Santa Cruz council orders review of Flock Safety cameras after audit shows national-search exposure; community demands contract changes

Council members and dozens of residents pressed city officials on Nov. 18 over the city’s contract with Flock Safety, an automated license plate reader (ALPR) vendor, after an audit showed a national-search function in the vendor’s system had allowed cross‑jurisdictional searching that implicated California law.

Council member O’Hara opened the discussion, saying she had worked with staff and community members to respond to concerns and asking the police chief to brief the public. Police Chief Escalante told the council the city had been “recently made aware that Flock Safety identified violations” stemming from activation of a national search tool that allowed out‑of‑state agencies to search cameras that included Santa Cruz locations. He said Flock told the department it deactivated the tool on Feb. 11, 2025 and had added filters and permissions designed to prevent out‑of‑state access to cameras in California.

“We were not aware and these were not deliberate attempts by city staff to circumvent state law,” Escalante said, adding the department has met repeatedly with Flock and initiated internal changes to strengthen oversight. He said the department had found no evidence that Santa Cruz camera data had been used by a federal agency for immigration enforcement.

Community advocates pushed for stronger action. Amy, speaking for Get the Flock Out, told the council that national sharing was still occurring in other jurisdictions and argued the company’s data practices are insecure, citing claims that Flock data had appeared on dark‑web markets. Peter Galb of the ACLU asked the chief to specify which internal policies had been changed and how the city would verify security and deletion claims.

In response, O’Hara said the city will “temporarily stop participating in the statewide sharing portal, limiting access to our data while we complete this review.” She said future access would be handled on a “case‑by‑case basis” with written attestations required from requesting agencies. O’Hara also asked staff to update the city’s transparency portal with records of external searches and to return to council on Dec. 9 with the results of a comprehensive review and a proposed contract amendment.

Council members and community speakers emphasized the city’s sanctuary commitments and asked that contract language explicitly prohibit use of ALPR data for immigration enforcement. Several public commenters urged that the city either cancel or not renew the contract; others, including business and neighborhood speakers, stressed balancing privacy concerns with public‑safety benefits of cameras.

Next steps: staff will provide council a December 9 update with proposed contract language and the results of the department’s review. The council’s statements and the police chief’s briefing will be part of the public record ahead of that meeting.