Say it in your own words, or use ours

Subject: Please cancel the Flock camera contract Dear Mayor Abel and Council Members, I live in Yucca Valley, on [YOUR STREET OR NEIGHBORHOOD], and I drive Highway 62 most days. I am asking the Town to cancel its contract for Flock Safety automated license plate readers, to have the twenty cameras physically removed, and to have the stored data deleted. Two things concern me most. The contract sets a retention period of 365 days, when Flock's standard is 30 — the Town paid extra for that. And on September 16, 2025 the Council's own motion required a privacy policy to come back for approval before the program was implemented. The cameras are up. I cannot find any record that the policy ever returned to you. I am not asking for less policing. I am asking that a private company not keep a searchable record of where residents drive, on a network the Town does not control. Public safety does not require turning every trip down Highway 62 into a searchable government record. [YOUR NAME] [YOUR ADDRESS], Yucca Valley, CA

Subject: Flock Safety ALPR contract — request to terminate, and request for records Dear Mayor Abel, Mayor Pro Tem Schooler, and Council Members Drozd, Lombardo, and Denison, I am a resident of Yucca Valley at [YOUR ADDRESS]. I have lived here [NUMBER] years. I am writing about the automated license plate reader cameras operated in and around Yucca Valley by Flock Safety. These cameras photograph every passing vehicle and record the plate, the vehicle's make, model, and color, its distinguishing features, the location, and the time. That record is searchable after the fact, for every driver, whether or not anyone suspects them of anything. On September 16, 2025, under item 2025-103, this Council authorized a two-year contract with Flock Safety for up to $158,000, covering twenty cameras. The motion passed 4-0. That same motion did something else. It directed staff to "develop and return an automated license plate reader policy addressing specific details to protect privacy and civil liberties ... for consideration and approval prior to program implementation." The Town Manager said it would come back in the near future. A Council Member asked when. The cameras are installed. I have searched the Town's public meeting portal and cannot find any item since that night on a privacy policy, a data management policy, ALPR, or Flock. So I ask the Council to answer, in public: 1. Where is the privacy policy this Council required before implementation? If it exists, when was it approved and where is it published? 2. Has the annual audit of ALPR searches required by California Civil Code section 1798.90.51 ever been performed? Please produce it. 3. The order form states a retention period of 365 days, and lists "Extended data retention (Up to 1 Year)" as a purchased line item for all twenty cameras. Flock's standard is 30 days. Who decided to buy twelve times the standard retention, and on what basis? 4. How many times has Yucca Valley data been searched by agencies outside California, or by federal agencies? California Civil Code section 1798.90.55 restricts that sharing. 5. The agreement renews automatically unless notice is given at least thirty days before the end of the term. What is that deadline? I raise the last question because other cities that asked it did not like the answer. Denver's own audit logs showed its data had been searched more than a thousand times on behalf of federal immigration enforcement. Evanston, Illinois found searches that violated its state's law. Neither city knew until a resident asked. I am asking the Council to: - Terminate the contract and not renew it. - Have the cameras physically removed, not merely switched off. When Littleton, Massachusetts disabled its cameras, the company powered them back on remotely without notifying the town. - Delete the stored data and obtain written confirmation. - Adopt an ordinance requiring a public hearing and a recorded vote before the Town acquires any future surveillance technology. This is not a request for fewer deputies or a smaller public safety budget. It is a request that the Town keep control of a record about its own residents. Thank you for your time and your service. [YOUR NAME] [YOUR ADDRESS], Yucca Valley, CA [ZIP] [YOUR PHONE / EMAIL]

Subject: A veteran's objection to the Flock camera contract Dear Mayor Abel and Council Members, I am a Yucca Valley resident and a [BRANCH] veteran. I served [YEARS]. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment is part of it. It says the government needs a reason before it searches you — not after. The Flock cameras invert that. They record every driver in this town continuously, and the reason gets typed into a text box later, by someone who may not be in California, and which no one verifies. I am not against the Sheriff's Department and I am not against enforcement. I am against a private company holding a permanent, searchable record of where the people of this town drive. Please terminate the contract, remove the cameras, and delete the data. [YOUR NAME] [YOUR ADDRESS], Yucca Valley, CA

Subject: Business owner opposed to the Flock ALPR contract Dear Mayor Abel and Council Members, I own [BUSINESS NAME] on [STREET] and have operated in Yucca Valley for [NUMBER] years. I want to be clear that I care about theft and vandalism — I have dealt with both. But the Flock system does not solve my problem, and it creates a new one. Every customer, employee, and delivery driver who comes to my business is now logged. That record is searchable by agencies I have never heard of and cannot ask. I did not agree to that on my customers' behalf, and neither did the Council on theirs. There are targeted alternatives — an alert on a specific stolen plate — that do not require a permanent log of everyone. Please cancel the contract, remove the cameras, and delete the data. [YOUR NAME], [BUSINESS NAME] [ADDRESS], Yucca Valley, CA

Asunto: Por favor cancelen el contrato con las cámaras Flock Estimado Alcalde Abel y Miembros del Concejo: Soy residente de Yucca Valley. Vivo en [SU CALLE O VECINDARIO] y manejo por la Carretera 62 casi todos los días. Les pido que el Pueblo cancele su contrato con Flock Safety, que las cámaras lectoras de placas sean retiradas físicamente, y que los datos guardados sean borrados. No pido menos seguridad pública. Pido que una empresa privada no mantenga un registro de los movimientos de los residentes en una red que el Pueblo no controla. La ley de California limita compartir esta información con agencias federales o de otros estados. Les pido que confirmen públicamente si eso ha ocurrido con los datos de Yucca Valley. [SU NOMBRE] [SU DIRECCIÓN], Yucca Valley, CA

Good evening. My name is [YOUR NAME]. I live at [YOUR STREET], here in Yucca Valley. I've lived here [NUMBER] years. I'm here about the Flock Safety license plate cameras. I want to start by saying what this is not. It is not a complaint about the deputies at our station. They run a small force over a very large area, and that is a real problem that deserves a real answer. This isn't that answer. Here is what these cameras do. They photograph every vehicle that passes. They record the plate, the make, the model, the color, the roof rack, the dent in the fender. They record where and when. And they keep it, so that later, someone can search it. Not someone we elected. Not necessarily someone in California. I'd ask you to consider one thing about our geography. Highway 62 is the only real way in and out of this basin. Fifteen of these twenty cameras are permitted in Caltrans right-of-way. That's not covering a neighborhood. That's covering all of us, every day. Now, I've read the contract. It's attached to your own agenda from September 16th of last year. It says the retention period is 365 days. Flock's standard is thirty. And the order form lists "extended data retention, up to one year" as a line item — quantity twenty. We didn't get a year of storage by accident. Somebody bought it, for every camera. But that's not the part that brought me here. Your own motion that night said staff would develop and return a privacy policy — and I'm quoting — "for consideration and approval prior to program implementation." The Town Manager said it would come back in the near future. Council Member Schooler asked when. That was eleven months ago. The cameras are up. I've been through every agenda in the Town's portal since then — ninety-six meetings — and I can't find that policy anywhere. So I'm not here to tell you that you did something wrong in September. You attached a condition. That was the right instinct. I'm here to ask you to enforce it. I'm asking the Council to terminate the contract, have the cameras physically removed, and have the data deleted with written confirmation. And I'd note the agreement renews itself automatically unless somebody gives notice thirty days out — so this is not a decision that can wait indefinitely. Los Angeles ended its contract. So did Santa Cruz, and El Cerrito, and Bishop — towns smaller than ours. It is not a radical request. It's been done, repeatedly, by councils across the political spectrum. Thank you for your time.

Good evening. My name is [YOUR NAME], I live on [YOUR STREET] in Yucca Valley. I'm here to ask the Council to cancel the Flock license plate camera contract. I'll keep it to one point. On September 16th of last year, this Council's own motion required a privacy policy to come back for approval before the camera program was implemented. The cameras are up. I can't find that policy in any agenda since. I'd like the Council to produce it tonight, or to say plainly that it was never done. Because if it was never done, then this Town is running a twenty-camera surveillance system that keeps a year of our movements, under a condition the Council set and nobody met. Terminate the contract. Remove the cameras. Delete the data. Thank you.

I understand the contract may sit with the County rather than the Town, and I appreciate staff clarifying that. I'd make two points about it. First, these cameras are on our streets, photographing our residents. Whoever signs the check, the Council has standing to speak for the people who live here. Second, this Council can do three things tonight without the County's permission. It can pass a resolution formally opposing the deployment and asking the County to terminate. It can direct staff to obtain the usage policy, the audit, and the search logs, and bring them back to this body in public. And it can adopt an ordinance requiring a public hearing before any surveillance technology operates inside Town limits going forward. Santa Clara County's board made a decision, and Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, and Mountain View all followed. It moves both directions. Please don't let "it's the County" be the end of it. Thank you.

Good evening, my name is [YOUR NAME], resident at [YOUR STREET]. I know the Council can't take action tonight on something that isn't on the agenda, so I'm not asking it to. I'm asking for one thing: that the Flock Safety license plate reader contract be placed on a future agenda as a discussion item, with a staff report that includes the contract term, the annual cost, the renewal date, the state-mandated usage policy, and the search audit logs. I'd ask any Council Member willing to request that item to say so tonight. There are [NUMBER] of us here on this. We'll come back when it's agendized — you meet again in two weeks. Thank you.

Hi, my name is [YOUR NAME] and I'm a resident of Yucca Valley, at [YOUR STREET]. I'm calling about the Flock Safety license plate reader cameras. I'd like the Council to cancel that contract, have the cameras physically removed, and have the stored data deleted. I'd also like to know one thing, if someone can get back to me. The Council's motion in September 2025 required a privacy policy to come back for approval before the cameras went in. I can't find it. Could someone tell me whether that policy exists, and where it's published? Could you log me as opposed to the contract? My callback number is [YOUR NUMBER]. Thank you.

Hi, this is [YOUR NAME], a Yucca Valley resident at [YOUR ADDRESS]. I'm calling to ask the Council to cancel the Flock Safety license plate camera contract, remove the cameras, and delete the data. Please log me as opposed. Again, [YOUR NAME], [YOUR ADDRESS], and my number is [YOUR NUMBER]. [SAY THE NUMBER AGAIN, SLOWLY.] Thank you.

Hi, my name is [YOUR NAME], I'm a resident in Yucca Valley. I'm trying to find a public document, and I'm hoping you can point me the right direction. California Civil Code section 1798.90.51 requires any agency operating license plate reader cameras to publish a usage and privacy policy. I'm looking for the department's ALPR policy, and the annual audit that goes with it. Is that posted online somewhere, or should I file a Public Records Act request? And if it's a records request, who do I send it to? Thank you — I appreciate your help.

To the editor, There are twenty automated license plate reader cameras operating in and around Yucca Valley. They photograph every vehicle that passes, log the plate and a description of the car, and store that record for a full year so it can be searched later. Most people here don't know they're there. I didn't. I want to be careful about what I'm objecting to. I'm not objecting to the deputies at the Yucca Valley station, who cover an enormous area with a small crew. And I'm not claiming these cameras have been misused here — I don't know that, and neither does anyone else, because the search logs haven't been made public. That's the problem. And there's a sharper one. When the Council approved the $158,000 contract in September 2025, its motion required a privacy policy to come back for approval before the program went live. The cameras went up. As far as I can tell from the Town's own meeting records, the policy never came back. California law requires any agency running these cameras to publish a usage policy and audit its searches annually. It also restricts sharing that data with federal or out-of-state agencies. Those aren't opinions; they're in Civil Code section 1798.90.51 and following. So there's a simple question our Town Council can answer: where is the policy they themselves required, where is the audit state law requires, and who has been searching our data? Other cities asked. Denver found more than a thousand searches run for federal immigration enforcement. Its council didn't know either. Los Angeles cancelled its Flock contract this July. So did Santa Cruz, El Cerrito, and Bishop — a town smaller than ours. Highway 62 is the only road in or out of this basin. A few cameras on it don't watch a street. They watch all of us. I'd like our Council to ask the question. [YOUR NAME] [YOUR TOWN]

Hey — did you know there are 20 license plate cameras on the 62 that log every car that drives past, and the Town paid extra to keep the records for a full year? The Town Council is the one that can cancel it. There's a meeting [DATE]. Everything's here, with sources: offthe62.org Takes 2 minutes to send them an email if you don't want to go in person.

Question for the group: did anyone else know we have 20 license plate reader cameras around town, on a $158,000 contract? These are the Flock Safety cameras — small black boxes with a solar panel on a pole. They photograph every car that goes by and log the plate, make, model, color and time. It's in the Town's own agenda from September 2025. Here's the part that got me. The contract keeps that record for 365 days. Flock's standard is 30. And the Council's own motion said a privacy policy had to come back for approval before the cameras went live — I can't find any sign that it ever did. I'm not trying to start a fight about policing. I'd just like to know who can search a record of where I drive. Town Council meets the 1st and 3rd Tuesday at 5pm at the Community Center, and I'm planning to ask. If anyone has already looked into this, I'd genuinely like to know what you found. More here, with sources: offthe62.org