Council delays decision on license-plate reader program after privacy and budget concerns

The Brentwood City Council on Feb. 11 paused consideration of a proposed license-plate reader program after members raised privacy, budget and outside-access concerns, and directed staff to return with answers at an expedited date.

“Once we get council direction on what parameters and questions you have outstanding, we can determine how long it’s going to take to come back,” City Manager Tim Ogden said during the discussion. Council approved a motion to bring the item back for further review on Feb. 25 or, if more time is needed, the March 11 meeting.

The police department’s proposal would replace an aging Vigilant system with a Flock lease and add stationary perimeter cameras to capture license-plate reads at exits from the city. The package discussed that night totaled about $240,000 over two years (roughly $120,000 per year), funded from the general fund, according to staff. The department also described using plate data in conjunction with existing Axon in-car and body cameras; those Axon cameras contain embedded plate-reading hardware that requires a Flock subscription to expose plate reads.

Lieutenant Thompson of the Brentwood Police Department described the investigative benefits of the system: “This is probably the most advantageous piece of police equipment to come forward in years from a technological perspective... It’s a force multiplier. These are on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.” He and the chief said the system would speed investigations by immediately identifying vehicles leaving crime scenes or missing-person scenes.

Council members pressed staff on two main concerns. First, privacy and legal exposure: Attorney General Rob Bonta has issued guidance and, as council members noted, some jurisdictions have received cease-and-desist letters or are reviewing data-sharing arrangements. Lieutenant Thompson said Brentwood only shares plate reads with California agencies and that any out-of-state share would require a manual administrative approval. Thompson also noted 14 agencies in Contra Costa County currently use Flock, and that regional data sharing improves solvability for crimes that cross jurisdictions.

Second, council members questioned the timing and budget impact. “We have always said yes to you,” Council Member Amanda Mendoza said. “But we have competing priorities right now.” Mendoza and others asked whether the department could delay the purchase until the next fiscal year or identify savings elsewhere in its budget.

Council Member Dan Maloney said he supported the technology for public safety. Several council members asked staff to provide additional information before committing general-fund dollars: a mapping of proposed camera locations, a clearer itemized cost and a legal summary of whether federal agencies can compel access to plate data from Flock or its partners.

The council voted unanimously to delay a final decision and asked staff to compile answers to council questions and return to the Feb. 25 meeting, with a backup date of March 11 if research requires more time.

During the discussion staff confirmed two related points: the city currently owns 34 Vigilant cameras (12 reportedly operational and 22 offline) and, if adopted, the Flock plan would add leased stationary perimeter cameras that staff said would substantially increase plate coverage. Staff also noted that some homeowners associations with private cameras could provide shared plate reads to police once a system is in place.

No final procurement or contract award was authorized on Feb. 11; the council’s motion was limited to returning the item for more information.