Simi Valley police defend Flock LPR use as residents press for greater transparency

Sergeant Patrick Zacek, speaking for the Simi Valley Police Department, told the City Council on April 6 that the department operates a network of fixed and deployable Flock license‑plate reader (LPR) cameras intended to help investigators track vehicles tied to crimes and recover stolen property.

In a roughly 30‑minute presentation, Zacek said the city controls 23 fixed Flock cameras that cover primary ingress points, plus three rapidly deployable “flex” cameras; the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office maintains six additional cameras obtained through organized retail theft grants to which Simi Valley has access. "It's pictures only," Zacek said, describing the system as capturing still images of license plates ("no sound, no video, and there's no facial [recognition]"). He said administrators limit access to officers and dispatchers and require multi‑factor authentication, and that the department has completed internal and external audits covering the last two and a half years.

Why it matters: residents at the meeting said recent changes in Flock’s subscription terms and the company’s handling of audit logs have eroded trust. During public comment, Sarah Wilcheski said Flock’s updated terms removed prior restrictions on use and could allow perpetual, royalty‑free use of data, and she urged the city to clarify who can view and share information. "Flock is not a trustworthy company," Wilcheski said, listing alleged contract changes and security findings she said were logged in the national vulnerability database.

Zacek responded to council questions about system settings and audits, saying the department has filters enabled to block immigration searches and reproductive‑care searches and that he found zero immigration or abortion‑related inquiries in the department’s two‑and‑a‑half‑year audit. "In my time, and I'm one of the administrators for the Flock system, we have made 0 immigration arrests, 0 abortion enforcement," he said. He acknowledged legacy interface issues and blanks in publicly posted audit fields and said staff are conducting weekly internal and external audits and working with the vendor to tighten data‑entry and reporting.

Council members pressed for technical clarifications and assurances about digital guardrails. One council member asked whether any user could toggle off protections; Zacek said only administrators can do that and that current settings prevent out‑of‑state agencies from being granted access. Residents pointed to past meetings where similar questions were raised and asked for follow‑up materials and a clearer, public explanation of who is authorized to search the system and how audit logs are preserved.

What’s next: the presentation was informational and involved no formal council vote. Zacek said staff will continue weekly audits and follow up on gaps between legacy and current interface displays. Several residents requested a future, more detailed staff report and publicly accessible documentation clarifying access, retention and third‑party sharing.

Representative quotes: "It's pictures only. There's no sound, no video, and there's no facial [recognition]," Sergeant Patrick Zacek said. "Flock is not a trustworthy company," Sarah Wilcheski said, urging the council to address recent terms‑of‑service changes.

Ending: The council did not take formal action on the LPR program at the meeting; staff said they will continue audits and respond to specific questions raised by residents.