A bill that would have tightened rules on how police collect and share license plate data, and added new safeguards against misuse, cleared the state Senate this year but was quietly blocked in the Assembly on Monday, the final day of the legislative session, before it could even reach the floor for a vote. Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguilar-Curry was behind the move, according to legislative records, ending what had appeared to be one of the session’s more promising reform efforts.

It’s become a familiar pattern. Every attempt since 2022 to update state law governing automated license plate readers has stalled or failed outright. Last year, a similar measure actually made it to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk — only to be vetoed.

“It’s a really disappointing outcome at a time when there is bipartisan concern about this mass surveillance tool,” said Catherine Crump, co-director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Law and Technology, who testified in favor of the bill this summer.

The legislation, Senate Bill 1013, was authored by Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, D-Riverside, and aimed to limit how the more than 230 California police and sheriff’s departments that use license plate readers can deploy the technology. It would have restricted use to locating criminal suspects or missing persons, mandated privacy and cybersecurity training for officers, curbed default sharing with national databases, and required the state attorney general’s office to conduct random audits to catch misuse.

“It’s unfortunate that Senate Bill 1013 did not get the chance to be voted on before the deadline passed, but I look forward to continuing to fight for the privacy rights of Californians next year,” Cervantes said in a statement.

Law enforcement groups, however, argued the bill would have hamstrung a tool they credit with solving crimes, locating missing people and even clearing innocent suspects. Nearly 40 police unions and law enforcement agencies opposed the measure.

“We were concerned that this bill was going to limit the utility of ALPR data to solve crimes, find missing persons, exonerate innocent individuals, and so the fact that it did not pass, we’re glad for that,” said Cory Salzillo, legislative director for the California State Sheriffs’ Association.

The debate comes as skepticism toward license plate readers — and in particular the widely used Flock Safety system — is intensifying across the country. Police departments in Los Angeles and Redwood City, along with city leaders in El Cerrito and Campbell, have recently cut ties with Flock. Nationally, more than 200 cities and law enforcement agencies ended their Flock contracts in August alone, the most in any single month since 2021, according to the privacy advocacy group Secure Justice.

That group’s leader, Brian Hofer, has personal experience with the technology’s pitfalls: he was once held at gunpoint by sheriff’s deputies after a license plate reader wrongly flagged his car as stolen.

Supporters of tighter regulation point to a growing list of abuses. Reporting by CalMatters found that Southern California law enforcement agencies have repeatedly shared license plate data with federal immigration authorities in violation of state law. A 2020 state audit and a subsequent investigation by Attorney General Rob Bonta uncovered similar violations, and the state has since contacted 18 agencies about potential breaches of Senate Bill 34, which bars sharing this data with out-of-state or federal agencies. The attorney general’s office has also sued the city of El Cajon over the issue.

Misuse hasn’t been limited to immigration enforcement. The Washington Post has documented roughly 70 cases nationwide of officers exploiting license plate systems to track spouses, stalk ex-partners or pursue romantic interests. One of those cases involved a former Riverside County sheriff’s deputy, Alexander Vanny, who used Flock’s network to stalk his ex-fiancée and was sentenced in February to six years in prison.

Accuracy concerns have also emerged. A Los Angeles Police Department audit released in July found that one in three vehicles flagged as stolen by Flock cameras had been misidentified — a troubling statistic given the potential for dangerous encounters between officers and innocent drivers.

Oakland activist Crystal Zermeño, who joined a protest against the cameras outside City Hall last month, said she worries about the broader implications of unchecked surveillance, including cases elsewhere in the country where the technology has been used to track women seeking abortions. After Cervantes’ bill died, she asked pointedly: “How could we not as a state have the political will to do this in a moment when all of these [federal immigration enforcement] attacks are happening and we have limited defense?”

Even if the bill had reached a floor vote, its fate was uncertain. Lawmakers had already softened key provisions, replacing an original requirement that police delete license plate data after 30 days with a rule allowing them to “archive” it after 60 days — after which a warrant would be needed to access it, unless tied to an active investigation. Law enforcement groups argued that older data has proven useful in solving cold cases, and some, including the state sheriffs’ association, still opposed the bill even after the compromise. Newsom cited the 60-day data retention requirement as one reason he vetoed last year’s version.

For now, California remains without updated rules governing a technology that continues to expand across the state — and continues to generate controversy in communities from the Inland Empire to the coast.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Shelve Bill to Regulate Flock Surveillance Cameras Despite Mounting Public Backlash appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Over the past year alone, the technology has helped authorities track down suspected killers, bank robbery suspects and hit-and-run drivers. It has led to the recovery of dozens of stolen vehicles and played a role in convicting a man responsible for setting a destructive wildfire.

But the same cameras have drawn sharp criticism from privacy advocates across the political spectrum. Last month, authorities in Monterey County arrested a man accused of ripping three of the devices off their poles using his truck.

Known as automated license plate readers, the cameras are now a fixture of daily life for many Californians. At least 230 police and sheriff’s departments across the state have installed thousands of them along roadways or mounted them on patrol vehicles. The devices scan and record passing license plates in real time, instantly checking them against law enforcement databases that flag stolen cars, vehicles tied to fleeing suspects, or vehicles connected to missing or wanted people.

Since 2019, Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento have repeatedly tried — and failed — to impose tighter restrictions on how police use the technology. This year, they’re trying again with a bill that would cap how long agencies can hold onto license plate data, restrict who can access it, and limit who that information can be shared with.

Law enforcement agencies and police unions across California are pushing back against the measure, which closely resembles a bill Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed last year.

“This bill rests on a basic principle: protecting the privacy and safety of Californians while making sure law enforcement tools are used responsibly before it’s too late,” said state Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, a Riverside Democrat who authored this year’s legislation, during testimony before an Assembly privacy committee last month. Cervantes did not respond to an interview request from CalMatters.

Critics of license plate readers point to troubling instances in which California police have misused the data — including cases where it was allegedly used to target innocent people. As CalMatters reported last year, officers in the state have repeatedly violated an 11-year-old law that bars sharing this data with federal authorities or out-of-state agencies.

The news outlet 404 Media also reported last year that a police officer in Texas searched a national license plate database in an attempt to locate a woman who had obtained an abortion — fueling concerns that conservative states with abortion restrictions could be tapping into California’s plate-reader data to pursue patients or medical providers.

Cervantes’ bill would generally limit how long agencies can retain license plate data to 30 days, unless the information is tied to an active investigation or a search for a missing person. It would also restrict who can access the data and require additional training and tracking of searches conducted using the system.

Police and sheriff’s departments would be barred from entering into contracts with camera vendors that give default access to license plate databases searchable by federal agencies or law enforcement in other states.

That provision stems directly from concerns about Flock Safety, a major provider of license plate readers that allowed federal authorities to search local plate data as part of a pilot program, according to Tracy Rosenberg of Oakland Privacy, one of the groups backing the bill.

“Police departments found out about this after the fact, just like our activists did,” Rosenberg said. “And everybody said, ‘What the heck…?’ You know, insert whatever four-letter word you want.”

Flock Safety did not respond to an interview request from CalMatters, but the company states on its website that it does not work with immigration enforcement agencies and has suspended its federal pilot programs. According to Flock, local agencies retain full control over the data collected by its cameras.

“By default, the option to share data with federal agencies is turned off,” the company wrote. “ICE does not have direct access to Flock’s cameras, systems or data.”

Why law enforcement is pushing back

At least 39 police agencies and officer unions oppose Senate Bill 1013. Collectively, those groups have spent at least $5.6 million on legislative lobbying since 2000, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database.

Law enforcement officials argue the technology has proven indispensable in solving crimes.

Tustin Police Chief Sean Thuilliez, who leads the California Police Chiefs Association, said the cameras have even helped clear an innocent man of suspicion. In one Orange County case, the technology helped identify a suspect after a woman was shot and killed on a Tustin street in May.

The victim had recently testified against her ex-husband in a restraining order case, initially making him the prime suspect, Thuilliez said. But with the help of the city’s 102 license plate readers — eight of which are Flock cameras — detectives quickly ruled him out and instead tracked down her ex-boyfriend, who was arrested near the U.S.-Mexico border. He now faces a first-degree murder charge.

“It’s a combination of technology and good investigative work,” Thuilliez said in an interview. “But within a single weekend, we were able to arrest the suspect in this person’s murder.”

Berkeley police reported similar success after installing 52 Flock cameras last year. In a report to the Berkeley City Council, the department said the cameras had been used in 121 cases, contributed to 58 arrests, and helped recover 37 stolen vehicles.

The department noted that its case-closure rate for auto theft jumped from 34% in 2024 to 49% the following year, a improvement it partly credited to license plate data.

“The technology has fundamentally improved how officers patrol and how detectives investigate crimes spanning a wide range of serious offenses, including robbery, kidnapping, vehicle theft, burglary, weapons crimes, organized retail theft, property crimes and DUI,” the report stated.

Why Newsom vetoed last year’s bill

Success stories like these may have influenced Newsom’s decision to veto last year’s version of the bill, which would have required police to delete license plate data within 60 days.

In his veto message, Newsom said restrictions on data sharing, along with mandatory deletion timelines, could hinder investigators’ ability to solve cold cases and locate missing persons.

He also noted the state budget lacked funding for the mandatory audits by the California Department of Justice that last year’s bill would have required.

To address those concerns, this year’s proposal allows police to retain data specifically tied to missing persons cases and makes a statewide audit program contingent on future funding being secured.

Newsom’s press office declined to say whether the governor has taken a position on the current bill, which has advanced through the Legislature with Republicans casting the only opposing votes. The measure is now awaiting consideration in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Meanwhile, at least one Republican lawmaker is taking the fight to Congress. U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky recently shared a meme showing a snake coiled around a surveillance camera, modeled after the Gadsden flag’s “Don’t Tread on Me” design — except this version reads “Don’t Stalk Me.”

“I will soon be introducing a bill to withhold federal funds from municipalities and police departments that deploy Flock (and similar) cameras to surveil law-abiding citizens,” Massie wrote on Facebook.

Rosenberg, of Oakland Privacy, said she recognizes the value these cameras can offer police in California, but believes they’ve become far too widespread. She added that law enforcement shouldn’t have blanket authority to hold onto “mountains” of data indefinitely.

“It’s about finding a balance. As human beings, we also need space that’s free from cameras,” she said. “We don’t want to be in front of cameras every single minute of every single day.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California and U.S. Lawmakers Clash Over License Plate-Reading Technology Amid Privacy Concerns appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The cameras — perched on utility poles, patrol cars and intersections — snap photos of passing license plates and instantly check them against law enforcement databases flagging stolen vehicles, getaway cars or vehicles tied to missing persons cases. Over the past year, the technology has been credited with helping solve homicides, bank robberies, hit-and-run collisions and even a wildfire arson case.

But the same tool that police praise as a force multiplier has drawn fierce criticism from privacy advocates across the political spectrum. Last month in Monterey County, a man was accused of ripping three of the cameras down with his truck. And civil liberties groups warn the devices open the door to abuse — from officers misusing access to stalk people, to out-of-state agencies potentially mining California plate data to track down abortion patients or providers.

More than 230 police and sheriff’s departments statewide now rely on the cameras, many supplied by the Atlanta-based company Flock Safety. That widespread adoption has renewed a push by Democratic state lawmakers to rein in how long agencies can hold onto the data and who gets to see it.

State Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, a Riverside Democrat, is carrying this year’s version of the effort, Senate Bill 1013. It would generally cap data retention at 30 days unless the information is tied to an open investigation or a missing-persons search. The bill also would require training for officers who access the system, mandate tracking of database searches, and bar law enforcement agencies from signing contracts with camera vendors that give federal agencies or out-of-state police default access to California plate records.

“This bill is about one simple principle: protecting the privacy and safety of Californians while ensuring law enforcement tools are used responsibly before it’s too late,” Cervantes told an Assembly privacy committee last month.

The provision targeting vendor contracts stems largely from revelations that Flock Safety had, through a pilot program, allowed federal authorities to search local plate databases. Tracy Rosenberg of the advocacy group Oakland Privacy, which backs the bill, said local police departments were blindsided by the arrangement.

“They learned after the fact, like our advocates did,” Rosenberg said. “And we all said, ‘What the …’ You know, pick your four-letter word.”

Flock Safety has said on its website that it no longer runs those federal pilot programs and does not share data with immigration enforcement by default. The company maintains that local agencies retain full control over the information their cameras collect.

Law enforcement groups, however, remain firmly opposed to the legislation. At least 39 police agencies and officer associations have lined up against SB 1013, and those same groups have poured a combined $5.6 million into legislative campaigns since 2000, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database.

Tustin Police Chief Sean Thuilliez, who leads the California Police Chiefs Association, pointed to a case from May in which a woman was shot and killed on an Orange County street shortly after testifying against her ex-husband in a restraining-order hearing. Investigators initially considered the ex-husband a suspect, but Thuilliez said Tustin’s network of 102 license plate readers — eight of them Flock cameras — helped detectives quickly clear him and instead track down the victim’s former boyfriend near the Mexico border. He now faces a first-degree murder charge.

“It’s technology mixed with good investigative work,” Thuilliez said. “But within one weekend, we were able to arrest the suspect for this person’s murder.”

Berkeley police reported similar gains after installing 52 Flock cameras last year. According to a department report to the city council, the cameras contributed to 121 investigations, 58 arrests and the recovery of 37 stolen vehicles. The agency’s robbery clearance rate jumped from 34% in 2024 to 49% the following year, which officials credited in part to the technology.

Those success stories appear to have swayed Gov. Gavin Newsom last year, when he vetoed a similar measure — also authored by Cervantes — that would have required departments to purge plate data within 60 days. In his veto message, Newsom warned that such restrictions could hamper investigators working cold cases or searching for missing people. He also noted the state budget lacked funding for the mandatory Department of Justice audits the bill called for.

This year’s version attempts to address those concerns by allowing data retention in missing-persons cases and making the audit requirement contingent on future state funding. Newsom’s office has not said whether he supports the current proposal, which has cleared the Legislature so far with only Republican lawmakers opposed. It now awaits action in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

The debate isn’t confined to Sacramento. In Washington, Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie has signaled he’ll introduce federal legislation to cut off funding to cities and police departments that deploy Flock or similar camera systems to monitor law-abiding residents, framing it as a Fourth Amendment issue.

For Rosenberg, the goal isn’t to eliminate the technology but to put guardrails around it.

“There is kind of a balancing act. We as human beings also need some camera-free space,” she said. “We don’t want to be on camera every minute of every single day.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Lawmakers Weigh Privacy Concerns Over License Plate Reader Technology appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.