Decision Delayed

A Flock camera in El Cerrito

The City Council on April 21 delayed a decision on renewing its contract with Flock Safety for a system with about 40 license-plate reading cameras around the city. It voted to invite the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) to make a presentation on the issue when it takes up the contract issue again on Tuesday, May 5.

Decision Needed By May 6

El Cerrito Police Chief Paul Keith said the current three-year contract expires June 6, but to avoid auto-renewing it the city must notify Flock by May 6. He recommended that the city not renew its current contract and instead authorize a new modified contract with Flock.

How Flock Helps Officers

Keith said use of the Flock system helps police monitor vehicles entering the city and issue alerts if any are on a state “hot list” of vehicles, enabling officers to intercept them. It also helps with investigations by taking photographs of the rear of vehicles and retaining those records for 30 days.

“Investigators can search for images, in support of a criminal investigation, to help identify vehicles used in the commission of a crime and link those vehicles to suspects,” Keith wrote.

Intense Public Interest

The decision to postpone came after more than 25 speakers objected to renewal. Council members said they had received numerous letters and emails about the issue.

Other cities around the Bay Area are also looking into whether to renew their contracts with Flock. After turning off cameras and then re-negotiating, the city of Richmond approved a Flock contract. The city of Mountain View voted not to renew.

Belief Feds Can Access the Data

At Tuesday’s meeting, a series of speakers argued that a revised Flock contract negotiated recently by Chief Keith did not provide a convincing guarantee that data from the cameras will not be shared with federal agencies, including ICE. Speakers said they believe federal agencies could access Flock data under various circumstances, and do it without the knowledge of the local police department.

Even before comments from the public, four council members posed questions and expressed concerns about renewing the contract or authorizing a modified contract. Another reason to postpone, they said, is that they did not receive the proposed new contract until Sunday due to extended negotiations with Flock.

Ktsanes’ Motion to Invite ACLU

Council member William Ktsanes said he needed to get more information before voting on the issue. He proposed inviting the ACLU to make a presentation and later turned that idea into a motion which was approved.

“What I see missing is any representation of the groups of people who are concerned about civil liberties and have that perspective,” Ktsanes said.

Ktsanes told Chief Keith, “I just want to let you know that I appreciate your work on it. I understand the value to you but I also understand that there’s another perspective that we’ve not heard.”

Some of Motoyama’s Questions

Council member Lisa Motoyama asked several questions and said she was not satisfied with information provided by a Flock Safety representative who was present on Zoom at the council meeting.

For instance, Motoyama said, “Cal Matters found data-sharing with Homeland Security Border Patrol in L.A., Orange County, and San Diego as of June 2025. So what have you done since then so this doesn’t happen?”

Flock representative Katie Dauphine said Flock has made sure there are no automatic opt-ins of sharing. “The agencies themselves have to decide what agencies and federal programs to opt into…We rely on the agency.”

Motoyama asked, “So how did that happen in the first place?”

The Flock rep said she could get that information from her technical team.

Saltzman Requests More Options

Council member Rebecca Saltzman asked that more options related to the Flock contract be provided, including a short-term agreement that might allow the city to continue using the cameras while seeking a better solution.

Wysinger Wants More Information

Council member Caroline Wysinger also supported getting more information, including about other vendors.

She initially proposed a study session, but City Attorney Sky Woodruff  said that would be at odds with council policy because a study session is used when there will not be a vote.

A vote is needed on May 5 because of the contract deadline.

Some Recent Flock History

The city’s initial contract with Flock was approved by the City Council in March 2023.

In January 2026, after reading news reports about unauthorized sharing by Flock of LPR data in other cities, Keith did an audit to identify what El Cerrito data has been shared and where.

He found that during the initial installation period from June 7, 2023, to Aug. 4, 2023, the system defaulted to sharing information with multiple federal agencies. The El Cerrito police department took over administration of the system on Aug. 4, 2023, and changed settings to stop federal and out-of-state sharing. California law also prohibits sharing of LPR data except with other California law enforcement agencies, Keith said.

Since Aug. 4, 2023, a recent audit showed unauthorized sharing took place for brief periods with two federal agencies. One was the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The other was the Loma Linda Healthcare Systems Veterans Affairs Police. These instances were brief and do not appear to have caused harm to anyone, but they shook ECPD’s trust in Flock, Keith said.

Current Data Sharing In-State

Currently, Chief Keith said El Cerrito shares license-plate reader data with 318 California law enforcement agencies and has access to 281 LPR databases in the state.

Quinto Says Flock Deters Crime

Mayor Gabe Quinto said the Flock system is valuable for public safety.

“The data shows that crime has gone down in the cities that have Flock,” he said. “That includes El Cerrito…It may not be perfect but it is deterring crime.”

Quinto said, “A lot of families have moved here from bigger cities because they know the importance of El Cerrito maintaining a pro-public safety stance on everything, and that includes tech.”

He concluded, “I do support continuing this to the May 5 meeting.”

Improvements in Proposed Flock Contract

At the April 21 meeting, the police chief mentioned two concessions from Flock that were added to a new contract. These include a $34,500 penalty to be paid by Flock if it shared data without El Cerrito’s permission, and a provision that the contract can be terminated early. However, early termination would require the city to pay for whatever part of the term remains.

In recent months, Keith has spoken to the City Council, posted information online, and held a community meeting about how the Flock system helps his department, what unauthorized sharing has occurred, and changes made to prevent that.

“System Has Been ‘Very Successful’”

Keith credits Flock data with helping officers to bring down the auto theft and burglary rates to the lowest level in 40 years. He reported that the license plate reading (LPR) system “has played a role in at least 64 arrests and 324 criminal cases.”

“The system has been, in my opinion, very successful,” Keith said.

Trust for Chief Keith and ECPD

Council members and several speakers stressed that they trust Chief Keith and the city police department, and they praised his transparency about unauthorized sharing. It’s the Flock Safety company and the current federal administration that they do not trust.

El Cerrito resident Laura Palin said, “I appreciate feeling safe in El Cerrito. I do trust our El Cerrito police. I trust Chief Keith but beyond that I don’t have trust.”

$315,000 Over Three Years

The police chief recommended that the council authorize a new three-year contract with Flock at a cost not to exceed $315,000.

27 Speakers Given One Minute

At the start of public comment, City Clerk Holly Charlety announced that 27 people were signed up to speak. Mayor Quinto limited each speaker’s time to one minute. This aligned with new guidelines approved Feb. 3 by the council when there are more than 20 speakers, although the mayor retains discretion to set the time.

Excerpts From Public Comment

El Cerrito resident Cindy McPherson said, “We are a sanctuary city. Under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) it is possible that a federal subpoena could override any of those boundaries or settings that El Cerrito, the police department, Flock, or even Amazon web services claim to have.”

El Cerrito resident Tom Parks said Flock is a mass surveillance system that violates 4^th amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

El Cerrito resident Leah Carroll said, “ICE has killed nonviolent protesters. They’re completely out of control. We cannot trust the federal government right now. Flock cannot be trusted to not share the data with the federal government so we shouldn’t do this.”

El Cerrito resident Ariel Gold said, “I hear the mayor on crime deterrence, and I want a safe community. But we don’t have proof that Flock is the reason crime has gone down. And we don’t adopt every tool that might reduce crime, like curfews.”

El Cerrito resident Rayah Long said, “To say Flock only photographs plates is like saying a smart phone only makes calls. It ignores that it uses AI fingerprinting that tracks color and unique markings and (it uses) wide angle lenses that capture the faces of drivers and bystanders. This isn’t a plate reader, it’s a pattern of life tracker.”

El Cerrito resident Stephanie Singer said, “You cannot trust the vendor to be your source of truth on how secure something is…so get independent information.”

El Cerrito resident Brian Fogg summarized laws he said are relevant to the sharing of Flock data.

“Under the Cloud Act, enacted in 2018, federal law enforcement can compel any U.S. company to produce data they possess, including data held on behalf of the local police department.

“Under FISA, intelligence agencies can obtain the same data through secret court order, and the company is legally prohibited from disclosing that the order exists.

“Under national security letters codified in 1986, expanded under the Patriot Act, the FBI can demand subscriber data with no court involvement at all, again with mandatory gag orders attached.”

Fogg said he had just left a meeting where the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to renew a contract with Flock despite a “massive turnout” of opponents.

“This is a big issue all around the Bay Area,” he said. “Three years ago a lot of communities all signed up at the same time. Now these municipalities are having to decide whether to continue.

“Many people have a specific view on public safety that’s local and does not take into account the global surveillance situation we’re dealing with, Fogg said. “Tonight we have a bunch of tech industry people and veterans of the security industry. They know what they’re talking about,” Fogg said.

After the public hearing, Quinto told the group, “We heard you loud and clear.”