Residents urge Porterville to cancel Flock surveillance contract over privacy and misuse concerns

Dozens of residents addressed the Porterville City Council on privacy and civil‑liberties concerns about recently installed Flock automated license‑plate recognition cameras, asking the city to cancel the contract and disclose data‑sharing practices.

At the start of a long public‑comment period, Cecilia Chavez said the cameras enable police to search for people by clothing, tattoos and other physical features and accused a local sergeant of past misconduct; Mikayla Franco added that the devices violate the Fourth Amendment and cited a class action filed in February 2026 that, she said, alleges unlawful sharing of license‑plate data. "Keep the Flock cameras out of Porterville," Franco said. Jacob Walker told the council LAPD had canceled its Flock contract and argued the devices create a path to government surveillance that needs judicial safeguards.

The concern was expressed repeatedly: speakers referenced academic and advocacy findings (Stanford analysis of traffic stops, American Civil Liberties Union reporting, Electronic Frontier Foundation cases) and alleged examples of officers using Flock data to stalk private individuals. One speaker, Brock Neely, supplied figures he said were from local logs: "In the last 30 days there have been 140,803 unique license‑plate hits in Porterville; 172 unique searches were done on that data by almost every city in this state and three federal agencies," he said.

City officials did not adopt or rescind a contract at the meeting. Several council members acknowledged hearing residents' concerns and said staff would follow up. Councilman Rivas said he would "be an advocate" for reviewing the contract and its operator, noting reports that dozens of municipalities have canceled similar agreements over data‑ownership questions. Mayor Meister said he appreciates the attention and that the public is right to scrutinize surveillance tools.

The council did not take immediate formal action to cancel the contract at the meeting; speakers asked the council to provide a timeline for staff to report back with legal analysis, contract details and any recommended restrictions on searches or data sharing. Several residents asked the city to release any financial terms and internal usage logs.

What’s next: Council members indicated they will continue to research the company's data‑ownership terms, pending litigation and the experience of other jurisdictions. Staff was directed to track the issue and report options for limits, policies or contract termination at a future meeting.