Eureka council rejects Flock Safety license-plate camera contract after hours of debate and public comment

Eureka City Council voted 5-0 Feb. 4 to reject a proposed two-year contract with Flock Safety for 21 automated license-plate recognition cameras after an extended public hearing that drew more than two hours of comments and repeated questions from council members.

The vote follows presentations from Eureka Police Department Chief Stevens and a Flock representative and lengthy public comment. Chief Stevens told the council the department sought the technology as a “tool to help fight our crime within our city,” and said staff had revised a draft policy after consultation with the city attorney, the independent police auditor and the City’s civilian oversight board. A Flock representative told the council that captured images and records would be encrypted “end to end.”

Supporters of the technology argued ALPR systems can quickly identify stolen or wanted vehicles, narrow searches, and reduce manpower required for some time-sensitive investigations. Chief Stevens described cases where searching scattered private camera footage took hours and said ALPR hits could focus officers more quickly on a suspect vehicle. He and the Flock representative also described a 30-day default data-retention period and annual audits as safeguards.

Opponents, who filled the council chambers and provided extensive written and spoken testimony, urged the council to reject the contract. Speakers cited repeated concerns about the contract language that allows Flock to “access, use, preserve, and/or disclose” footage if Flock has a “good faith belief” it is necessary; the company’s national infrastructure and use of cloud providers; the possibility that data could be subject to out-of-state or federal subpoenas; and evidence from other jurisdictions that ALPR systems had led to misuses and provided limited crime-reduction benefit. Several public speakers also noted local and national lawsuits and reported incidents where Flock data had been misused by individuals with access.

Council members said they had serious reservations about privacy, statewide and out-of-state data-sharing risks, and the city’s ability to guarantee long-term protections if federal law or priorities change. City Attorney Luna told the council that Lexipol-based policy language and state law were referenced in the draft policy but that recent, staff-level suggestions had not been fully incorporated into the published policy due to the short timeframe between meetings. Deputy city staff and the chief described proposed annual auditing, training requirements, and a limit on retention, but council members said the safeguards were insufficient to mitigate the broad legal and policy risks raised in public comment and during council questioning.

After discussion, Council member Castellano moved to deny implementation of the ALPR program and to deny entering into a two-year contract with Flock Safety for 21 cameras and associated services. The motion was seconded and carried on a 5-0 roll-call vote.

What happened next: The council’s rejection leaves the department without the vendor service that had been proposed, but Chief Stevens said earlier in the hearing that staff would continue to explore crime-reduction tools and would work with the city attorney and oversight board on any future proposals. The council did not direct a specific follow-up action at the Feb. 4 meeting; several council members suggested additional staff review and community engagement would be needed before revisiting similar technology.

Why it matters: Council members, staff and dozens of residents framed the debate as a local test case of how small cities regulate surveillance technologies that are increasingly used nationwide. The decision leaves in place existing local camera arrangements and any Flock deployments by other agencies in Humboldt County, while ending the city-level procurement proposed on Feb. 4.

Votes at a glance: Motion to deny city implementation and a two-year contract with Flock Safety for 21 ALPR cameras — Mover: Council member Castellano; Second: not specified; Tally: Yes 5, No 0; Outcome: approved (denial motion carried).