Residents urge South Pasadena council to cancel Flock license-plate reader contract ahead of automatic renewal

Dozens of residents used the council’s public-comment period on March 4 to press the South Pasadena City Council to cancel its contract with Flock Safety, the company that supplies automated license-plate reader (ALPR) cameras and data services for the police department. Speakers said the city should act before a contract renewal date cited during remarks, and several urged the council to call a special meeting to vote on termination.

Speakers framed their opposition around privacy and misuse: Susan Seager, a longtime resident and First Amendment law professor, urged the council to cancel the contract, saying the company “cannot be trusted” after reports that out-of-state agencies queried Flock’s national lookup and that the system had been used hundreds of thousands of times in a short period. Bill Kelly told the council the contract is set to automatically renew on March 19 and urged a special meeting next week, arguing the city can and should limit how long data are retained (he cited policies elsewhere that limit retention to minutes or days instead of weeks).

Other commenters described incidents they said show the technology’s risks. A public commenter cited cases in Milwaukee and New Mexico in which ALPR data were used in personal or erroneous enforcement actions; Christina Livadary, a South Pasadena resident, said families have been “dragged at gunpoint” and urged the council not to trade neighborhood trust for a stolen-car recovery tool. Multiple speakers warned that access to ALPR data can be used by federal immigration authorities or other agencies, and some urged that the city not outsource control of sensitive location data to a private company.

Speakers recommended specific next steps: hold an emergency council meeting to consider cancellation (or nonrenewal), require tighter limits on data retention and access, and consider whether the city should host or otherwise control any data services locally. Colin Campbell, who identified himself as the owner of a local veteran-owned business, urged transparency about who views data and asked to be introduced to the vendor-management services winner when that information is public.

City staff and council members did not engage in debate during the public-comment block; the presiding officer reminded the public that the council generally does not respond during public comment under the Brown Act. The public-comment period concluded and the council moved on to its regular agenda. No formal council action on the Flock contract was recorded in the remainder of the meeting.

The council heard many comments urging immediate action before the contract renewal date cited by speakers; the council did not announce a special meeting on the matter during this session.