On Tuesday, the Brentwood City Council approved a contract with Flock for automatic license plate readers and surveillance cameras.
This is a two-year agreement at a cost of $240k which will be funded out of the General Fund–for 32 cameras and 3 surveillance camera . The approval, however, did not come without discussion after councilmembers shared 4th Amendment concerns over privacy while councilmember Jovita Mendoza threw a fit it was placed in the consent calendar.
Mendoza shared her unhappiness of how the budget item was brought up and it was “inappropriate to sneak it into consent because that is what it feels like to me. I don’t think we should have done that and I don’t think we should ever do that again. I think if you are going to ask for something that is a quarter-million dollars we need to plan for it in the budget process.”
Flock shared that data is deleted after 30-days.
The Brentwood Police Department has historically used Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras to assist with criminal investigations. Its current technology (Vigilant) is outdated and at its end of life—while service has not been up to par.
However, upgrading to FLOCK will upgrade the technology and allow the city to expand its search capabilities to also include vehicle descriptions without even needing to know the license plate.
This is possible through their patented proprietary machine vision technology that analyzes license plates, state recognition, and vehicle attributes such as color, type, make and objects (roof rack, bumper stickers, etc.) based on image analytics (not car registration data)
According to Chief Tim Herbert, the city had began looking into ALPR systems in 2015 and in 2016 have had a pilot with 18 ALPR units. By 2017, it expanded to 8 fixed locations, 10 patrol vehicles and 3 street sweepers. Currently, they have 56 total cameras.
Herbert shared other agencies using Flock in the Contra Costa County include:
- Concord
- San Ramon
- Richmond
- Orinda
- Clayton
- Danville
- Discovery Bay
- El Cerrito
- Hercules
- Kensington
- Oakley
- Pleasant Hill
- Contra Costa County.
Contra Costa Cities soon to have Flock Safety:
- Antioch
- Walnut Creek
Agencies in the Bay Area with Flock:
- Tracy
- Stockton
- Livermore
- Berkley
- San Francisco
- Oakland
- Fremont
- San Jose
- Hayward
- CHP
- Alameda County Sheriffs Office
Map of where cameras will be strategically placed within the City of Brentwood
Under the contract, Brentwood Police Department will purchase thirty-two (32) ALPR cameras and three (3) surveillance cameras. These 32 ALPR cameras will replace the existing 19 ALPR cameras that are all currently in need of replacement and adding an additional 13. By adding 32 ALPR cameras, Brentwood staff has been able to strategically cover a few select major intersections and nearly all the egress points surrounding the city, thus potentially capturing a majority of all vehicles leaving the city limits. Adding 3 surveillance cameras can be strategically placed throughout the city to provide supplemental coverage in areas prone to criminal activity or public nuisance that would otherwise require dedicated staff time to monitor.
Vice Mayor Pa’Tanisha Pierson shared clarified her stance on law enforcement because it seems like when she asks questions, people think she is against law enforcement.
“I am very much pro law enforcement and I think anyone who is anti-law enforcement is not the brightest person because they are the first person you call when you have an emergency,” stated Pierson.
However, Pierson asked a series questions on behalf of residents who had concerns over privacy and mass surveillance while creating a record of vehicle movements across cities without probable cause—essentially preventing 4th Amendment probable cause will not be violated.
Kristen Macleod, Community Affairs Manager for Flock Safety, explained that case law that use of ALPR is not a violation of the 4th Amendment because the cameras are at fixed location and pointed at public right of way. They are also taking still images of vehicles and it’s a point in time—there is no way to continuously track the movement of a vehicle or person. She also said the system is designed to focus on vehicles, not people.
Pierson also asked about ALCU concerns and impacting people of color or low income neighborhoods—or deploying the system to enforce laws federally, like abortion and immigration.
Macleod said Brentwood would own its own data which has full control. The sharing would align with Brentwood community values. She added there are state laws in place that prohibit data sharing with agencies outside the State of California, prohibits use of ALPR to enforce immigration saying there are guardrails in place while Brentwood policy would reinforce those—noting many cities include language from “prohibited” or “acceptable uses”. The city can also share policies and what other agencies are approved to share data with.
Mendoza questioned the system noting Flock is going to court over what some perceive as the 4th Amendment violations—she asked for clarification.
Macleod shared two community members out of Norfolk, VA brought the lawsuit forward claiming it was a violation of the 4th Amendment, but Flock does not believe it is not because the cameras are fixed locations, taking a point in time capture of a vehicle in a public right of way, not the individual movements. The court case is still pending. She also added, there are multiple federal and appellate court cases that have concluded evidence from ALPR cameras is not a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Mendoza continued to question violation of the 4th Amendment and what happens if they had to stop service. Staff said the equipment is leased and they would cancel the contract.
Mendoza also questioned incidents where Flock data has been shared and what is Flock doing when information is shared when its not supposed to be after she read many instances online.
Macleod shared there have been instances where officers have used the system “inappropriately” and the system did exactly what it was designed to do which captured the use and the administrators caught it and in one case the officer was disciplined and fired—possible criminal charges. She added the system was designed to allow administrators to audit the system for misuse and align with department policy, state and federal laws.
Herbert jumped in stating the system is no different than running someone’s driver’s license. It’s a right to know need to know if an officer feels the right to know. On misuse, it would be treated as an internal investigation which could lead to termination.
Mendoza questioned data sharing with other agencies and wanted the city to create a policy.
Councilmember Faye Maloney, an officer with an outside agency, explained the item form basics when there is a crime from an assault with a deadly weapon, stolen vehicle, carjacking or other crime, officers take a police report from the victim and contact dispatch to enter into the California system. She explained there are specific procedures officers need to do simply to enter it into the system. Once complete, that report has to be approved by a supervisor so everyone knows the elements of a crime that the vehicle is either stolen or involved in a felony crime. If it’s a felony vehicle, such as a robbery or carjacking, that gives the officer the ability to enter the vehicle that allows the fortitude to enter it to alert any officer that would run the license plate that the vehicle is involved in a felony crime.
“That gets embedded into Flock, so if officers cameras read this license plate, its going to automatically get alerted that this car is a felony vehicle,” explained Maloney noting the police report has already been entered and with California Department of Justice.
Maloney pointed out there are procedures in place or can be further created to prevent someone’s civil rights from being violated—noting the system will alert the department if someone is running plates without required information.
After the explanation by Maloney, Mendoza claimed, “now this concerns me even more” citing the need for policy. Herbert again jumped in citing they have had a policy in place because they use ALPR cameras and Vigilant (policy 463).
Mendoza asked if the Federal Government, or Immigration, can come in an demand the information.
Macleod explained that to date; they have not received any sort of federal request or subpoena for immigration enforcement purposes. They said the data is Brentwood’s and they own it 100% and, in that instance, would alert Brentwood to that request—that would give the city an opportunity to respond—they also said all images are “hard deleted” after 30-days.
Councilmember Tony Oerlemans confirmed the purpose of FLOCK was to find wanted vehicles.
Macleod said that is what the system was designed to do in the event of a crime and allow officers to locate a suspect vehicle calling it an investigative tool to solve crimes and locate missing persons.
Mayor Susannah Meyer asked about the 14 cameras in use and why 43 are offline.
Herbert shared the plan was to expand the system as it went, which became cost prohibitive. Vigilant has gone through a couple businesses and now owned by Motorola and are not “very responsive” and had a difficult time just getting answers on costs to look at system to be more operable or fixable. If cameras are at end-of-life you just spent $100k when you could just move to Flock and get a bunch of cameras. Under Flock, if something goes down, they come out and fix it.
He added, Flock will allow them to have a 360-degree look at the city so if you commit a crime in town, a license plate will be captured.
Mendoza again called it a “disappointment” and “could not fathom why someone would put a $250k item on consent” and called it an important item they had to talk about it.
“To me, I was almost offended by it,” stated Mendoza. “I don’t ever want to see something like this on consent ever again. Look at all this conversation we are having, because its important and to me I was personally offended.”
Herbert shared part of it was this was an expansion of a current program going to a different company saying he believed it wouldn’t be that big of an issue. Mendoza called it a different system that was more intrusive and they would have to agree to disagree.
In a 5-0 vote, the Brentwood city council agree to the Flock Safety contact.
Documents:
Related
- Feb 15, 2025 – El Cerrito Police Announces Use of Facial Recognition Software
- July 5, 2024 – CHP Announces First Arrest Using State-of-the-Art Smart Flock Cameras in Bay Area
