Check us
Every numbered marker on this site resolves to an entry below. Follow the links. If any of it does not say what we say it says, tell us and we will fix it in public.
We grade our own confidence, because not all of these are equal:
- ConfirmedA primary source — a court filing, a statute, an agency audit — or a major outlet reporting directly on one.
- ReportedCredible, but we have only a secondary source. We are still chasing the underlying document, and we say so.
- OpenWe do not know. These appear as questions, never as claims.
How the system works
- [1]
Norfolk, Virginia installed 172 cameras with the stated goal of a 'curtain of technology' making it hard to drive anywhere in the city without passing one.
From the complaint filed by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm.
- [2]
Flock cameras record more than plates. They build a 'vehicle fingerprint' — make, model, color, roof racks, bumper stickers, and damage — which can identify a vehicle with no plate at all.
- [3]
Flock told the Oshkosh, Wisconsin council its system does not create a heat map of an individual's movements. It does. The council revoked its approval the next day.
Flock characterized the false statement as 'one small misconception' and 'a minor nuance.'
What has gone wrong elsewhere
- [4]
After Flock added filters blocking search reasons containing words like 'immigration' and 'abortion', officers bypassed them by typing vague terms such as 'investigation' — or 'hehehe'.
- [5]
An internal investigation in Joplin, Missouri found a single officer had run one woman's license plate through the Flock system nearly 400 times.
Secondary reporting on an internal police investigation. We have not obtained the underlying investigative file.
- [6]
A Texas officer used the network to run a nationwide search for a woman suspected of a self-managed abortion. A separate search of a Washington department's data listed the reason as 'had an abortion, search for female'.
- [7]
Audit logs obtained from the Denver Police Department under Colorado's open records act showed Denver data had been searched more than 1,400 times in connection with ICE since June 2024.
This is the single clearest example of why the audit logs matter. Denver's council did not know until a resident requested them.
- [8]
Evanston, Illinois discovered its ALPR data had been subjected to seven ICE searches despite a state law banning that sharing, and revoked out-of-state access.
- [9]
Syracuse councilors found local data had been searched 4.4 million times nationwide without warrants.
- [10]
An audit of the Austin Police Department's program found that over 20% of searches of the ALPR database lacked the documentation or justification department policy required.
- [11]
An LAPD audit found roughly one in three hot-list alerts was false.
Secondary reporting. We are still seeking the audit document itself or LAPD's own statement.
- [12]
Littleton, Massachusetts disabled its Flock cameras. The company restored power to them remotely without notifying the town, which then ordered them removed from the utility poles.
- [13]
Flock installed cameras on state road infrastructure without permits in multiple states. South Carolina's transportation department found more than 200 unpermitted cameras and imposed a moratorium.
- [14]
Flock told Loveland, Colorado that federal agencies had no access and that it held no federal contracts. It later acknowledged holding pilot contracts with Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security that provided direct data access.
Flock's CEO said the company's 'public statements inadvertently provided inaccurate information.'
California law and the courts
- [15]
California Civil Code section 1798.90.51 requires any agency operating an ALPR system to publish a usage and privacy policy and to audit searches.
- [16]
California Civil Code section 1798.90.55 restricts sharing ALPR information with out-of-state and federal agencies.
- [17]
California's Attorney General sued the City of El Cajon in October 2025 for sharing ALPR data with more than 100 out-of-state agencies.
We are still seeking the Attorney General's own press release and the filed complaint.
- [18]
The ACLU and EFF identified more than 70 California agencies sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies in violation of state law.
- [19]
A federal judge held in January 2026 that Norfolk's camera network was not a Fourth Amendment violation, while warning that the conclusion could change as coverage expands. The case is on appeal to the Fourth Circuit.
Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, No. 26-1227 (4th Cir.). Brought by the Institute for Justice.
Places that rolled it back
- [20]
The Los Angeles Police Department ended its Flock Safety contract in July 2026.
Being re-verified against LAPD or Los Angeles city records.
- [21]
Austin let its Flock contract expire on June 30, 2025 after a coalition of more than 30 community groups organized against renewal. The council then passed an ordinance requiring council approval before police can use ALPRs again.
The same reporting documents that APD later found a workaround, and that Texas DPS installed its own readers in Austin. This is why an ordinance matters as much as a cancellation.
- [22]
South Kingstown, Rhode Island voted unanimously on July 28, 2026 to terminate its Flock contract and remove the cameras, six days after the ACLU sent the council a letter and residents filled the meeting.
Little Compton, Warren, and Portsmouth followed.
- [23]
Santa Cruz voted 6–1 to end its Flock contract in January 2026.
- [24]
Denver's city council rejected a Flock proposal unanimously after the ICE search logs came to light.
- [25]
At least 23 localities have voted to cancel, reject, not renew, or deactivate Flock cameras.
Reported count. Flock has thousands of customers, so this is a growing trend rather than a collapse. We would rather state that plainly than overstate it.
- [26]
The ACLU runs a national campaign supporting residents organizing against these cameras, with model letters and organizing guidance.
- [27]
DeFlock is a crowdsourced map of license plate reader locations that anyone can contribute to.
Yucca Valley specifically
- [28]
On 16 September 2025 the Yucca Valley Town Council authorised a two-year contract with Flock Safety for up to $158,000 — $92,000 in the first year and $66,000 a year after that.
From the Town's own meeting records. The order form gives the contract total as $158,000.00.
- [29]
The contract sets a retention period of 365 days — twelve times Flock's 30-day standard — and 'Extended data retention (Up to 1 Year)' appears as a purchased line item covering all 20 cameras.
The order form states 'Retention Period: 365 Days'. The line item reads 'Extended data retention for up to 1 year for 1 Law Enforcement grade LPR camera', quantity 20. It was bought deliberately; it is not a default setting.
- [30]
The Statement of Work provides for 20 license plate reader cameras. Fifteen of the twenty are permitted in Caltrans right-of-way — the Highway 62 corridor — and one sits in Joshua Tree.
Verbatim: 'Installation of (20) standard LPR cameras'. Permitting: 13 Caltrans District 8 ROW, 2 Caltrans District 8, 2 City of Yucca Valley, 1 Town ROW, 1 Joshua Tree, 1 private property.
- [31]
The motion passed 4-0. Mayor Pro Tem Merl Abel moved it and Council Member Jim Schooler seconded; Jeff Drozd and Rick Denison also voted aye. Robert Lombardo was absent and did not vote.
Titles have rotated since. Jeff Drozd chaired that meeting as Mayor; Merl Abel became Mayor later. The minutes record Robert Lombardo as 'Absent (Excused)'.
- [32]
The same motion directed staff to develop and return an ALPR privacy policy 'for consideration and approval prior to program implementation'. The Town Manager told the Council a Data Management Policy would come back 'in the near future', and a Council Member asked when.
The policy was to cover authorised purpose, access control, monitoring and security, data sharing restrictions, and data retention.
- [33]
We searched every agenda in the Town's public meeting portal since that vote — 96 meetings across all boards and commissions — and found no further item on a privacy policy, a data management policy, ALPR, or Flock.
Search terms: data management, data policy, privacy polic, license plate, ALPR, flock, surveillance. The portal covers 22 August 2025 onward, so the window fully spans the period since the vote. This does not rule out a policy adopted administratively without a council item, which is exactly why we ask the Town rather than assert it.
- [34]
The contract renews itself automatically unless either party gives notice at least 30 days before the current term ends.
Verbatim: 'This Agreement will automatically renew ... unless either Party gives the other Party notice of non-renewal at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the then-current term.' The term began on 'first installation and validation', so the exact deadline depends on when the cameras went live, a date we have asked for and do not yet have.
- [35]
The agenda item was titled only 'Public Safety Enhancements'. The words Flock, license plate, camera and surveillance appear nowhere in the title — only in the indented recommendation beneath it.
It was a Department Reports item with a staff presentation, public comment and Council questions — so it was not buried on the consent calendar. But a resident scanning the agenda for anything about surveillance would not have found it.
- [36]
The staff report describes this as Phase I: twenty cameras across five intersections on Twentynine Palms Highway (SR-62).
Verbatim: 'This Phase I implementation would consist of twenty (20) total cameras, spanning over five (5) intersections along Twentynine Palms Highway (SR-62) within the Town of Yucca Valley.' The word Phase I implies later phases.
- [37]
The cameras are paid for out of the Town's public safety grant money — a COPS/LLESA allocation averaging $180,000 to $190,000 a year.
So roughly a third of the Town's annual public safety grant now goes to one vendor in Georgia.
- [38]
The Sheriff's Office filed a CEQA Notice of Exemption for the installation on 5 February 2026, naming intersections on Highway 62 at Kickapoo, Mohawk, Sage, Old Woman Springs, Joshua Lane, Camino del Cielo and Deer.
The lead agency on the installation filing is the Sheriff's Office, not the Town, even though the Town is the named customer on the contract. Filed under CEQA section 15301(b), minor alteration of existing structures.
- [39]
At the 2 June 2026 Council meeting a resident referenced a petition asking the Town to discontinue the Flock program. Public comment closed and the meeting moved on to the budget.
Recorded in the official minutes. It is the only mention of Flock in any Council record after the September 2025 vote — and it came from a member of the public, not from the dais.
- [40]
The Council first saw a Flock presentation on 6 May 2025. That item was received and filed with no contract vote.
In the Town's pre-September-2025 agenda archive. The same twenty-camera, five-intersection plan was already described then.
- [41]
Districts 1, 3 and 5 are on the ballot on 3 November 2026 — the seats held by Jim Schooler, Merl Abel and Rick Denison, all of whom voted for the contract.
- [42]
The Sheriff's Department has a general 2018 ALPR policy setting county-wide retention at a minimum of one year and a maximum of two. It predates the Flock contract by seven years and does not mention Flock.
Useful context, but it is NOT the source of the 365-day figure — that comes from the Town's own order form. We could find no Flock-specific usage policy published under Civil Code section 1798.90.51.
What we don't know about Yucca Valley
These are the local questions we have not been able to answer from a document. We will not fill them with guesses. If you can answer one, we will publish the document and credit it.
- ?
The Council required an ALPR privacy policy to come back for approval before the program was implemented. Where is it?
- ?
Has the annual audit of ALPR searches required by Civil Code section 1798.90.51 ever been performed? If so, please produce it.
- ?
How many times has Yucca Valley data been searched by agencies outside California, or by federal agencies?
- ?
The term began on 'first installation and validation'. On what date was that, and therefore what is the deadline to give notice of non-renewal?
Found an error?
Corrections matter more here than anywhere else on the site. A single wrong figure repeated at a council meeting costs the whole campaign its credibility. Send us the document and we will correct the page and note what changed.