Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Livingston council pauses expansion of Flock Safety license‑plate cameras after privacy and data‑control concerns
Summary
The Livingston City Council voted to continue consideration of a $90,000 purchase of 10 additional Flock Safety automated license‑plate readers after a multi‑hour public debate about who controls the data, retention and state limits on sharing with federal agencies.
The Livingston City Council voted 5‑0 to continue consideration of expanding its network of Flock Safety automated license‑plate reader (LPR) cameras so staff can compile more information about data storage, access and vendor safeguards. The council action preserves the city’s current LPR deployment while staff returns with more technical detail.
Council and members of the public said the most important questions are who controls recorded plate data, how long records are retained, and whether a private vendor or federal authorities could obtain city records without local approval. The council’s discussion included a detailed presentation from John Ramirez, interim chief of police, and a legal summary from the city attorney.
The chief said the city and police department are the legal owners of LPR data collected by the Flock cameras and that Flock retains records in its system for 30 days. "The Livingston Police Department and the City of Livingston owns the FLOC cameras, the information that comes to us. So FLOC system itself does not have access to the cameras," John Ramirez, interim chief of police, said. He added the department uses the system for investigative purposes and cited arrests and recoveries the cameras helped produce.
Council members and residents pressed for more detail about Flock’s third‑party storage, whether the vendor can produce data in response to subpoenas or federal requests, and what contractual or technical controls the city can require to prevent unauthorized access. The city attorney summarized state limits on information sharing: "Under SB 54, that's the California Values Act, codified at Government Code section 7284 et seq., it does restrict when local agencies can cooperate with federal agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security," the city attorney said.
Public commenters and several council members described successful criminal investigations aided by LPRs, including a recent example the police said helped locate an abducted 16‑year‑old, while other speakers and one council member cited national reporting and legal filings showing vendor data can be requested by outside agencies.
After questions from the council and public comment, a motion to bring the item back to a future meeting for further information passed 5‑0. The council directed staff to ask Flock to appear or provide technical documentation about encryption, retention, access controls, subpoena handling, and any contractual guarantees; staff indicated they will also post vendor transparency information for residents.
The item will return to a subsequent council meeting; staff said they would try to have Flock staff available to answer technical questions in person or by remote presentation.
Ending: Council members said they wanted definitive documentation before authorizing additional cameras: Chief Ramirez offered to share the list of outside agencies that have requested access and to work with the vendor to clarify safeguards. The council’s vote preserved the status quo and required staff follow up on Flock’s data handling practices and any legal vulnerabilities to outside subpoenas or federal requests.
