Elk Grove police say Flock camera safeguards have improved. Residents remain concerned

The Elk Grove Police Department defended its use of automated license plate readers in the city after an audit released last month by a local advocacy group raised concerns about residents’ privacy and vehicle location data.

Read more West Sacramento leaders vote to switch trash haulers for the first time. Rates will rise

Elk Grove’s automated license plate reader technology, or ALPR — a system of cameras mounted in fixed locations or on police vehicles that captures license plate data — is provided by Flock Safety. There are approximately 87 ALPR cameras in Elk Grove as of early 2026, according to previous Bee reporting. The city’s contract costs $1.6 million and runs through 2028.

The city has used ALPR technology since 2008 and the Flock Safety system since a 2021 pilot program before formally contracting with the company in 2022.

An audit by local advocacy group DeFlock Elk Grove, based on information obtained through public records requests, found that more than 3,600 external organizations made more than 8.3 million searches of Elk Grove residents’ vehicle travel data over the last five years, accounting for 97% of the total searches made. Those organizations included at least 290 law enforcement agencies without data-sharing agreements as well as out-of-state, federal and non-governmental entities.

A 2016 law prohibits sharing data with out-of-state law enforcement and federal agencies, but agencies including the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office and the Sacramento Police Department have been accused of violating the statute.

At the City Council meeting Wednesday, Elk Grove Police Chief Robert Davis and Real-Time Information Center Manager Andrea Cortez said the department is making and has made improvements to its policies to ensure the safety of residents’ travel data, though they largely did not reference claims made in the audit.

“Our administration hasn’t been perfect, and we’ve evolved and gotten better, and we will continue to get better, and we will continue to refine,” Cortez said.

In 2024, the Elk Grove police removed the agency’s data from Flock’s nationwide lookup tool, and memorandums of understanding became required before other law enforcement agencies could perform searches, Cortez said. Department policies are being updated to standardize auditing practices, including how often audits should take place and what specifically is audited, she said.

No data has been shared out of state or with federal agencies since 2025, according to Cortez, except for two searches performed within a 72-hour period by the California Veterans Police due to a “misclassification by the vendor.”

By 2025, Flock blocked out-of-state and federal agencies from asking for California agencies’ data, so California agencies can no longer share that data “intentionally or by mistake,” according to the presentation.

Any searches performed by the Elk Grove Police Department may only be for a “legitimate, authorized law enforcement purpose” and be “tied to an identifiable law enforcement purpose or investigation,” according to the presentation.

Misuse of the ALPR system by an officer would be subject to a misconduct investigation and termination, Davis and Cortez said.

“Not a single person in the city of Elk Grove, the Elk Grove Police Department, has violated those policies, rules and regulations with searches or shared information with partners who aren’t supposed to have information,” Davis said.

The Police Department has the capability to search for specific vehicle characteristics, such as bumper stickers, but it is unable to search for specific people because it does not subscribe to that feature, Cortez said. Other departments that do subscribe to the feature are able to conduct such searches using the appropriate cameras.

Approximately 20% of license plate searches produce a result, Cortez said, and multiple steps take place between a potential match in the system and law enforcement being dispatched, including a human reviewing the information.

“There is no continuous tracking of the vehicle, which is likely why the courts have still held that ALPR technology is within the Fourth Amendment, and a search of ALPR technology is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment,” Cortez said.

Read more Baby narrowly misses gunfire in Sacramento Sam’s Club shooting that wounds man

Davis and Cortez cited examples of crimes solved and people found using Flock cameras, including finding missing persons and arresting a suspect accused of repeated burglaries of small businesses. Davis said “with almost 100% certainty” that the department “would never have found” the burglary suspect without the use of Flock cameras.

Police also presented a video of Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper speaking about the success of Flock cameras and countering common criticisms that data sharing could harm undocumented residents and people seeking reproductive or gender-affirming healthcare.

“I don’t care about immigration. I don’t care about reproductive rights. I care about catching bad guys. That’s my job,” Cooper said in the video, which was met with boos from the audience.

Cooper, an Elk Grove resident who served on the City Council, also spoke Wednesday night and said the use of ALPR cameras has aided the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office in finding kidnapping and human trafficking victims and missing people, as well as homicide suspects.

Cooper said people’s concerns about Flock cameras are “misguided,” saying that ALPR cameras are tools for authorities and that law enforcement tools are heavily regulated in California.

Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho also spoke before the City Council, saying that ALPR cameras are “making a difference” in public safety and solving crimes, which he said is key to providing justice for crime victims.

Elk Grove Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen said she supported the use of ALPR cameras because of the need to protect the community and get justice for crime survivors. She noted that while there have been issues with Flock cameras elsewhere, the Elk Grove Police Department handles residents’ data responsibly.

“It’s disheartening to see the abuses elsewhere, but what I can govern is what happens here,” Singh-Allen said.

Residents called Flock cameras “warrantless mass surveillance” and a violation of their rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable government searches and seizures. They said the use of cameras in Elk Grove and the storage of residents’ data by Flock were “grossly negligent,” citing concerns about potential misuse of data by Flock, whether or not the department is aware.

“Because Flock is a software as a service, our city has zero control over what their hardware does on our streets,” one resident said.

Residents called for the city to allow an independent third-party audit of the Flock system, cancel the city’s contract with Flock and not enter into a contract with another ALPR camera vendor.

The Police Department began a 90-day trial with Axon — a different ALPR company that contracts with the city for bodyworn cameras — in July to evaluate potential competitors, Cortez said during the presentation.

Residents also cited a case in which Roseville police defended the accuracy of the city’s Flock system after online publication Business Insider reported in July that more than 1,000 alerts generated between 2023 and 2024 involved license plate misreads. Roseville officials said none of the incorrect alerts resulted in a traffic stop or arrest because department policy requires officers to independently verify information before taking enforcement action.

“When mass surveillance makes an error and wrongfully accuses an innocent, law-abiding citizen of a crime, everybody has something to worry about, despite doing nothing wrong,” one resident said.

This story was originally published September 10, 2026 at 7:14 AM with the headline “Elk Grove police say Flock camera safeguards have improved. Residents remain concerned.”

Read more Your guide to the California governor’s race: Xavier Becerra vs. Steve Hilton