On Tuesday, the Richmond City Council agreed to turn back on automatic license plate readers and extend its contract with FLOCK through the end of the year.
In a split 4-3 vote, with Jamelia Brown, Soheila Bana, Cesar Zepeda and Doria Robinson in favor while Mayor Eduardo Martinez and councilmembers Claudia Jimenez and Sue Wilson against, the cameras will be turned back on through December, and an RFP will go out
The item was before the council after it was extended from the march 2 meeting due to time constraints – the presentation and public comments occurred at that meeting. Tuesday’s item was for the council to ask questions and hold discussion.
Lily Ho, public affairs manager for the western region of FLOCK, shared storage and ownership of data stays with its customer—while its on their servers, it’s owned by the City of Richmond.
Ho further highlighted when requests come in for data, they work with the owners of the data, in this case Richmond, to either approve or deny the request for data. FLOCK would not take action to release data without permission of their client.
Councilmember Sue Wilson asked Chief Tim Simmons when he actually turned off FLOCK cameras.
Simmons shared he turned them off on November 19, 2025 because it came to his attention that a function was running in the operation in the system allowed for a two-way national search feature which allowed outside agencies, outside of Richmond and policy, to be able to query complete license plates—making their information accessible.
“When I found out that was the case, turned them off immediately until I could research and find out what had happened, what transpired, what are the implications while dealing with the vendor, our staff, legal, the city, my boss, the council and get everybody up on the same page,” explained Simmons.
It was also confirmed that the feature had been on since 2023—running a FLOCK system where data, without anyone knowing, was accessible to every agency on the FLOCK system. Simmons added he was upset with the onboarding process and training as to what features do and how they work – it was not disclosed of the two-way network.
Councilmember Sue Wilson was met with boos from the crowd after stating, “no one should be embarrassed by this because its happening to cities around the country because FLOCK is designed to deceive us into thinking our data is safe when it’s not, in my opinion.”
She further continued by stating she didn’t trust FLOCK as a company that is going to respect our boundaries—added she was open minded about using cameras, but not using FLOCK.
Wilson also questioned the 33% spike in vehicle thefts and asked Simmons to explain the data.
Simmons said when looking at the data for 2026 when compared to 2025, they have a 33% spike in stolen vehicles. When looking at the time period, the only change that occurred was they turned the cameras off and the in-custody for stealing vehicles dropped almost 60% from when the cameras were on versus off.
Vice Mayor Doria Robinson asked Simmons about the current contract amendments and changes proposed with FLOCK to add safeguards.
Doria Robinson sharing her concerns with FLOCK
Simmons shared Richmond would have a “make whole” remedy, one of the few to have that in their contract, and have the contract go until the end of the year to have a review period to ensure FLOCK is doing what they said they would do—such as the national search feature no longer being an option for California agencies.
“For me, one of the biggest issues with what happened… is that I find it deeply offensive that FLOCK allowed to have the National Search feature to be deployed and did not inform us that it was happening knowing that we are a Sanctuary City, knowing that was a big deal,” said Robinson. “You know your system, you should have pointed that out and made it clear and to me that was very disingenuous and makes you a company that is not trustworthy.”
Robinson said she believed a lot of vendors contract within the City of Richmond do not adhere to their contracts over the past three years and instead pick and choose what they adhere too and instead dare Richmond to “catch them”.
“It’s obnoxious,” said Robinson.
Robinson continued noting when people cross a bridge, they are on camera and recorded.
“It seems like no matter where you go in the Bay Area, as long as you don’t stay only in Richmond, who have our cameras turned off, you are going to encounter a camera,” stated Robinson. “That your license plate is going to be registered… when I try to think about what we are talking about here, its hard for me to understand how having a blackout space in Richmond where people are traveling using all these different system, provides true security from this kind of surveillance unless they only stay in their house.”
She also addressed the reverse effect.
“If Richmond is a blackhole, who is that going to look attractive too,” asked Robinson. “I worry about that. If people know there will be a slower response in Richmond, we do not have cameras, if I was somebody who needed to do what I do and its not legal, I’d go to Richmond. For me, this question is a company I don’t trust, a $250k investment and some issues around how we understand surveillance in 2026.”
Councilmember Claudia Jimenez shared that she belied FLOCK made the city liable by sharing data and violating city and state policy.
“It’s not about whether or not we have cameras or not, it’s about this company that is lying to us and putting us in all these situations,” said Jimenez noting she valued the chief turning off the cameras and it showed he understands the community. “Mothers are calling me right now and asking if its safe to go to the school and pick up their kids whether ICE is in town or not. It generated fear.”
Jimenez said the reverse was also true, from the other side and was also weighing her decision.
She called FLOCK a “bad deal” and said Richmond shouldn’t continue the contract.
Councilmember Jamelia Brown called this a divisive issue and while cameras do not prevent crime, it helps the police department solve crimes more quickly and that was the objective of the tool.
“I just want to say that fear isn’t an isolated feeling that only exists within the immigrant community. I believe it stems across communities,” said Brown.
She continued, “it’s really sad that we are debating the safety and we’re sort of pitting communities against one another because I want to emphasize that public safety is immigrant safety and protecting one another because I want to emphasize that public safety is immigrant safety and protecting one community while leaving others vulnerable is not public safety is negligence.”
She also said she did believe errors but fortunately the information wasn’t shared. She also believed a situation was identified and addressed by FLOCK. She also questioned as with any technology, do you throw it out, fix it or try another system.
She also noted FLOCK went through a competitive bid process where out of 300 points, they scored 295 which shows they are appealing to the City of Richmond. She also noted the Richmond Police Department is understaffed and this tool to assist in keeping things efficient.
She was in favor of extending the contract until the council sees fit to find another vendor.
Councilmember Cesar Zepeda asked about crimes or cases where cameras would have been of assistance.
Simmons responded he had a list of 51 crimes which include armed robberies, brandishing a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, armed robbery, attempted homicide, assault with a firearm shooting, strongarmed robbery, homicide, and they’re all like that.
“Some of the ones that really stand out to me, I turned the cameras off on November 19th and on November 23rd, we had an armed carjacking of a senior citizen in our community that ultimately led to that senior citizen being shot in the commission of the armed carjacking. Um, we are still investigating that case today,” said Simmons. “Attempted homicide December 13th involving juveniles. It was three juveniles. The juvenile victim that was shot, it was an attempted murder. He’s probably not going to ever recover. This case has been in the media. Um, it’s a case we’re still investigating. He will probably be in some form of a medical paralysis for the rest of his life. That was u in the uh on South 25th Street.”
Simmons also gave several other examples.
Zepeda asked the chief where they have been pulling video from since the ALPR cameras were turned off in which Simmons explained they are getting them sometimes from local businesses, knocking on doors, CCTV cameras, ring cameras – but they don’t always get license plates.
“So, the cameras are still there, it’s either our cameras and we have access to save lives or we spend more time trying to find who may have a working camera is what I am hearing,” stated Zepeda.
Zepeda asked what it would take to go to a new company and what sunken costs would they have and a possible timeline.
Simmons said he didn’t have a cost but it wouldn’t be 2022 numbers, it would be 2026 numbers and would plan on a 20% increase as a “best guess” of around $350k—at total sunken costs of $550k. To begin a new system, it could launch by October 2026 under an RFP process.
“I want the council to understand its not an overnight process, it’s a very labor intensive process and we would have to overlap that process while coordinating with FLOCK to remove that infrastructure so we can install new infrastructure,” explained Simmons.
Zepeda confirmed in total, they would be looking at nearly 16-months before a new system is fully operational. Simmons said 12-14 months.
Councilmember Wilson said she was a “no” vote and that “50 cities had dropped FLOCK in recent months and three years ago, that map with the flock dots was empty because no one had flock. And three years from now, it can also be empty of flock if people like us as decision makers stop enabling this company by giving it new contracts.”
Mayor Eduardo Martinez shared that he was not against ALPR technology but if they were going to use it, they had to use it ethically and responsibility with safeguards to protect the community.
“I don’t trust flock,” stated Martinez who later added Richmond needed a company based in California because they will be more restricted by California law and will know the law and adhere to the law while keeping money in the California economy.
Martinez also took issue with the example Simmons used at the last meeting during the search for a potential human trafficking victim within the City of Richmond and grilled the chief about cameras and assistance at the request of an outside agency. He also took issue with potential lobbying – which Flock denied they had a lobbyist within Richmond.
“I think that you can’t be trusted and I will ask for the motion,” said Martinez.
Motions:
A motion was made by Martinez that they not renew this contract but they go with an RFP process to find a company in California. It was seconded by Wilson.
Bana then made a substitute motion to move the item was presented by staff. Brown offered a second—directing the city to negotiate a contract amendment with FLOCK that includes an unauthorized sharing provision.
The motion passed 4-3:
- Yes: Brown, Bana, Robinson, Zepeda,
- No: Jimenez, Wilson, Martinez
Previous Meeting: Presentation Overview
According to the police department, the city’s contract with FLOCK was set to expire on February 28, 2026.
The Council was asked to consider two transitional options to extend the existing contract through December 31, 2026. Given the influx in criminal activity since the Flock Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System has been disabled, staff recommends Option A, which is to approve a contract extension through December 31, 2026 that allows the City to continue the Flock CCTV system, Flock Drone as a First Responder (DFR) program and reinstate the Flock Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) system with the understanding that the program would return to the Council for re-evaluation and consideration prior to the end of the extension. Option B is to approve a contract extension through December 31, 2026 that continues the Flock CCTV system and DFR program but not the ALPR system.
Chief Tim Simmons explained there is no additional financial impact on either option in the staff report due to incumbered funds – this was an extension to add time, not funds from the original approved contract.
- $575k remaining in the contract balance
- $122,300 encumbered (pending invoices)
- $300k Drone DFR payment due in November
- $54,800 for Public Works/Abatement
- Continue maintenance and support for the Flock CCTV
- Continue the use of FLOCK ALPR system (option to turn on or keep off)
What is Flock ALPR: Camera use computer vision and machine learning to automatically capture a still photo of a vehicle license plate and related vehicle characteristics (make, model, color and other distinguishing features) then provide real-time alerts and searchable databases to help law enforcement and secure partners investigate, deter, and solve crime.
What is not captured by ALPR: personal identifying information such as race, gender, etc. Does not capture facial information. Does not capture audio or visual.
According to the police department, because they provide dispatch and records to El Cerrito Police, the El Cerrito Police Department is the only agency that Richmond Police Department shares its ALPR data. Outside agencies may opt to share their ALPR data with Richmond, but Richmond does not share its ALPR date with any other agencies other than El Cerrito.
Data: From April 18, 2023, to November 19, 2025, there were 274 arrests, 41 license plates recovered, 259 vehicles recovered, and 911 criminal case assists using the Flock ALPR system to generate additional leads. Since Flock ALPR was deactivated as of November 2025, vehicle thefts have increased approximately 33%.
Chief Simmons explained when the national lookup feature within FLOCK was active, he made the decision to turn off the cameras in November and has kept them off until he was able to make a presentation to the council – the feature has since been removed by FLOCK on California systems. He also was aware of the privacy concerns.
He also pointed out to a Key Contract Amendment which states:
“In the event FLOCK causes an Unauthorized sharing, Flock shall pay to Customer, as a penalty, the sum of Two Hundred Ninety Thousand ($290,000) per violation. For purposes of this section, a “violation” means a single, discrete act or incident of unauthorized disclosure or access resulting from FLOCK’s conduct, irascible of the volume or number of records, cameras, or data elements involved in that same act of incident.”
He said should the council choose to discontinue the FLOCK safety contract, it would mean removal of all ALPR cameras, removal of installed CCTV cameras and removal of DFR equipment.
Simmons said the next steps that he was approve a contract extension through Dec. 31, 2026 and turn back on the Flock ALPR cameras and then return back in December to reflect and re-evaluate the Flock Safety contract.
They had 33-in person public comments and 21 online speakers on the item.
Previous
- March 16, 2026 – Richmond Set to Continue FLOCK ALPR Camera System Discussion
- March 4, 2026 – Richmond City Council Fails to Take Action on FLOCK ALPR Camera System
- Feb 2026 – El Cerrito Police Issue Statement on Flock License Plate Reading System
- Dec 2025 – Richmond Police Department Community Update: Flock ALPR System
Documents
- 2026-03-03 (prsnt) Flock Safety Fourth Contract Amendment.pdf
- Attachment 1 – RPD Flock ALPR Policy 433.pdf
- Attachment 2 – RPD CCTV Policy 341.pdf
- Attachment 3 – RPD Unmanned Aerial System Policy 607.pdf
- Attachment 4 – Flock Safety Bay Area Service Coverage Map.pdf
- Attachment 5 – January 2025 to November 2025 City of Richmond F
- Attachment 6 – Flock Safety Service Contract with all amendments.
- Attachment 7 – Flock Safety Service Contract (proposed amendme
