The Fullerton City Council voted 3-1 on Tuesday, October 6, to suspend operation of the city’s 19 Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras for six months. The decision comes amid growing concerns about civil liberties and community opposition. During this hiatus, the council plans to hold a town hall meeting, review the police department’s ALPR policy, and seek improved communication and audit protocols from Flock.

Councilmember Dr. Ahmad Zahra initiated the motion, which received support from Councilmembers Dr. Shana Charles and Mayor Pro Tem Nicholas Dunlap. Councilmember Jamie Valencia opposed the measure, while Mayor Fred Jung was absent from the vote. The council’s deliberation included nearly three hours of presentations, inquiries, and public comments. Most of the approximately 15 speakers urged the council to discontinue the program entirely.

The current suspension does not terminate the city’s contract with Flock, which is set to run through 2028.

During the meeting, Fullerton Police Chief Jon Radus told the council that Fullerton has used Flock cameras since 2021, including 17 fixed units and two mobile ones, at an annual cost of about $51,000, totaling about $236,000 since the program’s inception. The cameras retain images for 30 days, and 135 police personnel hold accounts with Flock.

Radus emphasized that officers must enter a case number or generic code and provide a reason for each data search. He said the department has shifted to quarterly usage audits, a change from the previous annual assessments. Notably, recent policy changes ensure the data cannot be used for immigration enforcement, in compliance with California’s SB 54, and that information is shared only with California agencies.

“This is simply a tool that provides a lead,” Radus explained, adding, “No arrests are based solely on a photograph.” He clarified that Fullerton’s cameras capture still images and do not record audio or video. Despite this, Zahra pointed out that the existing policy indicated ALPR data must be stored for at least one year, a claim Radus refuted by saying the language referred to in-car systems the city does not have.

Much of the public inquiry focused on outside agencies’ access to and use of Fullerton’s camera data. Radus noted that these agencies search by license plate instead of downloading Fullerton’s records en masse. Audit logs document who searched the data and when, but concerns lingered regarding the potential misuse of this information. Councilmember Charles asked whether an outside agency could share results with federal immigration authorities, to which Radus acknowledged the possibility, stating, “Could it be printed and misused? Yes.”

Zahra criticized Flock’s inadequate response to an audit request on external searches, expressing disappointment with the brevity of an employee named Kaci’s reply. A Flock representative on the call apologized for the lack of detail.

Radus admitted that the police department has not formally tracked the contribution of Flock cameras to solved cases. He said they are working to add fields to their records indicating whether Flock was used in investigations. He recounted various serious crimes, such as burglaries and kidnappings, where Flock cameras played a role but hesitated to attribute outcomes solely to the technology.

Public comments revealed significant opposition to the ALPR program. Bianca, a Cal State Fullerton student, noted that around 500 students had signed a petition against the cameras on campus, asserting, “We don’t consent to our car being put in a database.” Other members of the public raised concerns over reported abuses of Flock by law enforcement in other jurisdictions and questioned security vulnerabilities in the technology.

Valencia, who opposed the suspension, proposed continuing the camera operations while gathering data over the next six months. Her motion failed to receive a second. “I don’t feel comfortable turning off the cameras because they have been helping our police officers,” she stated, later inquiring whether the pause could be shortened to two months.

Zahra shared his personal experience as an immigrant who fled a country marked by pervasive surveillance, asserting that he fully understood the concerns presented. Charles emphasized that public sentiment, particularly in her district and at the university, showed a strong desire to oppose establishing a mass surveillance state.

In a last-ditch effort, Valencia said that she expected coming state and federal legislation to “help make these policies easier for our city.” She also said, ” The layperson doesn’t have any idea what a policy is.”

As the council moves forward with its six-month hiatus of Flock cameras, the ongoing dialogue about balancing public safety and civil liberties remains at the forefront of the community’s concerns.