Citizen Portal
Sign In

Residents press council to cancel Flock license‑plate camera contract, citing privacy concerns

Twentynine Palms City Council · February 25, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Dozens of residents urged the Twentynine Palms council to terminate its contract with Flock license‑plate cameras, saying the cameras enable persistent tracking, create privacy risks and may harm tourism and marginalized residents; several speakers cited other cities that have reversed similar contracts.

A string of public commenters at the Twentynine Palms council meeting on Feb. 24 urged elected officials to end the city’s contract with Flock, the vendor providing license‑plate reading cameras.

Multiple speakers said the cameras enable wide‑scale tracking of vehicle movements and raised concerns about who has access to the database and whether data could be shared across jurisdictions. Heather Drake told the council she opposed the cameras and readers, reading constituent comments that said, in part, “We are a community that supports many different kinds of people … we don't want those in power in the government spying on us without a warrant.” Victor Lewis said, “I don't want to be watched,” and other speakers cited examples of cities that have terminated Flock contracts or limited use after privacy incidents.

Speakers also pointed to reports and ACLU findings about license‑plate reader programs and urged the council to add the matter to a future agenda for proper community discussion. One commenter delivered a copy of a Feb. 20 letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development related to an unrelated rezoning matter (the Uveland General Plan Amendment); the letter asked for a written response by March 20 if state housing-law requirements were not followed.

Council members did not take immediate action on the Flock contract at the meeting; several residents asked the council to place the contract on an upcoming agenda for fuller discussion.

What’s next: community advocates asked for a council agenda item to evaluate the contract and for staff to provide records and audits related to system access and audit logs.