Fullerton Police Chief Jonathan Radus told the City Council on September 15 that the city’s Flock license plate reader cameras “produce vehicle leads” and not personal profiles. Council members and residents pressed him on where the data goes, who can see it, and whether the public was ever properly consulted.

The item was a presentation, not an action item, so the council could not vote on the program. Council Member Dr. Ahmad Zahra asked that Flock and the department’s ALPR policy return as a formal agenda item. Dr. Shana Charles seconded his request, and Mayor Fred Jung said the discussion would happen at the next meeting.

What the chief presented

Radus said Fullerton has 17 permanent Flock cameras and two mobile cameras. That matches the presentation materials released before the meeting, which listed 19 cameras and 135 police users.

• The city has spent about $236,000 on Flock since 2021, covering equipment, subscriptions, repairs and maintenance.
• The city keeps data for 30 days, then purges it. Radus said this is a department decision, not a vendor rule.
• The cameras take still photos of license plates and vehicles on public roads and check plates against “hot lists” of stolen or wanted vehicles.
• The system does not record video or audio, use facial recognition, or connect plates to names, addresses, birth dates or DMV records. It does not issue tickets or predict crime, and he said it is not used for immigration enforcement.
• Officers may not act on a plate read alone. They must confirm the hit through other databases before stopping a car.

Radus described two uses. One is real-time alerts to patrol officers. The other is searches after a crime, which he acknowledged “causes a lot of the consternation.” He said Flock’s AI also lets detectives search by vehicle description, such as “black Honda Civic, white bumper sticker,” when no plate is known. He said the department owns its data and controls who it is shared with. Flock does not sell it. Under state law (SB 34 and SB 54), sharing is limited to California agencies, and he said Flock’s system does not even allow sharing outside the state.

Radus listed these safeguards:

• Every search requires a reason and a case number and is permanently logged.
• He recently moved internal audits from once a year to every 90 days. The property crimes sergeant runs them and reports to a captain, and Internal Affairs handles any suspected misuse.
• Flock’s audit tool flags repeated searches of the same plate, unusually broad searches, and searches past the 30-day window. Radus said there were 10 to 15 flags that day for review. A flag does not mean wrongdoing, he said.

The department updated its ALPR policy that same day, he said, and a transparency portal on its website shows camera counts, plate reads, and search activity.

Radus reported results since Flock was added: 274 stolen vehicles recovered, 18 missing people located, and about 885,000 unique vehicles detected. He said the 885,000 figure was already outdated. He also cited a national study of 216 agencies that found an 11% drop in vehicle theft and about a 16% rise in theft cases cleared by arrest. He noted the department does not track how often Flock helps solve a case, but said detectives use it “in virtually every investigation.”

On public input, the chief said Fullerton’s ALPR program dates to 2007 and was funded through a federal Homeland Security grant. Parking contractor SP Plus has used Vigilant cameras since 2019. Flock was added in 2021 under former Chief Dunn as part of a technology package paid for with federal ARPA funds; Radus said Flock was not named specifically at the time. SB 34 took effect January 1, 2016, and requires a public comment opportunity before an agency starts an ALPR program. He argued the law does not apply retroactively or require a new hearing when an existing program changes vendors, so the city is in compliance.

Council questions

Zahra said he was “disappointed that this is a presentation and not an agendized item.” He argued that Flock’s 2021 technology was different enough from the 2007 cameras that a public process was likely required. He asked how the city can verify what the system does not do, given that images are processed by AI and may pass through data centers anywhere. Radus said he is “not an expert on how Flock works” and would look into it.

He then read aloud an email the department received from Flock after he asked for an audit of data sharing. It was signed only “Kaci,” from a Flock customer-success address, and said out-of-state requests had appeared, but none were accepted. “This is not an audit to me,” Zahra said. Radus said he had repeatedly answered Zahra’s question about ICE access, and that the email was the written confirmation Zahra had requested.

Jung then cut in. “It is a presentation, not an agendized item. I think you are really getting close to a line here,” the mayor said. He added, “I’m all OK with you soapboxing, and you seem to do that a lot.” He suggested Zahra email cc him with his questions to the chief.

Zahra objected. “You know there’s a word called ad hominem. I’m not soapboxing. I’m asking questions, because that’s my job,” he said. He said he grew up “in a country where our phones were tapped.” He also noted that cities run by both Democrats and Republicans have suspended Flock contracts. Zahra asked whether the department could track Flock’s role in case outcomes. Radus said he would check with the city attorney. When Zahra asked what the 10 to 15 audit flags were, Radus said he would not release those details. Zahra’s last request was that Radus find out who “Kaci” is, and Radus agreed.

Charles said the Brown Act may prevent council members from copying one another on emails, so the public meeting is the right place to discuss this. She asked why the city has 19 cameras while Cal State Fullerton had 46 on its campus. Radus said cost was one reason and that the city covers its major roads. He added that many private businesses, including big-box stores such as Lowe’s in Fullerton, run their own license plate readers, and some of those feed into police systems.

Radus said CSUF recently switched from Flock to Axon, which also supplies Fullerton’s body cameras. He called Axon “essentially the same system, just a different provider.” He confirmed that state ALPR laws apply no matter which vendor is used.

Valencia relayed questions from constituents. Radus confirmed the cameras capture no audio and cannot identify who fired a gun or set off fireworks. Valencia asked for details on officer training at the next meeting, and Radus agreed.

Dunlap said he would save his comments for the agendized discussion.

Jung noted that Senate Bill 1013, by Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, would have limited data retention, restricted sharing, and required training and search tracking. He said it died in the Assembly and predicted it would return next year. A CalMatters report by Khari Johnson confirms that Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguilar-Curry was behind shelving the bill, the latest in a string of failed ALPR reform efforts since 2022. CapRadioHsjchronicle

Public reaction

Flock comments were heard during general public comment, near the end of the night. Two remote speakers who tried to comment during the trash item were told to wait. Nearly every speaker raised concerns:

• Patricia Hanzo called for a city ordinance with accountability for data misuse and asked how many training hours users receive.
• Debbie Longenbacher cited the city website’s list of 325 agencies that receive shared data. “Who’s auditing?” she asked.
• Harry Longenbacher warned that 800,000 plate reads a month could produce “heat maps” of residents’ movements if federal agents obtained the data.
• Bianca, a CSUF student organizer, said 400 students had signed a petition against Flock on campus. She cited public records reporting by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and 404 Media on officers elsewhere entering improper search reasons, including “ICE.”
• Elijah Manassero said he supports the police but asked the city attorney for a written opinion on whether today’s searchable Flock database is the same program that existed in 2007.
• A remote speaker identified as AB pointed out that the study the chief cited carries a caveat. The researchers found that arrest clearances began climbing in the three months before the cameras were deployed, which weakens the case that the cameras caused the increase. CrimRxiv
• Libby, speaking with Sunrise Orange County, urged the council to cancel the contract.
• Zee, a longtime resident, called the chief’s report “very good.” He said Zahra’s questions were appropriate and criticized the mayor for trying to intervene. “Then, Brother Fred, you didn’t like the way the questions were being asked, and you told Dr. Zahra that if he didn’t get the answers he wanted from the chief, he could copy you on his emails and you’d make sure he got answers. No, Fred, that’s not how it works. No one needs to check in with you. Two men can communicate without your intervention. You may be the mayor for four out of five years, but you don’t run the whole city, and you don’t intervene between adults. You’re impatient with questions. That’s your track record, brother, but it’s not how life works. I do appreciate that you’re consistent, though. Just as you didn’t want to hear the details of hard questions from the council member to the chief, you also didn’t want to hear the details about the budget that lost $12.9 million. You wanted to pave over that,” he said.

Several speakers mentioned Costa Mesa, which Radus himself had cited. There, a former police officer pleaded guilty in April 2026 to misdemeanors tied to unauthorized use of police databases, including the license plate reader system. That city’s council voted 6-1 to keep its Flock contract while directing staff to renegotiate terms. FlocksafetycameraVoice of OC

What’s next

The Flock program and ALPR policy are expected back as a formal agenda item at the council’s next meeting. Radus agreed to bring back information on data processing, officer training and the identity of the Flock employee who wrote the email in response to an audit request.