Flock Surveillance Cameras

Meeting Details

Date: October 8, 2024
Time: 9:00 AM
Location: Board Chambers, 707 Nevada Street, Susanville, CA 96130
Attendees:
- Supervisors: Aaron Albaugh (Chairman, District 4), Chris Gallagher (Vice Chairman, District 1), Gary Bridges (District 2), Tom Neely (District 3), Jason Ingram (District 5)
- Staff: Richard Egan (County Administrative Officer), Amanda Uhrhammer (County Counsel), Michele Yderraga (Deputy Clerk of the Board), Silas Rojas (OES Chief), John McGarva (Sheriff/Coroner), Michael Carney (Sheriff's Lieutenant)

Agenda Summary

The agenda listed a contract with Flock Group Inc. under "Department Reports" (Item H5) for $98,950 from Fund/Budget Unit No. 185-0540 to install thirteen fixed ALPRs. Key points:

• Subject: Award a bid to Flock Group Inc. for thirteen ALPRs to enhance Sheriff's Department capabilities.
• Fiscal Impact: No general fund impact; fully funded by a Homeland Security Grant, budgeted in FY 2024/2025.
• Action Requested: Approve the bid and authorize CAO Richard Egan to execute the contract.
• Attachments: Flock Memo (details on project scope) and Flock Contract Vendor Signed (contract terms).

Meeting Discussion and Outcomes

Presentation:
- OES Chief Silas Rojas detailed the contract as a two-year agreement, fully funded by a Homeland Security Grant, with an option to extend. The ALPRs capture license plates, vehicle size, shape, and color, reporting criminal activity to deputies. The system supports data sharing with neighboring counties, and includes equipment updates, vandalism repairs, and damages at no extra cost.
- Sheriff/Coroner John McGarva praised Rojas and Lieutenant Michael Carney for selecting suitable locations, emphasizing the system's role in enhancing public safety.
- Supervisor Tom Neely inquired about costs after the grant expires. McGarva estimated an annual maintenance cost of $59,000, to be budgeted by the Sheriff's Office.

Action Taken:
- Supervisor Gary Bridges moved to approve the bid and authorize CAO Egan to execute the contract, seconded by Supervisor Chris Gallagher.
- The motion passed unanimously (Aye: 5 - Gallagher, Albaugh, Bridges, Neely, Ingram).
- No public comments were recorded, raising concerns about community engagement.

Community Concerns

Residents, wary of private surveillance, express significant concerns about the Flock ALPR system:

• Privacy and Data Handling: Flock's 30-day cloud storage of movement data risks mass surveillance, potentially exposing personal routines (e.g., medical or religious visits). The ACLU warns of privacy erosion without individualized suspicion.
• Private Company Control: Flock Safety's management of data, with partnerships across 5,000+ communities, raises fears of unauthorized sharing or exploitation.
• Data Sharing: Inter-county data sharing and potential links to national databases (e.g., FBI's NCIC) threaten vulnerable groups, such as immigrants or those seeking healthcare.
• Misuse Potential: A 2022 Kansas case saw a police officer use Flock ALPRs to stalk his wife, underscoring risks without robust oversight.
• Low Crime Rate: Lassen County's low crime rate, with declining property crimes statewide, questions ALPR necessity. A 2011 study found no significant deterrent effect.
• Taxpayer Costs: The $59,000 annual maintenance cost post-grant burdens taxpayers, potentially outweighing benefits in a low-crime area.
• Transparency: The lack of public input or notice in the agenda/minutes fuels distrust, with residents noting cameras appeared without consultation.

Legal and Security Context

Legal precedents and incidents highlight ALPR risks:

• United States v. Yang (9th Cir., 2020): Recognized ALPRs' vast data collection but declined a Fourth Amendment ruling due to standing. Suggests pervasive networks may constitute a search.
• Commonwealth v. McCarthy (Mass., 2020): Noted privacy issues with widespread ALPRs, requiring evidence of extensive networks for constitutional challenges.
• Green v. San Francisco (9th Cir., 2013): A 2009 ALPR misread led to wrongful detention, emphasizing error risks.
• Perceptics Breach (2019): Exposed border ALPR data online, revealing cloud storage vulnerabilities.
• Kechi Misuse (2022): Officer misused Flock ALPRs for stalking, detected only by audit.
• California Audit (2020): Found agencies shared ALPR data with 1,000+ entities, sometimes violating state laws (e.g., ICE sharing).

Community Recommendations

• Request public records for contract details, usage policies, and data-sharing agreements.
• Engage privacy advocates (e.g., ACLU, EFF) to review implementation.
• Push for public hearings and policies mandating audits and limited data retention (per California Civil Code § 1798.90.5).
• Challenge ALPR necessity given low crime rates, advocating for cost-effective alternatives like community policing.

Meeting Documents (October 8, 2024)