Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Residents press Costa Mesa for deeper audit and police briefing on Flock surveillance after reported misuse
Loading...
Summary
Multiple residents told the council that the city’s Flock license‑plate surveillance data is stored offsite and vulnerable to misuse; they cited a former officer’s guilty plea and asked the council to order a network/search‑log audit and a formal presentation from police on safeguards and access controls.
A series of residents and community organizers told the Costa Mesa City Council on April 21 that the city’s contract with Flock (an ALPR—automatic license‑plate recognition—vendor) needs stricter oversight and a deeper audit of search logs and third‑party access.
One speaker cited a local news report naming a former Costa Mesa police officer who “accessed Costa Mesa's Flock surveillance system even after he was put on leave,” and said the officer pleaded guilty. “This system is being abused,” the speaker said, urging the council to order a network audit of Flock’s search logs.
Other commenters—citing incidents in Oxnard, Berkeley and Mountain View—said Flock’s backend settings have allowed broader searches than cities intended and warned that data stored on private corporate servers can be queried outside local control. “Flock can make that data queryable without the city's knowledge because network settings that the city controls does not control what Flock enables on their end,” a community organizer told the council.
Councilmembers acknowledged the concerns and asked staff and the police chief to present a formal briefing. Mayor Pro Tem Manuel Chavez said he had spoken with the city manager and the police chief and recommended a presentation “detailing how we use the Flock program, what the benefits are, what safeguards we have,” to avoid a “knee‑jerk reaction” while ensuring public safety and privacy protections.
Why it matters: Speakers argued that search logs and network audits are the only way to detect misuse, and that private server storage limits the city’s control and public‑records rights. Councilmembers responded by seeking more data from staff and police and by supporting the idea of comparing alternative technologies and contracts.
No formal policy change was approved at the meeting; councilmembers directed staff and the police department to prepare a presentation on how Flock is used locally, the safeguards in place, and whether additional audits or contract changes are warranted.
