Flock Cameras in Lynnwood, Washington

The short version

The Lynnwood City Council voted unanimously in February 2026 to terminate its contract with Flock Safety. Local reports described the vote as 7-0 and tied the decision to privacy, immigration-enforcement, data-access, and public-trust concerns.

The program was not tiny. Lynnwood had approved a two-year contract for 25 Flock automated license plate reader cameras. MyNorthwest reported the contract at $171,000. Lynnwood Times cited public contract documents showing a total lease cost of $171,153.50, with most of the funding coming from a Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority grant and $38,453.50 from the city.

That makes Lynnwood useful for other city councils. It shows how a grant-funded public-safety tool can still become politically unstable if residents lose confidence in the data controls, sharing rules, and vendor oversight.

What Lynnwood approved

Lynnwood approved the Flock program in January 2025. MyNorthwest reported that the council unanimously approved a two-year, $171,000 contract for 25 automated license plate readers.

Lynnwood Times reported the cameras went live on June 29, 2025 and were positioned as a tool for stolen-vehicle recovery, AMBER Alerts, missing-person cases, violent-crime investigations, and officer safety. The same report said data would be automatically deleted after 30 days and that the system did not use facial recognition or speed tracking.

Those are the details supporters usually point to: defined use cases, a deletion window, no facial recognition, and a grant covering most of the cost. But the later cancellation showed those guardrails were not enough once trust broke.

Why the vote flipped

The termination vote followed months of community backlash. Lynnwood Times reported that written communications and in-person comments at the February meeting urged cancellation, with no support voiced during that meeting.

Council Vice President Derica Escamilla framed the issue as broader than ordinary police technology. Lynnwood Times quoted her saying public safety is important, but broad always-on surveillance that logs the movements of everyone who drives through public streets without strong legal protections was out of step with Lynnwood's values.

Councilwoman Isabel Mata said the contract had failed on trust. Lynnwood Times quoted her saying council was not promptly informed of a data access breach, that promises about immigration-enforcement use were broken, and that safeguards officials were told were in place did not work.

The immigration-enforcement concern

Immigration enforcement was the flashpoint. MyNorthwest reported that the council voted to terminate after a University of Washington report revealed out-of-state agencies were accessing Lynnwood data for immigration enforcement purposes, citing HeraldNet.

That issue matters because many Flock contracts are sold as local public-safety programs. Residents may accept a system aimed at stolen cars or violent-crime investigations and still reject a network if local plate reads can become useful to outside agencies for a different purpose.

For other cities, the lesson is to review not only the written policy but the actual sharing architecture. Who can search the data, who can request a search, what happens through mutual aid, and how fast can the city prove improper access did not occur.

The cost lesson

Lynnwood's deal also shows why grant funding should not lower the scrutiny level. A grant may reduce the local budget hit, but it does not reduce the privacy or governance risk.

Lynnwood Times reported that a $132,700 Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority grant funded most of the lease, with the city contributing $38,453.50. MyNorthwest reported the financial impact after termination was not immediately clear.

That is a practical contract issue. Cities should ask before signing who bears the cost if public trust collapses, whether prepaid funds can be recovered, who removes cameras, how quickly database access ends, and whether data is deleted or retained after cancellation.

Washington's broader Flock debate

Lynnwood did not happen in isolation. The Spokesman-Review, republishing Seattle Times reporting, said Washington lawmakers were considering ALPR regulation in 2026 as cities and police agencies across the state turned off or suspended Flock cameras over concerns about privacy, safety, and potential use for federal immigration enforcement.

That report said the proposed bill would require public agencies to delete footage collected by license plate reader cameras within 72 hours, with exceptions such as footage useful to violent-crime investigations. It also said outside access to an agency database would require a search warrant.

Whether or not that exact bill becomes the final law, the political direction is clear. Washington cities are being pushed toward shorter retention, warrant controls, and clearer limits on outside access.

What other councils should ask

Before approving Flock cameras, a council should ask for the contract, quote, grant agreement, camera count, camera locations or location rules, retention period, sharing settings, agency access list, audit logs, breach-notification rules, and written limits on immigration-enforcement use.

The council should also ask for a public reporting plan. Residents should not have to discover data-sharing problems through outside reports after the system is already live.

The most important question is simple: if an outside agency searched local plate data tomorrow, would the city know, would the council know, and could residents verify what happened.

The bottom line

Lynnwood's cancellation was not just a technology vote. It was a trust vote. A city can argue that Flock cameras help recover stolen vehicles and still lose the program if residents believe data can move beyond local control.

The strongest public-safety case will not save a contract if the sharing rules, audit process, breach notices, and immigration-enforcement limits are not credible.

For any city considering Flock, Lynnwood is the warning: grant money can get cameras installed, but public trust decides whether they stay.

Sources used

MyNorthwest, Lynnwood becomes first WA city to cancel active Flock Safety contract over privacy, immigration concerns, February 24, 2026: https://mynorthwest.com/mynorthwest-politics/flock-safety-lynnwood/4207897

Lynnwood Times, Lynnwood terminates Flock Safety cameras due to trust and oversight issues, February 24, 2026: https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2026/02/24/flock-safety/

HeraldNet, Lynnwood becomes one of the 1st in the state to terminate Flock contract, February 2026: https://www.heraldnet.com/news/lynnwood-becomes-one-of-the-1st-in-the-state-to-terminate-flock-contract/

Spokesman-Review, WA could regulate Flock Safety and other license-plate readers in 2026, January 1, 2026: https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jan/01/wa-could-regulate-flock-safety-and-other-license-p/

Lynnwood Police Department agreement and quote attachments cited by Lynnwood Times: https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/2912198/Lynnwood_PD_Agreement_WATPA.pdf and https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/2912197/FLOCK_quote_Lynnwood_PD.pdf