is used lawfully, responsibly and with accountability. But ultimately this comes back to why we use it. We use ALPR's because they help us find stolen vehicles, they help us locate vulnerable missing people, they help us identify and arrest people committing crimes in our community and they bring justice to victims.

We can protect privacy and protect our community at the same time. And I believe the facts and results I've shared with you tonight demonstrate that the Ventura County Sheriff's Office, and the Camarillo Police Department are doing exactly that. Trust isn't something we ask for it's something we earn and we intend to keep earning it. That concludes my presentation.

Thank You Commander. Council any questions? Mr. Kildee?

Yeah, Eric as far as Ventura County how long do we keep the data in our system here?

We keep our data for one year and then it's permanently deleted

Is it one, is it a sliding year? In other words if let's say you get a hit April 24th do you wait for next April 24th or is that a calendar year.

It's for the read itself so if I take a read today that read in one year will be out of our system another read if it's captured tomorrow that read will be a year and then it'll be out of the system If any ALPR images that we collect are identified as evidence in a case, we tag those as evidence and we keep those for longer. As long as it takes for the case to be adjudicated in any appeals process to have occurred. So some data can stay longer but only when it becomes evidentiary.

And that data is not shared with any other federal agency? That's true Talk about that retail theft task force, if you will. Is that funded by a grant or is that included in the amount of money we spend on the cameras that we've

installed? The organized retail theft task force is funded by a grant. I think it was obtained about three years ago now. In addition to funding people to be on the task force that have put in a lot of time and effort in Camarillo, specifically out at our outlets. That grant funded the license plate readers that I mentioned, the 12 other license plate readers that are here and around Camarillo.

And that grant came from, did it come from the state? The private entity? Who did who did that grant? Who funded that grant It came from the State of California And how

long is that grant going to be in place? The positions from the grant

end this year. So at the end of the year, those positions will be gone. They will pay for our license plate readers for one more year.

OK. So we basically have the end of this year and perhaps one more year of funding that task force if you will. Well not so much a task force but the cameras. Yes. Yeah. All right. Thank you. You're welcome.

Question Councilmember Santangelo.

Thank you, actually I had a whole long list of questions and you've answered most of them in the presentation. I had questions about policies, I had questions about well I'll ask this one does the flock system allow users to search anyone they want?

So we don't search for people. So it doesn't allow us to search for any people, it allows us to search for a specific license plate. It allowed us to search for a partial license plate. It allows us to search for a make, a color or a vehicle type along with if the vehicle has a bike rack on it, a roof rack or sticker in the window around the bumper but it does not allow us to search for people. Doesn't have that capability.

Okay, thank you. And you said that any officer that is allowed to use the ALPR database has specific training? Yes. How long have ALPRs been in use? You said over a decade?

For our agency, we started using mobile ALPRs in 2013. Prior to that, we used kind of a rudimentary way of doing it by using game cameras that had infrared Lenses on them that captured images as well but they didn't go into a database and it was incredibly inefficient and ineffective. And the license plate reader technology is much better now,

okay? And who conducts the audits

our crime analysis unit conducts the audits and they fall under our special services division, okay,

and They're done weekly now.

They are done weekly

Okay And you said we're looking at other vendors into how much depth.

So we have, there's quite a few license plate reader vendors out there. We were previously a customer of Vigilant which is owned by Motorola. We went away from them because we found that technology they had fallen behind in some of the technology and capabilities. Axon also offers license plate readers and we are testing some of their license plate readers.

They are new to the license plate reader Class, I would say. And so they're developing their license plate readers and we haven't made any decisions yet on whether we want to go a different direction. We still have a contract as you know with Flock through September of next year.

All right. That's all the questions I have for you, thank you again for your presentation. You're welcome. I do have a question for the city attorney if that's okay? Sure. Would it be possible for the City Council to write a policy, a city policy that has any authority over FLOC and the Sheriff's Organization?

So if the policy would govern how Ventura County Sheriff's Department utilizes their, the FLOC system We do not have employee authorization over that entity. We contract with them to provide us services, but we would not be able to require them to follow additional policies. Thank you. That's all the questions I have.

Thank You Vice Mayor.

Chief Tennyson, thank you very much for your presentation which was very much in depth. I have in-depth questions too. I have quite a bit so the first question is we've received several comments emails indicating that Regarding the City of Oxnard Police Department and LAPD's flawed camera suspension of ALPRs, you touched a little bit on LAPD. Can you speak to both? And if you have any context to add regarding both departments?

Yes, I can. I know that the Oxnard Police Department did not cancel their contract. They were at the end of their contract and so they were practicing good governance and they're looking at other LPR vendors and they're still doing that. I also know that Oxnard Police Department did add LPRs to all of their patrol vehicles. So I think that context is important in this. And again, the Los Angeles Police Department also did not cancel a contract. They are at the end of their contract and they are working on The city of Oxnard has added to all the vehicles that was after. You actually are

Okay, thank you for that information and clarification. And then the next one is regarding an article that I had shared with you earlier today. There was an article that was shared with me by multiple people regarding the city of Oshkosh Kind of like, I guess like the store but not the store. The city and their termination of the flock contract but continuation of ALPRs.

The termination appeared to be due to what the chief perceived as inaccurate information from flock regarding heat maps. What do you know in terms of heat maps as they relate to flock?

I don't know what that chief, I read the same article you shared with me. I don't know what he was talking about with a heat map but I will look into it and get back to you.

Okay. That would be great. Thank you. And then the next question is regarding The error that occurred, would you be able to, because I believe there were three options as to what the possibilities were. Would you be able to inform us as to the update that you most have?

Yeah, so when we discovered that our data was open for searches and we talked extensively with FLOC about it. There were three explanations, three possible explanations. One was that a member of our agency toggled the switch that allowed us to share all of our data nationally. One was that somebody within FLOC did that and another option was or another possible explanation was that there was a system bug All I can say definitively is that nobody from the Ventura County Sheriff's Office toggled a switch that opened up our data. So it was either a FLOC employee that did it or it was a system bug, and at the time FLOC was doing some updates to their system and so it seems like that's probably the most logical explanation.

That it was most likely a system bug?

Yes.

Okay thank you. The next question is, and Chief Tennyson you touched on that a bit on your presentation regarding the Fourth Amendment. And I wanted to ask a question about that in legal liability. And Rachel, I actually wanted to get your input on that. What Fourth Amendment lawsuits or legal challenges have involved fault cameras or similar ALPR reader systems and given that, I guess the second piece of the question is given that the city of Camarillo's agreement is with a sheriff's department.

Is the city indemnified against any lawsuits potential lawsuits in the future? And what liabilities remain within this city versus the county or the sheriffs? So I

can't answer how many haven't researched that how many cases are out there but as the commander noted And I did review those cases. The general law is that the Fourth Amendment is not implicated by the use of this technology as far as indemnification, that's correct. The city has a contract for sheriff services and for the services that they provide, they are to indemnify us for their services.

OK,

so what that means is that we are not liable. So if a claim comes in related to how this information was And then, this is a broader question.

And it's partially for you and then Chief Tennyson, feel free to answer it as well. Ultimately who is accountable when flock technology is misused or when a security breach occurs or the use of a system results in a violation of state law? Or what protections does the city have in those circumstances? And then the additional question that I have is more related to the system bug was that a violation of state law and if so who is accountable?

So either

I can answer to the part about who's accountable when the system is misused. If we discover or it's reported to us and we discover that one of our personnel misused it, we will conduct an internal investigation and if discipline is warranted, discipline will be given. The breach, as it's been called or the opening of our data for searching. We didn't violate SB 54. The sheriff's office didn't. We're not the ones who shared that data with anybody else. So we're not in violation of SB 34, SB 54 and so there's no crime for us to investigate in that but from individual uses or individual misuses Our personnel who are responsible for that are held accountable through our internal investigative process.

Okay, so for the system error itself That's that in terms of what happened, then there is no one to hold accountable. I guess that's the part I'm not

well, I think the accountability aspect and that comes from a review of our contract. And if we feel that for some reason our contract has been breached by that system bug, the accountability factor could be that we work to cancel our contract with flock and move to potentially move to a different vendor.

OK, thank you. Just to clarify, so I understood there are 25 flock cameras if we can go back to that or that one slide. Or how many flock cameras are currently operational?

We have 25 flock cameras that are operational in Camarillo that are paid for by the city

and

we have 12 that are funded through the ORT task force.

Okay And then this question is actually for Public Works, for you Dave actually. So many times I get questions about like those cameras that are used more like in the streets to study street issues. So for example, when I was a part of the infrastructure and safety at that committee we had concerns over some pedestrian issues and I had asked to have For example, Village at the Park or over there by Pitts Ranch on Flynn Road studied.

And it's my understanding that some of those cameras went up. Can you just talk about what those look like and what they do? And who owns all of that?

Sure, yes. The city owns that within Public Works, our traffic division when we are collecting vehicle data for studies of certain road segments or intersections. One of the tools that we have is a temporary placement of a video camera that captures images and basically records when a shape of its vehicle So we're collecting data for volumes, numbers of vehicles and it can sense which direction the vehicle is traveling. So those are purely temporary placements for collecting traffic data.

Okay. And are these cameras connected to or accessible through their FLOX system at all?

No, no they're totally independent installation.

Okay, thank you very much. And then the next question, Council Member Santangelo, you touched a little bit on the audits and oversight. So now they're hap- the audits are happening on a weekly basis is my understanding?

Yes.

And then in terms of who conducts the audit, the audits it's the VCOE who's experts on that?

Our Director of Crime Analysis conducts the audit.

And what exactly is measured or reviewed during each audit?

So we look through every single day's worth of searches and we are working to ensure that there are no, or we're looking to ensure that there are no searches by agencies outside the state of California. No federal agencies and no other state or local agencies outside the state of California.

Okay, I know that there is a transparency like portal or section in on the sheriff's web page. Are those audit findings available to the public? Is that something that's listed? It's not

listed on the transparency dashboard

but

it's a public records requestable document i guess so

Okay, I'm just wondering is that something that could be added? I mean you're not finding anything. I guess

it doesn't the search the audit itself. I don't believe creates a record all we know is that the audit was done. I don't believe it creates an independent record. That is something that we could post or release

Oh, I see. Okay. And then the next question was about alternatives if you can provide an update as to the alternatives but I think you already did that Councilmember Santandelo asked that and then the next part is I actually had shared a link with you and for those at home maybe you'd like to follow it it's the Institute for Justice it's their own database of ALPR abuse and there's a way to kind of search like how many incidents there have been. I understand there's over 18,000 police departments in the country approximately?

Is that about right? That's probably right. Okay and in California you said how many 57?

Well we have 58 county sheriff's offices in California but there's lot of local municipal PDs as well and I don't know what that number is.

Okay. So when looking on that link, it shows a total of eight incidents and so what I wanted to do is read maybe some of these scenarios of incidents that happened and then your response in terms of how would that compare to the policy that we have in place or to that experience that we have in place here? So the first one is in February of 2026, a San Francisco officer violated the department's conflict of interest policy by obtaining flock images of her relatives' stolen car and posting them to Instagram.

That would be a violation of our policy, Policy 429, and we'd conduct an internal investigation.

Okay. And then... In terms of the policy what's set in there that would protect?

We're only to use AOPR systems for official law enforcement purposes.

Okay, and then through your audits you would find that if somebody's searching?

Either an audit or somebody would report to us if their license plate were posted on social media most likely it would come from a external report to us

Okay. And then in November 2025, based on flock capture officers mistook an innocent driver's car for one that was at the scene of an attempted carjacking. The driver was jailed for nearly one month. This was San Diego, California.

Yeah, so that to me that lacks context because there could be a whole host of reasons why that license plate was recorded as stolen. Perhaps it wasn't removed from the state's stolen vehicle system yet. Perhaps it was because it hadn't been recalled in a timely manner. I think it was reported stolen. To me, there could be a number of explanations that don't necessarily mean the officers did anything wrong on that one.

This is from 2024 Riverside County, California. After being arrested for kidnapping his ex-fiancee deputy, this deputy allegedly used the department's flock system to track one of her friends in December of 2025 he was convicted so I guess similar to the...

Yeah that sounds like a pretty obvious policy violation.

Okay all right let me see here Well, I think those are all the questions that I had. Those are all the questions that I had. Thank you.

You're welcome. One quick question since all of the rest have been asked. You said that the SO has an MOU with 57 other sheriff's departments in California?

No, with 58 other law enforcement agencies within California.

Does that give them unfettered access to our LPR data or do they still have to make a request that your agency would authorize?

No, that MOU gives them the ability to search our database as long as they follow the rules of entering a case number, a criminal offense code and a reason for the search.

And an agency that you don't have an MOU with could still make a request to the Sheriff's Office.

They absolutely could.

And that is verified and approved by a human being, they can't just go in and search?

That's correct.

And the breach that you talked about that allowed nationwide unfettered access of the LPR data for the Sheriff's Office That ability has been completely negated for all California law enforcement on ALPRs, is that correct with FLOC?

That's correct. FLOC wrote into their programming code now the inability for any agency outside the state to be searching California law enforcement agencies data.

Okay thank you we are going to take a quick 10 minute recess before we open up the public comment portion Our city attorney and staff, so we will reconvene the City Council meeting. Madam Clerk do we have any public speakers on this item?

Yes Mayor, we have about 20, I'm sorry 12 people wanting to speak. Each speaker will have three minutes when your time expires you will be muted and

Welcome again.

I did want to bring something up, I felt really important it's going to go into my planned comment comment but if you don't want the accusations that cameras are facing children or churches There are two that I'm aware of because it's in close proximity to my home. On the corner of Las Posas and Crestview is a camera facing the parking lot exit of St Mary Magdalene Catholic Church with a peripheral view, in my opinion, of Nancy Bush Park. There's also another camera just south of Las Posas where it is directly placed, where Las Posas Elementary School is to the right hand side. You could very easily take that camera more south away from the children at that school.

So don't give the perception of them tracking children and churchgoers. This City Council chose willful ignorance over due diligence when you expanded the city's flock cameras last year, despite constituent after constituent coming before you to express serious concerns that you chose to ignore. After persistence from the community, Commander Tennyson reached out to flock to verify safeguards that had been promised to the city and to inquire how to best respond to the criticism this council continued to receive.

It was only then that someone anyone in Ventura County apparently thought to independently audit the data and what did the data reveal? That safeguards officials believed were in place were not working as assumed a feature believed to have been disabled had been re-enabled allowing hundreds of thousands of searches So who falls on the sword of this incompetence? Commander Tennyson, Sheriff Fryhoff, Flock or this City Council. The people who chose to expand the surveillance system while ignoring the very warnings your constituents brought before you.

There is now a class action lawsuit involving Flock Surveillance Network that specifically points to the Ventura County incident. According to allegations in that lawsuit, Flock reportedly could not determine exactly what caused the feature to be re-enabled. Possible explanations reported included Flock employee, a system bug or someone within the Sheriff's Office.

Think about that. We entrusted the surveillance of our community for a for-profit company, and when a critical safeguard failed we apparently cannot even say with certainty who turned it back on or how it happened. It is not a coincidence that soon after this breach of our data occurred immigration enforcement escalated here in our community and has since directly harmed hundreds of those very people you took an oath to protect and serve. Shame on all of you. Commander Tennyson, you came before this council and this community on March 11th and assured us that FLOC will be the best option still and that the Sheriff's Office is now conducting daily audits. Today I learned it's now weekly.

When was that communicated to us or this council that we were no longer doing daily audits? And what do all these other cities see that Camarillo has chosen to ignore when they have decided to discontinue their contracts with FLOC?

Thank you.

Larry Gasson.

Good afternoon, Council.

Welcome.

We've heard a lot about data being sequestered and then trapped and then deleted locally but not a word about the data that's gone to The outside providers and how long they keep it. As we all know, data is precious. Storage is cheap and that data will be used at some point in time for reasons it wasn't initially stated. Those are my concerns. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Michael Cordell followed by Lynn Dines.

Welcome sir.

Thank you. I appreciate you really looking into this whole issue. It really is concerning to a lot of people, I appreciate that presentation it was really eye opening and clarifying on a lot of different things in my mind. I appreciate that we are doing due diligence Thank you. And that our police department is actually looking at these things really, really hard and answering the questions that people are having in concerns of people are having so I want to just commend you for that thank you.

Resident California of camera for about 40 years

Hello, my name is Lynn Dines. I've been a resident of Camarillo for over 40 years. I'm here today to express my alarm at the growing use of flock cameras in our community. We're told they keep us safe but there are increasing concerns that these cameras are being used to create a nationwide mass surveillance network sometimes illegally connecting agencies outside of our area with our local police agencies, including the Ventura County Sheriff's Department. Recent searches from outside California have targeted immigration information about Ventura County residents and searches in the San Bernardino area not only targeted immigrants but immigration protests.

Concerns about targeted searches into personal information and targeting women seeking reproductive care outside of their state are also increasing. The ACLU considers flock cameras a major civil liberties threat that enables unwarranted mass surveillance of the public infringing on our Fourth Amendment rights. Flock cameras detail data on every car that passes by, not just your license plate but everything from the scratches on the front end to the bumper sticker on the back and they do it regardless of whether you are suspected of a crime or not.

Then they upload the data to a national database that is accessible to law enforcement agencies with a FLOC contract. And the system uses AI to catalog and match data for everyone passing by one of their cameras. potentially revealing personal details that have nothing to do with a crime, including religious affiliation, political activities and other associations. For these reasons I urge you to cancel the FLOC contracts currently in place and remove the cameras from our city. Thank you.

Thank you.

Matthew

O'Neill

Welcome.

Thank you. All right, good evening Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members. My name is Matt O'Neill. I've been a long-time resident of Ventura County 26 years altogether throughout the county, the last two years being in Camarillo. First off, want to thank Chief for giving a pretty robust presentation on the benefits of ALPR and all the good things they've done for the city And I don't think anyone here who opposes ALPRs would disagree, right? I think everyone kind of has an understanding that these devices can be used for immense good.

There's two things though I wanted to really focus on tonight. The first of which being the 2025 data breach which we've talked about kind of ad nauseum tonight so I'm not gonna hash out all the facts again But I wanted to bring up a really important point regarding that data breach in particular. And Vice Mayor, you kind of were hitting at it in regards to accountability.

When we talk about ALPRs, a word that constantly gets brought up is transparency. Now, I did a FOIA request about a month back And the Ventura County Sheriff's Office was very forthcoming. Provided me with all the data that I requested, and the data that they couldn't provide, they provided a reason for that. Now... The problem is, is I don't trust the partner agency.

And I think everybody in this room would admit that the partner agency probably hasn't displayed the best track record of being transparent And in regards to the 2025 data breach, it took almost 10 months for us to independently audit that data and come to the conclusion that there was unlawfully shared data. Why wasn't FLOC coming to us? They understood in March of 2025 that that data had been compromised. They understood that that data was illegally shared And instead of reaching out to the partner agencies alerting us that that had happened, they sat on it.

They hid it. They didn't tell us anything. Now I can only assume the reason for that but that assumption is that they understood that admitting a data breach of that size would impact profit. They understood that a data breach that size would impact public trust So I really, really want to put that on display for all of you. That some of us just don't trust Flock and I think that's understandable. I think that's okay.

We don't trust the vendor we're with. And I also think if we continue to go...

Your time is up sir. Thank you.

Alina Vane followed by Bruce Little

Good evening and

welcome. I just wanted to come up here and speak on how I'm extremely against all FLOC and ALPRs that have been put up in our community, extremely quickly. And I think it should be concerning to everyone here that these cameras have been slowly and surely popping up everywhere in Camarillo and how easily it was for mass surveillance in our community to become so prevalent.

Across our country, we are seeing dozens of cases of misuse of these cameras. The information they store on these cameras in their system to stalk minorities especially women. Flock specifically has been used to investigate random citizens without just cause. Just look at all these people finding out their license plates were scanned through flock on haveibeenflocked.com for example There's no evidence that these cameras are making our community safer.

making sure that there's less crime in our communities, but all of these studies are paid for by FLOC. So it's going to have a lot of bias in both their research methods and conclusions. If the surveillance made our community safers we would see less AMBER alerts, more human trafficking victims would be saved and more carjackings and robberies would be solved in no time.

Mass surveillance doesn't make our community safer. It only strips away our privacy and our autonomy as individuals. These cameras are not just taking photos of your license plates, and I truly believe that even after hearing the presentation earlier. They're feeding their AI models. FLOG cameras are specifically gathering information about you and your vehicle to create a unique fingerprint about you in their system.

Do you have Bluetooth turned on, on your mobile device that you go in your car with? Some ALPRs are starting to add Bluetooth readers to their devices to now associate you with your car and Bluetooth device. This means if you aren't in your car and you're strolling past the camera, either by foot or in another car, they know that you're there. Flock has also recently introduced AI models into their Flock system. I don't think Camarillo is using it yet but I don t like that as a company they are introducing it.

The media outlet Wired recently got code to this AI and it says And I quote, the code describes 45 tools at the AI's disposal giving it access to plate scans, camera metadata, arrest records, case files, dispatch logs, ballistics results, commercial databases that contain social security numbers, date of birth, phone numbers, email addresses and the data goes on. This AI can also be prompted to find people within a given area during a length of time using physical descriptions alone And I just want you to know that this was a wire article that was...

Thank you. Your time is up, thank you.

Bruce Little followed by Chris Espinoza.

Welcome sir.

Most of what I have to say has already been said, so I'm going to eliminate it. And Chief, I did a count today and I think I counted between Central Avenue and Santa Rosa Valley almost 50 cameras. So maybe some are outside the city limits but there's a number of cameras here that are higher than what you said. My name is Bruce Little. I live in Camarillo. I'm going to eliminate most of this.

We all want safe neighborhoods. Public safety does not require us to surrender our basic right to live without being continuously catalogued, searched and tracked. Most information from a license plate camera may seem narrow, and you've accurately described what it collects. So I'm not going to go over that again. But I am going to hit the part that the lady just before me started to bring up, and that's that flood cameras as they exist now won't stay the same. They're going to change.

And they're not going to need the solar panel And the camera will change. It will become a an R radio frequency technology and the RS systems can detect signals emitted by cell phones, vehicles, toll tags, Bluetooth devices, Wi-Fi devices and other connected equipment individually these signals may appear anonymous combined with cameras location record and software they can become a powerful identity trail Which devices travel together? Which locations they repeatedly visit?

Which patterns suggest work, worship, medical appointments, political meetings, family relationships, private associations etc.? ? The danger is not only in what the government intends to do today. The danger is what the government, possible to what the government is going to do tomorrow with the stores of personal data that they will have existed by then. As Camarillo considers existing or new surveillance technology It must require a clear demonstrated need, independent public oversight, strict limits on data collection and retention. Not a year more like a few weeks.

A warrant requirement for searches that Reconstructs a person's movements, ban on using our identities to build personal level tracking databases used for tracking immigration. You can't do that either or protests or political surveillance public audits and there need to be consequences for any violations but the better choice is to reject systems designed for mass collection in the first place We should invest in proven people-centered safety.

Let us choose

safety with liberty. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you.

Chris Espinosa followed by Joel Lassen

Hello again, Mr Espinoza. Welcome this time.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and members of the Council. I'm here to speak on behalf of the community with very serious concerns around flock cameras. I think that was an excellent presentation by the chief but I think it's lacking in a number of ways. You know, threats to our civil liberties only come inches at a time. And the chief talked about how important trust is to law enforcement and I agree with him on that. Trust is important and sacrosanct and I think the issue at hand here It's trust in other agencies. We have documented cases of DHS using back doors, here in California, in Mountain View. The ACLU has documented this. 404 Media has documented this. So the risks to our community are real despite the Sheriff's Office assertions.

He talked about the civil liberties implications with the Fourth Amendment and he mentioned the Fifth Circuit case. What he did not mention is Chattery versus the United States which was just ruled upon in the Supreme Court at the end of June of this year And it holds that individuals retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the aggregate records of their physical movements. Now, that case was just ruled on. There will be plenty of cases to come that are going to test the limits of that and I think the risks to our community are serious We need to take these concerns seriously. I don't think that we need flock infrastructure, I do agree with some of the other speakers that we're creating and contributing to a national surveillance infrastructure that is ultimately going to put us all at risk.