Are Flock Cameras Legal in California?

The short version

Flock cameras are not automatically illegal in California. Automated license plate readers can be used by California public agencies, but the program has to fit California's ALPR law, usually discussed as SB 34.

That means a city should not treat Flock like ordinary street equipment. Before implementation, California law requires a public agency that operates or intends to operate an ALPR system to provide an opportunity for public comment at a regularly scheduled public meeting. The agency also needs a written usage and privacy policy, reasonable security safeguards, access records, and limits on how ALPR information is used and shared.

The biggest California flashpoint is data sharing. The California Attorney General's office reminded agencies in 2023 that ALPR collection, storage, sharing, and use must comply with state law. Privacy groups and local reporting have focused on whether California agencies shared ALPR data with federal or out-of-state agencies, which is exactly where Flock programs can become legally and politically risky.

What SB 34 actually does

SB 34 added California Civil Code provisions for automated license plate recognition systems. The bill text says an ALPR operator has to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect ALPR information and implement a usage and privacy policy.

The same law requires an operator that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to maintain a record of that access. It also says ALPR information must only be used for authorized purposes.

For public agencies, SB 34 added a public-process requirement. A public agency that operates or intends to operate an ALPR system has to provide an opportunity for public comment at a regularly scheduled public meeting before implementing the program. That requirement matters for Flock because many local fights begin when residents believe cameras were approved through procurement channels before the surveillance policy was debated in public.

The privacy policy is not optional

California's ALPR framework requires more than a vendor contract. Agencies need a usage and privacy policy for the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information.

The California Attorney General's 2023 press release said SB 34 requires agencies to provide the public a written usage and privacy policy so access, use, sharing, and dissemination are consistent with privacy and civil liberties.

A useful city policy should answer plain questions: what crimes justify searches, who can access the system, whether case numbers are required, how long data is retained, which agencies can receive access, how audit logs are reviewed, and what happens when someone violates the policy.

The sharing rule is the danger zone

SB 34's public-agency sharing rule is one of the most important parts of the California debate. The bill text says a public agency may not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information except to another public agency, as specified.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation summarized the California Department of Justice's 2023 position more bluntly: California agencies may not share ALPR data with non-California agencies. EFF said the rule protects immigrants, abortion seekers, protesters, and other drivers whose movements can reveal sensitive information.

That is why Flock's network features deserve special review in California. The legal issue is not only whether a local police department can see its own cameras. It is whether outside agencies, federal agencies, out-of-state agencies, task forces, or indirect partners can query the data through sharing settings.

Why Flock became part of the California fight

Flock is a vendor, not the statute. But its product sits directly inside the statute because it creates searchable ALPR data and can support networked law-enforcement access.

LAist reported in March 2026 that South Pasadena residents pushed the city to cancel Flock contracts after reports that some Southern California law enforcement agencies had illegally shared license plate reader data with federal immigration agents. LAist also explained that California's SB 34 prohibits agencies from sharing ALPR information with out-of-state and federal agencies and requires police departments to keep records of system queries.

EFF and the ACLU of Northern California later accused San Francisco police of sharing ALPR data with out-of-state and federal agencies. EFF said SFPD operated 415 Flock Safety ALPR cameras as of September 2025 and cited reporting that outside agencies ran 1.6 million searches of SFPD data, including searches marked as related to ICE. Those allegations show why California Flock approvals now need a sharing audit, not just a camera-count vote.

Legal does not mean low-risk

A California city can approve Flock cameras and still create serious exposure if the policy, contract, or settings are weak. The risk is highest when the city cannot prove who searched the system, why they searched, whether the search had a case number, and whether any outside agency had access.

The Attorney General's office pointed to a California State Auditor survey and report finding that many law enforcement agencies used ALPR cameras but few had appropriate usage and privacy policies in place. That is the practical gap. The law may require guardrails, but residents need evidence that the guardrails exist and are being used.

For city councils, the better question is not simply 'Are Flock cameras legal?' The better question is 'Can our city prove this specific Flock program complies with California law every day?'

What residents should ask before approval

Residents should ask for the ALPR usage and privacy policy, Flock order form, master services agreement, retention period, camera locations or location policy, sharing settings, agency-sharing list, audit-log sample, access rules, case-number requirements, and public meeting record.

They should also ask whether the city shares ALPR information with any federal agency, out-of-state agency, fusion center, task force, private entity, or vendor-controlled network feature that could create indirect access. If the city says no, ask for the current Flock sharing settings and audit logs that prove it.

A clean California Flock approval should be able to answer those questions before cameras expand. If officials cannot answer them, the vote is early.

The bottom line

Flock cameras can be legal in California, but legality depends on public process, policy, security, access controls, audit records, authorized use, and sharing limits.

The strongest California position is simple: no public meeting, no written policy, no clear retention rule, no audit-log access, no verified sharing controls, no approval.

That does not make every Flock camera unlawful. It means California cities have to treat ALPR as surveillance infrastructure with legal duties, not as a routine subscription purchase.

Sources used

California Legislature, SB 34 bill text, Automated license plate recognition systems: use of data, Chaptered October 6, 2015: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB34

California Department of Justice, Attorney General Bonta Advises California Law Enforcement on Legal Uses and Management of Automated License Plate Recognition Data, October 30, 2023: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-advises-california-law-enforcement-legal-uses-and

California Department of Justice, 2023-DLE-06 California Automated License Plate Reader Data bulletin: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2023-dle-06.pdf

LAist, Some South Pasadena residents want the city's Flock license plate readers gone - they're not alone, March 5, 2026: https://laist.com/news/some-south-pasadena-residents-want-the-citys-flock-license-plate-readers-gone-theyre-not-alone

Electronic Frontier Foundation, California Department of Justice Declares Out-of-State Sharing of License Plate Data Unlawful, October 31, 2023: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/victory-california-department-justice-declares-out-state-sharing-license-plate

Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF, ACLU to SFPD: Stop Illegally Sharing Data With ICE and Anti-Abortion States, September 18, 2025: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/09/eff-aclu-sfpd-stop-illegally-sharing-data-ice-and-anti-abortion-states