Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance And Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakewood council rejects one-year extension of Flock Safety pilot after heated debate over privacy and security
Summary
After hours of testimony from staff, law enforcement and dozens of residents, the Lakewood City Council voted 3-2 against a motion to extend a one-year pilot agreement with Flock Safety for 59 license-plate readers and 10 video cameras. Supporters cited arrests and stolen-vehicle recoveries; opponents raised vendor security failures, possible federal access and contract risks.
Mayor Chase opened the adjourned Council meeting to consider a staff recommendation on a pilot agreement with Flock Safety, a private vendor that supplies automated license-plate readers (ALPR/LPR) and video cameras.
City Manager Thaddeus McCormick told the council staff's recommendation was guided by two priorities: public safety and personal privacy. He said staff had found no evidence that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other Department of Homeland Security subagencies accessed Lakewood's pilot data during the trial and emphasized that state law (SB 34 and SB 54) governs any interagency sharing of ALPR data.
Director of Public Safety York described the pilot that began in 2025 and comprised 59 LPR devices and 10 Flock video cameras deployed at high-traffic intersections. York said the pilot produced 70 notable incidents, including 45 arrests, 31 stolen-vehicle recoveries and 18 investigative leads. He told the council the cameras record a vehicle's rear image, plate read, time and location, and that data access is limited to authorized Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) personnel under CJIS and department policy.
Jeff Jordan, a Flock representative, defended the company's security posture and said the vendor and LASD had implemented filters to prevent searches tied to immigration or reproductive-health questions for California customers. Jordan described Flock as a force multiplier that can increase investigative capacity and said the company had added auditing and monitoring features in response to community concerns.
The LASD ASAP unit sergeant told the council the department runs monthly, randomized audits of plate searches, requires unit-commander approvals for accounts, and had not observed misuse in Lakewood. He conceded the potential for individual abuse exists with any law-enforcement database, and said the department's policy and audit practices are meant to mitigate that risk.
Public comment stretched for hours and showed deep division. Dozens of residents and several former law-enforcement officers urged the council to keep the system, saying LPR alerts led deputies to stolen cars and suspects who travel between cities to commit crime. Several speakers described personal losses from burglary and catalytic-converter theft and urged the council to give deputies better investigative tools.
Opponents — including residents, technologists and local attorneys — cited investigative reporting and litigation in other jurisdictions that documented vendor misconfigurations, exposed admin panels and improper sharing in some places. They urged the council to reject Flock specifically or delay adoption until stronger contract terms, regular public audits, enforceable security certifications, and clearer legal outcomes are in place.
After extended council discussion about audit frequency, retention (York explained a rolling five-year retention policy), account provisioning and contract language, Councilmember Todd Rogers moved to approve a one-year extension of the pilot without automatic renewal and to form a citizen advisory committee to oversee audit reports. The motion was seconded and put to roll call: Vice Mayor Wood—No; Councilmember Croft—Yes; Councilmember Arellano—No; Councilmember Rogers—Yes; Mayor Chase—No. The motion failed, 3–2.
Council members who voted against the motion said they remained concerned about vendor accountability and unresolved contractual questions; those who supported it cited the pilot's investigative results and the city's limited ability to add deputy staffing. Several council members proposed returning to the issue after additional contractual safeguards, more detailed security certifications from Flock, or a formal oversight mechanism.
The council then recessed and continued with its published agenda. No final long-term contract was approved for Flock at this meeting; the failed motion preserved the status quo and left options open for future council action or renegotiation.
The meeting record shows the key outstanding issues for the council: contract-term language (including automatic renewal), the scope and frequency of audits, independent cybersecurity verification and precise, binding language about data sharing and platform updates. Mayor Chase and staff said any future contract actions would return to the council for approval.
