After hours of testimony, El Cerrito council votes not to renew Flock Safety contract

After an extended, highly attended debate that continued past midnight on May 5, the El Cerrito City Council voted to not renew its contract with Flock Safety for automated license‑plate reading (LPR) cameras.

Police Chief Paul Keith opened the agenda item by recounting the department—s multi‑year experience with the vendor—s networked cameras, saying the system uses rear‑plate photography, stores data for 30 days, and provides interagency alerts that have assisted investigations. The chief cited multiple cases (hit‑and‑run, vehicular manslaughter, armed robbery, burglary series) in which LPR alerts or post‑hoc searches helped identify suspect vehicles or recover property; he recommended renewing the existing agreement (which auto‑renews) or entering a new one to keep the operational tool available to officers.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation—s director of strategic campaigns told the council that vendor‑hosted, multi‑jurisdictional LPR networks create structural data‑sharing and legal risks. The EFF representative warned that federal compulsion tools (national security letters, grand jury subpoenas, FISA orders) can override local contractual terms and that the MSA—s penalty clause (for unauthorized vendor sharing) expressly excludes compelled disclosures. The EFF also highlighted that the vendor retains "derivative works" (analytics, heatmaps, model outputs) and that those outputs are difficult for a city to independently audit.

A Flock representative disputed claims that the company provides direct access to federal agencies, described engineering and policy changes instituted in 2025 (blocking out‑of‑state/federal lookups for California deployments; multi‑factor authentication; audit tools; NIBR offense tagging on searches), and offered a one‑year contract option to test the new safeguards. Flock—s representative said the firm—s mission is victim‑focused and presented independent studies and company figures suggesting improved case clearance rates associated with LPR deployments.

Public comment lasted more than an hour and a half: business owners and some residents urged renewal on grounds that cameras deter theft and help recover stolen vehicles; many residents, civil liberties groups and faith leaders urged termination because of documented vendor errors, past unauthorized out‑of‑state queries, the potential for federal access to data (and gag orders that would prevent notification), risks to sanctuary‑city policies, and possible future misuse including protest or reproductive‑health surveillance. Several speakers cited litigation and audit findings from other jurisdictions and asked the city to avoid vendor‑hosted networks.

After council questioning of both parties and extended deliberation, Councilmember Motoyama moved to not renew the contract; a second was called and the motion carried by voice vote (motion carried). The council did not adopt a replacement vendor or alternative surveillance program that night; staff were directed to follow the council—s motion and return with any required implementation steps. The meeting adjourned with the next city council session scheduled for May 19, 2026.

The action alters the city—s surveillance posture: the department will need to plan for how existing investigatory leads and regional sharing are affected and how to provide alternative investigative resources without the Flock network.