Flock Cameras in South Pasadena, California

The short version

South Pasadena had 27 Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras around a city of about 25,000 people, according to LAist. In March 2026, the City Council moved not to renew one Flock contract, which LAist and FOX 11 reported would remove 14 cameras.

The city still had a second Flock contract covering 13 operating cameras. LAist reported that the second contract runs until March 2027, and that ending it early would involve a $6,500 termination fee while refunding unused service days.

The decision did not come from a single technical flaw. It came from a broader trust problem: residents and council members were looking at Flock's California data-sharing issues, the risk of federal immigration access, and whether South Pasadena's own policy controls were strong enough.

How South Pasadena got to 27 cameras

A May 1, 2024 South Pasadena City Council agenda packet said the city first entered a two-year contract with Flock Safety for the lease of 13 ALPR cameras, which were installed at city entry points in April 2023.

The same city staff report said the Police Department later proposed reallocating a $44,369 Urban Area Security Initiative grant to expand the ALPR project. Council approved that grant modification in February 2024, allowing the installation of 14 additional ALPR cameras.

City staff said those additional 14 cameras were installed on April 8, 2024. That is the basic math behind the later controversy: 13 original cameras plus 14 added cameras, for 27 Flock cameras in South Pasadena.

The public-safety case for the cameras

The city staff report said the ALPR project detected 145 hits for wanted or stolen vehicles and missing-person alerts between April 2023 and February 2024. It also said the Police Department was sharing data with 106 regional agencies.

At the February 2026 council discussion, Colorado Boulevard reported that South Pasadena Sgt. Andy DuBois described the system as useful for solving crimes and called it a force multiplier for officers. LAist also reported DuBois told council the network lets agencies share relevant information in a secure and regulated way without adding staffing.

That is the strongest argument for keeping the system: a small police department gets investigative reach it could not easily build on its own. The policy question is whether that reach is bounded tightly enough.

Why the council started pulling back

LAist reported that South Pasadena residents pushed the city to end its Flock contracts after reports that some Southern California law enforcement agencies had illegally shared license plate reader data with federal immigration agents. LAist said those agencies included the Riverside County Sheriff's Office, which appeared on South Pasadena's Flock transparency portal as a data-sharing partner.

Colorado Boulevard reported that Mayor Sheila Rossi raised concerns at the February 18, 2026 council meeting about Flock's compliance with California laws including SB 34 and SB 54. Those laws govern ALPR data sharing and limit local law enforcement involvement in immigration enforcement.

The problem for South Pasadena was not just theoretical. Once a city shares plate data into a wider network, residents reasonably ask who can query it, whether every search has a case number, how often access is audited, and whether the city can prove data stays inside legal boundaries.

The March 2026 vote

LAist reported on March 19, 2026 that the South Pasadena City Council moved not to renew a Flock contract, ending use of 14 cameras while city officials looked for alternative camera vendors. FOX 11 reported the same basic outcome the next day.

The South Pasadena Review reported that council members voted 4-1 at the March 18 meeting to prematurely end one of two Flock contracts and allow the other to expire in five months. That local report also said council members acknowledged the cameras' potential crime-prevention benefits and noted that no data breach or unauthorized use had been reported so far in South Pasadena.

That distinction matters. South Pasadena was not saying every local police search was improper. The council was reacting to system-level risk, vendor trust, and the difficulty of guaranteeing that local data-sharing promises survive the broader network.

The retention and audit changes to watch

LAist reported that council members discussed shortening the city's data-retention period from 30 days to 15 days. FOX 11 also reported that officials discussed a 30-to-15-day reduction for the remaining 13 cameras.

LAist reported that South Pasadena said it was implementing policy changes including monthly audits of system queries and a requirement that agents searching the data include a case number.

Those are the right categories to track, but the actual public value depends on details: who performs the audits, whether the audit results become public, whether outside-agency searches are included, whether sharing partners are restricted by default, and whether violations have consequences.

What South Pasadena shows other cities

South Pasadena's lesson is not simply that cities should never buy ALPR cameras. It is that a small contract can become a regional surveillance node unless the city treats camera count, sharing settings, retention, audit logs, and vendor controls as public policy decisions.

A city that wants Flock or any ALPR vendor should be able to answer a few plain questions before renewal: how many cameras exist, where they are located, who can query the data, which outside agencies have access, how many searches occurred, how long data is kept, and what happens if an outside search violates state law.

South Pasadena is now a useful public record because the council debate forced those questions into the open. The next test is whether the city replaces Flock with a cleaner policy framework, or simply swaps vendors while leaving the same oversight gaps in place.

Sources used

City of South Pasadena, May 1, 2024 agenda packet, Item 7, Reapprove the appropriation of 2021 Urban Area Security Initiative grant funds in the amount of $44,369 for Flock Safety, Inc. automated license plate reader cameras: https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/management-services/agenda-packet-5-1-2024.pdf

LAist, South Pasadena cancels contract with Flock Safety, citing privacy concerns, March 19, 2026: https://laist.com/news/south-pasadena-cancels-flock-safety-contract-privacy-concerns

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

FOX 11 Los Angeles, South Pasadena to remove Flock Safety cameras over privacy concerns, March 20, 2026: https://www.foxla.com/news/south-pasadena-remove-flock-safety-cameras-over-privacy-concerns

South Pasadena Review, South Pasadena ditches Flock cameras on data safety concerns, March 27, 2026: https://outlooknewspapers.com/southpasadenareview/south-pasadena-ditches-flock-cameras-on-data-safety-concerns/article_71b699a1-c556-4bc3-91bc-b206be498349.html

Colorado Boulevard, South Pasadena Council challenges Flock ALPR's compliance with California law, February 22, 2026: https://www.coloradoboulevard.net/south-pasadena-council-challenges-flock-alprs-compliance-with-california-law/