Fullerton officials are slated to hold an expanded discussion about reviewing their policy concerning automated license plate readers, known as Flock cameras, following a recent public presentation and growing privacy concerns. The discussion, requested by Councilmember Ahmad Zahra, is expected to take place at an upcoming city council meeting.
The move comes as residents and some council members in Fullerton have raised concerns about data privacy and the potential for misuse of the images and information captured by the cameras. These concerns mirror broader discussions occurring across Orange County and nationally regarding automated license plate reader technology, with Santa Ana also slated to review its Flock camera contract next month, and Costa Mesa having opted to retain its contract despite similar objections almost two months ago.
Fullerton Police Department officials state the cameras assist in solving crimes and have policies in place to prevent misuse. The city currently operates 19 Flock cameras, with two being mobile units, and has invested $236,000 in equipment, subscriptions, and maintenance since their installation in 2021. According to a presentation by Fullerton Police Chief Jon Radus at the Sept. 15 city council meeting, the cameras have contributed to the recovery of 274 stolen vehicles and the location of 18 missing persons since their implementation.
Chief Radus affirmed the legality of the cameras, stating they are positioned on public roadways where, as established by courts, there is "no expectation of privacy." He emphasized that the Fullerton Police Department does not cooperate with federal immigration authorities, citing Senate Bill 54, and is restricted from sharing data with agencies outside California. Radus also clarified that Flock, the system provider, does not sell collected data, and the department maintains control over who can access the information. Data is erased after 30 days unless preserved as evidence, and personal use of the system is strictly prohibited, with authorized users required to log their name, reason for use, and a case number for every search, which is permanently recorded.
The Chief detailed the system's capabilities, noting it captures still images of license plates and vehicles, comparing them against 'hotlists' of stolen or flagged vehicles to generate investigative leads. The system utilizes artificial intelligence to aid in identifying described vehicles within specific locations and timeframes. Radus stated the cameras do not record video, employ facial recognition or biometrics, or collect personal identifying information such as names, birth dates, social security numbers, or addresses, unless directly associated with a hotlisted vehicle from the DMV. He also clarified that the system is not used for continuous tracking, predicting criminal activity, or enforcing immigration or traffic laws.
The system can be used in two primary ways: real-time alerts for flagged vehicles, which require verification with other departmental databases before officers can act, and post-incident investigations, where detectives can search for vehicles linked to a crime and track their movement across other participating California jurisdictions. According to Flock’s transparency webpage, the cameras have detected over one million unique vehicles and approximately 5,100 flagged vehicles over the last 30 days, with about 500 searches conducted on the system within the same period.
To address concerns about oversight, Chief Radus announced a change from annual to quarterly audits of the system by department supervisors. The system itself is designed to automatically flag abnormal behavior, including searches beyond the 30-day data retention period, repeated searches of the same plate, broad or unusual searches, or those involving personal or sensitive information. Flock also conducts its own audits of user access. Radus indicated that 10 to 15 system access flags had occurred, though he did not release specific details, noting that flags prompt review and do not automatically signify misuse.
Councilmember Ahmad Zahra expressed concerns about data leaks in other cities and noted that some municipalities have suspended Flock contracts. He called for a robust policy, stating that he wants to ensure the systems are credible, vetted, constantly reviewed, and have a public policy in place. Councilmember Shana Charles supported Zahra's call for a comprehensive discussion, citing concerns for residents' civil liberties. Resident Deborah Langenbacher acknowledged the utility for law enforcement but voiced apprehension about “excessive surveillance” on law-abiding citizens. Mayor Fred Jung, however, described Zahra's questioning at the Sept. 15 meeting as “soapboxing,” suggesting Radus might not have all the answers at that time.
The upcoming city council meeting will feature the expanded discussion, allowing for a more thorough review of the policy governing the automated license plate reader system.
