Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to act on Flock camera transparency; speakers allege county is obstructing public records requests
Summary
Multiple residents told the council the county-operated Flock license-plate reader system lacks required public audit access under SB 34 and that the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department has delayed or denied public-records requests; speakers asked the city to agendaize the contract, pause the program and seek removal of cameras.
Several residents used public comment time to press the Twentynine Palms City Council to seek greater transparency from the county sheriff’s office about the Flock automated license-plate-reader (ALPR) program.
Heather Drake told the council that she has repeatedly sought basic Flock records and queries under the California Public Records Act and that the county sheriff’s office has missed statutory response deadlines and used investigatory and privacy exemptions to withhold data. “You cannot run a surveillance program in 29 Palms without accountability,” Drake said. “If the sheriff’s department refuses to follow state law, refuses to let the public audit the system, and denies citizens the right to see their own records, then the program is operating outside of the law. Please do your job and protect our privacy. I demand that you immediately cover the cameras up, agendaize this issue, cancel the contract, and have these cameras removed entirely.”
Another speaker asked the council to pause the program and noted that neighboring jurisdictions have adopted public-facing audit portals to comply with Senate Bill 34. A Desert Trumpet reporter and editor urged the council and staff to comply promptly with public-records requests, saying delays raise costs and reduce accountability. Several letters in the meeting record (from multiple residents) addressed Flock and law-enforcement transparency.
Council members acknowledged the public concern but did not take immediate action during the meeting to suspend or terminate the county-operated program; staff earlier had explained that agreements with the sheriff and specific procurement or contract actions may require intergovernmental steps. Abigail (finance staff) had previously explained that certain sheriff expenditures tied to grants (SLEF) are shown as offsetting revenue/expense and that purchases over $25,000 would return to council for approval.
The council did not vote on the Flock program during the meeting; public speakers asked the council to agendize formal review of the contract and to demand a public-facing audit portal consistent with SB 34.
