Welcome to DeFlock Elk Grove’s toolkit, a resource to help you quickly understand the issue of warrantless mass surveillance in our community and get prepared to take action. Jump to a subsection of this toolkit using the following links:

ActionsBackground Information
1. Sign the Petition!
2. Current Call to Action
3. How to Contact Elk Grove City Officials
4. City Council Meeting Information
5. How to Make Public Comments
6. Comment Tips
7. Comment Examples by Topic		1. Concerns About Flock ALPRs in Elk Grove
2. What We Are Asking the City and State Auditor to Do
3. Key Findings from the Elk Grove Community Flock Audit
4. Full Text of the Elk Grove Community Flock Audit

[]

Current Call to Action: Keep the Pressure on the City Council and Join Us at Our Upcoming Community Meet-Up!

On Wednesday, September 9th, many residents showed up at the Elk Grove City Council meeting to speak out against ALPRs and mass surveillance again. Rather than responding to our multiple requests to meet with City officials to discuss the findings of the community audit, the Elk Grove Police Department, Sacramento County Sheriff, and Sacramento County District Attorney made a presentation about ALPRs at the meeting.

The presentation VERIFIED the exact points we have been making since publishing the community audit! For example, Elk Grove PD said they stopped sharing data with agencies in other states in 2024, but California law has prohibited out-of-state sharing since 2016! On the issue of sharing with California agencies that do not have data sharing agreements (MOUs), they first claimed MOUs have been required since 2024, then later admitted that some agencies without MOUs had been allowed to search until February 2026. Other statements made by officials displayed a significant lack of understanding of how this technology works and the seriousness of the dangers associated with their use.

Even after many community members spoke out about the risks of ALPRs and Flock, the city council and mayor affirmed their support for these surveillance systems. We are disappointed but not surprised and we WILL keep working with the community to end mass surveillance here.

What Can We Do Now?

Keep the pressure on the City Council by making remote/Zoom or in-person comments at upcoming council meetings whenever you can! This Council seems to respond most to public comment when it is made in person, or live via remote/Zoom. Emails and voicemails do not have the same impact as comments that can be heard by the public and that take up time at the council meeting. The Public Comment period for Non-Agenda topics is typically Agenda Item 5, which is usually pretty early in the meeting.

COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE:
Second and Fourth Wednesdays of each month
Meetings start at 6:00 p.m.
*With recesses the second Wednesday of July and the fourth Wednesdays of November and December		COUNCIL MEETING LOCATION:
8400 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove, California
*Located in Elk Grove Council Chambers, across the street from City Hall.

Make a Public Comment via Zoom or by Phone Instead of In-Person!

Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81042392381?pwd=bch7yguWASqj6ita4ZA2eW2lMt7CPR.1

Use the “raise hand” feature in Zoom when an item is called by the Clerk so staff will be alerted that a remote participant wishes to comment on that item. Virtual commenters have the same 3 minute time limitation and will typically be called on after all in-person commenters for that item.

Phone: Dial 720-707-2699, 253-215-8782, or 312-626-6799
When prompted, enter 810 4239 2381, followed by #
Press # to skip the participant ID

For those using a landline or mobile telephone, the “raise hand” feature can be activated by pressing *9. Virtual commenters have the same 3 minute time limitation and will typically be called on after all in-person commenters for that item.

Save the Date!

DeFlock Elk Grove invites you to a community gathering in Elk Grove! Join like-minded neighbors to learn more about how we can work together to end the mass surveillance of our community.

DATE: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 26TH
TIME: 11:00 A.M. – 12:30 P.M.
Location will be a park or other public venue in Elk Grove, to be announced via this email list soon.

This meeting is open to residents of Elk Grove and nearby communities who want to:

  • Learn More about Flock, Axon, and other ALPRs
  • Help plan the next steps in the fight against police mass surveillance in Elk Grove
  • Build community with like-minded locals

PLEASE NOTE: This meeting is for community members only. It is NOT open to police or sheriff officers and staff, local government representatives, Elk Grove City Councilmembers, or the Mayor of Elk Grove.

Sign the Petition and Join the Email List or Signal Group!

Have you signed the petition to get ALPRs out of Elk Grove? And after you sign, can you share it with 5 people you know who live here?

Have you joined our Email list and Signal announcement group? Sign up to get notifications of future actions.

Enter your email below to subscribe to our email list and be notified of future actions.

How to Contact Elk Grove City Officials


To find your council district, go to the City’s Council District Map and enter your address.

Government OfficialContact Information
Mayor: Bobbie Singh-AllenEmail: bsinghallen@elkgrove.gov
Phone: (916) 478-2201
District 1: Vice Mayor Darren SuenEmail: dsuen@elkgrove.gov
Phone: (916) 478-2201
District 2: Council Member Rod BrewerEmail: rbrewer@elkgrove.gov
Phone: (916) 478-2201
District 3: Council Member Kevin SpeaseEmail: kspease@elkgrove.gov
Phone: (916) 478-2201
District 4: Council Member Sergio RoblesEmail: srobles@elkgrove.gov
Phone: (916) 478-2201
City Manager: Jason BehrmannEmail: jbehrmann@elkgrove.gov
Phone: (916) 478-2200
City Clerk: Jason LindgrenEmail: cityclerk@elkgrove.gov and jlindgren@elkgrove.gov
Phone: (916) 478-2286

Use the subject line “Public Comment for next City Council meeting” when submitting public comments via email.

What We Are Asking the City to Do

  • Cancel the Flock Safety contract and do NOT seek a replacement ALPR vendor. Our city should not continue to contract with a company that has facilitated illegal sharing of our data more than 1.3 million times, putting our safety and privacy at risk. Additionally, our community members should not be subject to warrantless mass surveillance by an alternate vendor.

  • Publicly release Elk Grove’s Flock audit data from 2021 to current day, including search reasons. This will allow all community members to see how and why our data are being searched and shared.

  • Hold a full public hearing on ALL surveillance technology policies in Elk Grove, giving residents the opportunity to ask questions and share concerns. This data is our data, and it’s important that all of us have a say in its acquisition and use. The City of Elk Grove needs to be as open and transparent as possible about what happens with surveillance in our community.

What we are asking the California State Auditor to do:

  • Do a comprehensive audit of all of the searches of Elk Grove’s ALPR camera data from the start of the program in 2021 through current day. Then, make referrals to the California Department of Justice for any individuals, agencies, or other entities that are found to have used the system in apparent violation of SB 34, SB 54, or any other relevant laws.

Concerns About Flock ALPRs in Elk Grove

When you reach out to your council members, emphasize some of these critical concerns (example comments in sections below):

  • Legal Violations and California Senate Bill 34 (SB 34). SB 34 explicitly prohibits sharing automated license plate reader (ALPR) data with federal and out-of-state agencies as well as non-governmental organizations. The recent Community Audit of Elk Grove’s Flock data uncovered sharing in apparent violation of SB 34 with more than 1.3 million searches by those types of entities. This is a violation of our legal rights, and it raises legal and financial risks for the City of Elk Grove. These types of violations can carry a $2,500 penalty, per search, if successfully litigated. In California, lawsuits are currently underway against the cities of Oakland and San Jose.

  • Lack of Accountability to the Public: Despite many residents’ concerns, on April 8, 2026, the Elk Grove City Council voted unanimously to expand the Flock Safety contract to modify the number of camera systems, replace some standard Flock cameras with long-distance cameras, and reassess camera locations. To do this, the City Council amended Flock’s contract for the sixth time to increase the cost by $194,100, for a total contract value of $1,630,808. They did this on the “consent calendar,” which meant there was no public hearing and most of the community had no idea this was taking place. Government surveillance of our residents deserves a full public hearing.

  • Lack of Transparency with Public Records. When residents submitted formal requests for the Flock audit data, the Elk Grove Police Department (Elk Grove PD) redacted all of the search reasons from the data it provided, despite the Elk Grove PD’s own training briefs stating that audit reasons are subject to the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) and California Public Records Act (PRA). Elk Grove PD should make public the reasons why it and other entities are searching our data. Anyone who has used the system unlawfully should be held accountable.

  • Immigrant Community Impact and California Senate Bill 54 (SB 54): Residents found that some Flock camera data searches in Elk Grove hit both Woodland and Elk Grove data. Because Woodland PD did not redact the reasons for searches in their public disclosures, residents were able to discover the reasons for some searches of Elk Grove data. Some of those searches, made by Elk Grove PD and outside entities, appear to be for immigration enforcement (that is, ICE) and immigration agency assistance. When federal immigration agencies can access location data in violation of California law, sanctuary city protections become meaningless. Elk Grove is an incredibly diverse city with a large share of immigrants. Elk Grove’s immigrant families deserve better.

  • ALPR Systems Are Highly Susceptible to Misuse, Including for Stalking. News reports from around the country have repeatedly detailed police abusing ALPR surveillance systems to stalk their partners, ex-partners, and romantic interests. A recent report identified at least 24 cases nationwide of officers using ALPRs to stalk romantic interests over the past two years. This kind of system is dangerous for our community, especially for women and girls.

  • ALPR “Mis-Reads” Result in Wrongful Arrests and Police Brutality. ALPR “mis-reads” have incorrectly identified vehicles as stolen in multiple instances, resulting in innocent people being pulled over at gunpoint and even being assaulted by police officers and police dogs. Elk Grove PD’s ALPR Policy does not require that license plates flagged by the system are verified before officers are dispatched. The policy says that “if practible” the flagged plate “should” be verified. This kind of inadequate policy language creates loopholes that put us all at risk of serious injury or even death.

  • ALPR Systems are Being Used to Carry Out Warrantless Searches, Violating Our 4th Amendment Rights. The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Networks of ALPR cameras create a dragnet of indiscriminate tracking and surveillance, and it seems clear that searches of the data collected about our movements constitute 4th Amendment searches. Without obtaining a warrant for these searches, the Elk Grove Police Department and other agencies are violating our 4th Amendment rights. We believe the Supreme Court ruling in Carpenter v. United States (2018) combined with the recent ruling in Chatrie v. United States (2026) affirm this.

  • Flock Safety Has Proven They Cannot Keep Our Data Secure. Reports have shown Flock cameras are vulnerable to hacking in under a minute, using simple tools. As recently as 2025, Flock Safety has had cameras streaming live to the internet with no password required, accessible to the public. Regardless of which specific type of Flock cameras this occurred with, the fact that Flock Safety has a history of inadequate security protocols should be a major concern for City officials tasked with protecting the security and privacy of Elk Grove residents. Flock Safety representatives routinely provide police departments with talking points aimed at dismissing these claims. But the extensive reporting on these issues is readily available for the public and local government decision makers to read.

  • Other Cities Are Acting: Across the country, more than 100 jurisdictions have canceled their Flock ALPR contracts. In California, the following locations have canceled their contracts: El Cerrito, Lakewood, Campbell, Mountain View, Oxnard, Santa Clara County, Windsor, Los Altos Hills, Eureka, and Santa Cruz. Elk Grove should join them!

City Council Meetings

WHEN:
Second and fourth Wednesdays of each month, starting at 6:00 p.m.

*With recesses the second Wednesday of July and the fourth Wednesdays of November and December		WHERE:
8400 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove, California

*Located in Elk Grove Council Chambers, across the street from City Hall.

City Council agendas and meeting cancellation notices are posted at least 72 hours in advance of a scheduled meeting. The agenda shows what agenda item number your comment falls under. If the topic you want to speak on is not on the agenda, you can speak during the General Comment period that takes place early in the meeting.

Arriving 20 minutes prior to the meeting will give you time to fill out a speaker card and find a seat. If you are planning to comment via Zoom, sign on 20 minutes prior to the meeting to familiarize yourself with the controls and troubleshoot any technical issues.

For more information about Elk Grove City Council meetings, please visit the City Council website.

Accessibility Needs

Contact the City’s ADA Coordinator if you have accessibility needs for City Council Meetings:

How to Make Public Comments

In-Person Comment at a City Council Meeting

  • Fill out a blue speaker card (located at the back of the room) and give it to the Clerk.
  • You may provide your full name, just your first name, or an alias. You are not required to provide your full, real name.
  • You do not need to include any other contact information if you do not want to.
  • Check the relevant box for an item on the agenda (and include the item’s agenda number) or a non-agenda item.
  • You will be called by name to come speak when the item is up for discussion.
  • You may speak once per item, for up to three minutes (may be reduced to two minutes or even one minute if many commenters are speaking on the same topic).
  • In-person speakers will generally be heard first during the meeting before remote/virtual commenters. The Mayor and/or City Council retain discretion as to the order that speakers are called to present public comment.  

Remote/Virtual Comment at a City Council Meeting

  • Access the web link or audio call-in number to the Zoom meeting provided on the meeting agenda. Agendas can be found here.
  • Click on the “Agendas and Videos” link at the top of the page under “More in this Section” to be taken straight there, or simply scroll down to the section beneath “How to Participate.”
  • Zoom meeting participants may provide comments during public comment sections using the “raise hand” feature in Zoom on a computer or mobile device. The “raised hand” lets the moderator know that a speaker has a comment for the item being considered. 
  • For participants using a landline telephone or mobile device, the “raise hand” feature can be activated by pressing *9.
  • Speakers may speak once per item, for up to three minutes, unless time has been limited, as described above.
  • Remote comment speakers will generally be heard after in-person speakers during the meeting. The Mayor and/or City Council retain discretion as to the order that speakers are called to present public comment. 

Submit Comments Prior to City Council Meetings

  • Provide your comment in advance via email (cityclerk@elkgrove.gov) or by leaving a voicemail with the Clerk at (916) 478-2286.
  • Comments received by 4:00 pm the day of the City Council meeting will be provided to the full Council and staff prior to the Meeting.
  • Use the subject line “Public Comment for City Council meeting” when submitting public comments via email.
  • These comments will not be read aloud or played back during the meeting unless directed by the City Council.

Comment Tips

Here we will give you some guidelines for making comments and a few examples to get you started. It’s helpful if you do not copy these examples directly, but use them as a starting point for your own message. Our comments will be less impactful if they all use the same language and sound copied from a form letter. If you can take a few minutes to write with your own voice, your message will carry more weight.

Crafting Your Own Spoken Comment

Making a public comment doesn’t have to be hard or scary, and a little preparation goes a long way! Here are some tips from Re-Sources.org.

Elements of an Effective Comment:

  • INTRO: You may introduce yourself with your name or an alias. You can also share the City Council district you reside in, though it is not required. If you live, work, shop, or recreate in Elk Grove, this is helpful to say. You may include your job title or other expertise or affiliations you have that connect you to the topic if relevant, but do not feel obligated to do so.
  • WHAT: It is helpful to decision-makers if you can give a one sentence overview or “ask” for the city council right at the start. What do you want them to do?
  • WHY: How will this decision impact you personally, and how will it impact the greater good? Use examples from your own life or community to show why you think action on this topic is important. Describe the benefits of the action you are requesting.
  • MORE DETAIL: Include outside references (you can find more information on our FAQ, Resources, and News pages. Or read our Community Audit here) or your own expertise/view as a member of the public.
  • CLOSING: Reiterate your position. Thank them for their attention.

Additional Pointers for Spoken Comments:

  • BE CONCISE: You have only a short time (three minutes for Elk Grove City Council, with time potentially reduced if there are many commenters on the same topic) to get your point(s) across. Writing out your comment and timing yourself before the meeting will help ensure that you hit all of the points you need to hit within your allotted time. It may help to stick to no more than three topics or main points in your comment.
  • SPEAK SLOWLY AND BREATHE: By speaking slowly, you will be heard and understood by all. This also helps calm your nerves if you are feeling anxious or self-conscious.
  • TRY TO BE POLITE: If you’re frustrated with something the Council has or has not acted upon, it may be useful to rephrase your comment as “I hope you consider doing (xyz) because (abc).” Alienating the decision-makers does not work in your favor.
  • TELL YOUR STORY: It is important to state that you’re a resident of Elk Grove, or that you work, recreate, or shop in Elk Grove, especially if you will be impacted by a policy or action, or a lack of one.
  • CONNECT YOURSELF TO THE DECISION: Decision-makers want to know what the impacts of their actions will be on people or what they value. Be sure to mention if a policy or action will directly impact you and your family, or if you have expertise in a certain industry or profession. If the decisions of the City Council about this issue will impact your likelihood to vote for them in the future or whether you continue to visit the community and spend your money here, that’s helpful for them to know.

Crafting Your Own Written Comment

Written comments delivered prior to a meeting are just as important as spoken ones! If you are unable to give spoken comment, you can submit a written comment per the instructions under How to Submit Comments Prior to City Council Meetings.

Tips for Written Comments:

  • If the topic is on the meeting agenda, reference the agenda item number and title in your subject line. If the item is not on the agenda, you can reference it as a general comment for the City Council.
  • Email comments that are too long are more likely to be skimmed or skipped due to time constraints on elected officials prior to meetings.
  • It is helpful to send the comment to the City Clerk, your City Council Member, and the Mayor in separate emails, rather than all together in one email.
  • In comments submitted to the City Clerk, address the Council as a group, for example, “Dear Elk Grove City Council”. For comments sent directly to individuals, address that person directly, for example, Dear Councilmember Robles, Dear Mayor Singh-Allen, etc.

Comment Template

You can use this template for providing written comments (email or letter), live comments during a city council meeting, or via phone call.

Hello, my name is

  • [introduce yourself, district you live in or your connection to Elk Grove, your organizational affiliation if any].

I’m speaking/writing to request that you

  • [List specific action request here, referencing the agenda item if there is one. See What We Are Asking of the City for talking points]
  • [Share why you believe this is a point of concern. You can draw from information shared in the Community Audit report, concerns about accountability, over-policing, surveillance, and privacy, information from news reports, or your personal experience.]

[***Optional Second part***] Second, I would like to ask you to prioritize spending on matters that our city actually needs.

  • [Share what investments you would like to see prioritized and why. Consider discussing services you, your family, your neighbors, or your community have struggled to access or alternatives that prioritize public safety such as access to health care and affordable housing, better community design, separated bike lanes, community-building events, walkable neighborhoods, safe routes to school, youth programs, etc.]
  • [For ideas of what our community has specifically asked for you can see the results from past city surveys here.]

As a resident of Elk Grove [or whatever descriptor you choose] I request that the City Council [restate request from introduction] and instead prioritize matters that truly improve public safety [briefly summarize your ideas from the prior paragraph].

Thank you for your time.

[If submitting written comment, be sure to include a signature]

Sincerely,

[Your Name][Your Street Address, Elk Grove, CA ZIP code]

Comment Examples by Topic

Here you will find sample public comments to help you get some ideas to use for our template above. Click a link below to navigate directly to a specific comment:

EXAMPLE – Our Taxpayer Money is Funding Outside Agencies Surveilling Us

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

A recent community audit found that only three percent of searches involving Flock ALPR data recorded in Elk Grove were made by the Elk Grove Police Department. The other 8 million results from 2021 to March 2026 were searches from 3,600 other cities, counties, other states, federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations—including the FBI, the ATF, thousands of agencies from 43 states across the country, and an entity that appears to be U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Many of these searches appear in violation of California state law, Senate Bill 34.

The contract the City has with Flock Safety for ALPR cameras is more than $1.6 million dollars. Why are our tax dollars funding a system that is primarily used to track us from outside Elk Grove? That money could be saved for a rainy day or redirected to other services that Elk Grove residents deem more suitable for our community needs. Recent Elk Grove community surveys have shown that public safety is not just about policing. Residents have asked for increased access to affordable housing, better community design, separated bike lanes, community-building events, walkable neighborhoods, safe routes to school, and more youth programs.

I urge the city council to cancel the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replace it with another ALPR vendor. Redirect taxpayer funds to some of the aforementioned public safety measures that will make tangible impacts in our daily lives.

Thank you.

—

Sources for this comment:

Back to Example Comments by Topic

EXAMPLE – Sharing with ICE for Immigration Enforcement

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

Flock ALPRs are being used by California police and in cooperation with ICE and federal agents to conduct clearly unconstitutional immigration “enforcement” activities, in violation of California Senate Bill 54.

As a recent community audit of our local data has confirmed, and as national reporting has shown, the information collected by these cameras is not just accessible by police departments, but by ICE—including through sharing by agencies that search on behalf of ICE. In fact, Elk Grove residents’ ALPR data has been searched more than 900,000 times by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, an agency reported to share data with ICE, despite Elk Grove PD assuring residents that specific agency did not have access to our data.

Residents of this city and nationwide, on both the left and the right, already feel their data is unprotected and exposed: to all levels of government and to private, even multi-national, companies across the globe. Networks of ALPR cameras create a dragnet of indiscriminate tracking and surveillance, and it seems clear that searches of the data collected about our movements constitute 4th Amendment searches. Without obtaining a warrant for these searches, the Elk Grove Police Department and other agencies are violating our 4th Amendment rights. We are quickly becoming a mass surveillance nation. Is this what we really want?

Your job is to protect our population, our Constitutional rights, our privacy, and our safety—and that includes our travel data and our right to privacy. ALPRs have been misused in our community, putting all of us at risk.

I urge the city council to stand up for our residents’ privacy, safety, and civil liberties by cancelling the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replacing it with another ALPR vendor.

Thank you for your time.

—

Sources for this comment:

Back to Example Comments by Topic

EXAMPLE – Fourth Amendment and Recent Supreme Court Ruling

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

Despite state regulations prohibiting sharing ALPR data with federal and out-of-state agencies, Elk Grove residents’ travel data was shared with those entities repeatedly over multiple years through Flock’s system, as discovered in an audit that community members recently completed based on data provided to them by the City. In fact, only 3% of searches conducted on Elk Grove residents’ data were done by our own Police Department. The other 97% were conducted by other entities, including agencies in 43 other states as well as the federal government and non-governmental entities.

Residents of Norfolk, West Virginia are suing their city for ALPR installation, in alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment as unwarranted searches. As of November 2025, the cities of San Jose and Oakland are also now being sued over Flock in separate lawsuits.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling in Chatrie v. United States, other jurisdictions are already considering the possible legal and financial risk they put themselves in when they engage in these types of warrantless searches using ALPRs. The city of Newport, Kentucky recently announced that it is ending its Flock Safety pilot program in part due to recent developments in Fourth Amendment law in the Chatrie ruling.

Networks of ALPR cameras create a dragnet of indiscriminate tracking and surveillance, and it seems clear that searches of the data collected about our movements constitute 4th Amendment searches. Without obtaining a warrant for these searches, the Elk Grove Police Department and other agencies are violating our 4th Amendment rights. We believe the Supreme Court ruling in Carpenter v. United States (2018) combined with the recent ruling in Chatrie v. United States (2026) affirm this.

ALPRs are not safe for our community. I urge the city council to stand up for our residents’ privacy, safety, and civil liberties by cancelling the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replacing it with another ALPR vendor.

Thank you for your time.

—

Sources for this comment:

Back to Example Comments by Topic

EXAMPLE – Police Stalking Women with ALPRs

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

News reports from around the country have repeatedly detailed police abusing ALPR surveillance systems to stalk their partners, ex-partners, and romantic interests. A recent report identified at least 24 cases nationwide of officers using ALPRs to stalk romantic interests over the past two years.

For example, numerous outlets have reported on the Florida police officer who met a woman on a TV set, used ALPRs to surveil her for weeks, stalked her, and nearly caused a head-on collision while chasing her to pull her over. In a case in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, an officer investigating ALPR stalking by another officer was then himself charged with ALPR stalking!

The Mayor of Elk Grove and several Councilmembers have told residents that they trust the Elk Grove Police Department. But Elk Grove PD officers are not the only people who are accessing our data, as was shown in the recent community audit. More than 3,600 different agencies and organizations have searched our data!

Even if it was just Elk Grove PD searching, why should Elk Grove residents have to rely on blind trust when it comes to Elk Grove PD officers? Why should any woman in Elk Grove assume that Elk Grove PD officers will not misuse ALPRs to stalk or harass her or her daughters, especially when the Elk Grove PD is led by an individual who is currently being sued for sexual harassment?

I urge the city council to stand up for our residents’ privacy, safety, and civil liberties by cancelling the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replacing it with another ALPR vendor.

Thank you.

—

Sources for this comment:

Back to Example Comments by Topic

EXAMPLE – The City Does Not Appear to Know or Control Who is Searching Our Data

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

I’m concerned because it appears the City does not know or control who is searching our data. As the city council is aware, Senate Bill 54 prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from using resources to assist in immigration enforcement.

At a previous city council meeting, a resident raised concerns about the possibility that our ALPR data may have been shared with two agencies—Riverside County Sheriff and Orange County Sheriff—reported to have illegally shared data with federal agencies, including ICE and CBP. In response, Elk Grove PD Real Time Information Center (RTIC) Manager Andrea Cortez stated that only the District Attorney offices, but NOT the Sheriff offices in those two counties have access to Elk Grove ALPR camera data. Yet, when residents reviewed the data the City provided through Public Records Act requests, they found more than 900,000 searches by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office and more than 370,000 searches by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. Did Elk Grove PD intentionally mislead the public and City Council about this? Or do they simply not know or control who is searching our data?

Elk Grove PD assured residents at previous city council meetings that only agencies with data-sharing agreements/Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) can search our data. This is also written into Section 463.7 of the City’s official ALPR Policy document. When residents requested the MOU records, the City provided data-sharing agreements for our Flock ALPR camera data with 67 agencies across California. Yet, from 2021 to 2026, 290 additional California agencies accessed our data—searching more than 4.3 million times—without data-sharing agreements in place.

Residents also found that our travel data was shared with unidentified organizations. More than 2,200 searches were performed by entities with usernames such as “do not use,” “Org Name,” and “decommissioned org.” There is no way for the City or residents to know if these searches were performed in compliance with state laws, since we have no idea who performed them.

Elk Grove PD’s ALPR webpage states that they do internal audits of the system every 90-days. If this is the case, why doesn’t the Elk Grove PD appear to know who is actually searching our data?

It is clear to me that ALPRs have been wildly misused in our community, putting all of us at risk. I urge the city council to stand up for our residents’ privacy, safety, and civil liberties by cancelling the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replacing it with another ALPR vendor.

Thank you.

—

Sources for this comment:

Back to Example Comments by Topic

EXAMPLE – NCRIC Fusion Center Sharing Raises Red Flag

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

The recent community audit completed by Elk Grove residents showed that our travel data is shared with the Northern California Regional Information Center (NCRIC).

NCRIC is a Fusion Center, which is a collaboration between local, state, and federal agencies including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Our data has been shared with NCRIC more than 300,000 times from 2021–2026.

Recent reporting has revealed that the NCRIC searched ALPR data from the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) on behalf of agencies that had no lawful path to the data themselves. That same issue may occur with Elk Grove data when it is shared with NCRIC.

I urge the city council to stand up for our residents’ privacy, safety, and civil liberties by cancelling the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replacing it with another ALPR vendor.

Thank you.

—

Sources for this comment:

Back to Example Comments by Topic

EXAMPLE – Video Surveillance through Flock ALPRs

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

Flock Safety’s public blog states, “All existing Flock LPRs will soon stream live video and capture clips with a free, optional software update. No new hardware, no permits, no extra cost.” After 404 Media published an article about the video capabilities of Flock ALPR cameras on July 23, 2026, Flock stated that they have “discontinued the feature for law enforcement agencies.” However, the blog post offering video capture and streaming is still up on Flock’s site. If they aren’t offering this anymore, why haven’t they taken the blog post down? And, reporting by Jason Hunyar provided evidence obtained through public records requests that the video feature for Flock ALPRs was used by at least one agency in Dunwoody, Georgia.

This directly contradicts statements made by Flock and the City of Elk Grove that ALPR cameras cannot capture video. In fact, Flock has made multiple public statements that directly contradict the claim that ALPRs can only capture static images of vehicles. Perhaps the City should have told residents that the ALPRs do not capture video “YET,” since the cameras are capable of capturing video and Flock has offered this feature to agencies before.

Additionally, since according to Flock, a software upgrade would not require a permit or extra cost, it is unlikely that it would require a local government action subject to public disclosure. How will the Elk Grove City Council and Elk Grove residents be notified if/when video streaming and capture is once again offered by Flock and is turned on in Elk Grove?

It is clear to me that ALPRs are not safe for our community. I urge the city council to stand up for our residents’ privacy, safety, and civil liberties by cancelling the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replacing it with another ALPR vendor.

Thank you.

—

Sources for this comment:

Back to Example Comments by Topic

EXAMPLE – Police Transparency and Accountability

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

I am concerned because when Elk Grove PD released ALPR records to community members, they redacted the reasons for every single search. Residents want to know why our data is being searched. Other jurisdictions have provided the search reasons—why not Elk Grove? The Elk Grove PD could have done the same, and only redacted information that is truly personally identifiable information. If all of the searches are being done to investigate crimes, why wouldn’t Elk Grove PD want us to know that? It could help reduce residents’ concerns.

The California Supreme Court has ruled against using blanket “investigative records” claims in general ALPR Public Records Act requests for audit logs. And while Elk Grove PD did provide audit logs, there was no justification for the mass redaction of search reasons. Additionally, Elk Grove PD’s own ALPR training briefs, provided to residents through another records request, state that “Audit reasons are subject to PRA [Public Records Act] or FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests.” If that’s the case, why weren’t they provided?

Despite Elk Grove PD redacting the reasons, Elk Grove residents were able to discover reasons for some Elk Grove searches by matching unique search IDs to data from the City of Woodland’s Flock logs, which were not redacted. Residents found that Elk Grove PD and external agencies used immigration enforcement terms, immigration agency assistance, federal agency assistance, and vague terms as reasons for searches. Some of these searches may violate California state law.

ALPRs are simply not safe for our community. I urge the city council to stand up for our residents’ privacy, safety, and civil liberties by cancelling the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replacing it with another ALPR vendor.

Thank you.

—

Sources for this comment:

Back to Example Comments by Topic

EXAMPLE – Reasonable Expectation of Privacy vs. Having “Nothing to Hide”

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

Residents and visitors to Elk Grove have a reasonable expectation of privacy that is being violated by Elk Grove PD’s Flock ALPR cameras because they create a dragnet system of surveillance that effectively tracks the whole of our physical movements. Rather than only triggering an alert for a wanted vehicle, the system retains data on every innocent driver who passes by. Flock has admitted that its ALPR system can generate a “heat map” showing exactly where a specific vehicle has traveled over a 30-day period.

The argument that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public is not supported because of the indiscriminate tracking that ALPR camera systems utilize. Especially considering there are approximately 90 ALPR cameras in our city. It seems that the ALPR cameras are placed to make it difficult to drive anywhere from our homes without running into them.

Residents who have started to keep track have discovered that they pass ALPR cameras multiple times every day, sometimes more than a dozen times. Going to work, taking their kids to school, going to the store, visiting friends, going to the doctor, attending religious services, attending protests, or going to the gun range.

Some people say that they have “nothing to hide,” and being surveilled does not matter to them because they are not breaking the law. But what is worth hiding can change. In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Overnight, abortion became illegal in the 13 states with “trigger laws” that were waiting for the Supreme Court’s ruling. On June 24, 2022, people seeking abortions had “nothing to hide,” but on the following day, essential reproductive care was now a crime, with at least one Sheriff’s office using ALPRs to try to track a woman for this reason.

When surveillance is indiscriminate like this, our entire community is monitored without any reasonable suspicion that we might be doing something illegal. We are all treated like criminal suspects, with every detail of where we go treated as potentially suspect.

The use of ALPRs is a violation of the rights of every member of our community. I urge the city council to stand up for our residents’ privacy, safety, and civil liberties by cancelling the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replacing it with another ALPR vendor.

Thank you.

—

Sources for this comment:

Back to Example Comments by Topic

EXAMPLE – Civil Rights, Legal and Financial Risks for the City: Council Member Spease

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

At a previous city council meeting, Council Member Spease stated that he is very serious about our civil rights and is even a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I appreciate this! As a member of the EFF, he will know that they are the leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation. A memo put out by the EFF in November of 2025 calls ALPRs “invasive, mass surveillance technology.” This memo says “One of many problems with ALPRs is that police officers often search ALPR databases without getting a warrant. EFF and the ACLU of Northern California have sued the City of San Jose to end this practice, arguing it violates the California Constitution.”

In an audit conducted by members of our community using data the City provided through the California Public Records Act, it was discovered that not only are Elk Grove police officers searching our data, but that in fact, 97% of searches done on Elk Grove’s system were done by agencies and organizations outside of Elk Grove.

Between 2021 and 2025, Elk Grove residents’ data has been shared more than 1.3 million times with more than 3,200 federal agencies, out-of-state agencies, and non-governmental entities. Sharing with these types of entities violates California Senate Bill 34 and can carry a penalty of $2,500 per search. This could amount to more than $3 billion in penalties for the City and opens the City to potential lawsuits from residents and visitors, as is currently happening in San Jose and Oakland.

ALPRs have been misused in our community, putting all of us at risk. I urge the city council, and Council Member Spease especially, to stand up for our residents’ privacy, safety, and civil liberties by cancelling the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replacing it with another ALPR vendor.

Thank you.

—

Sources for this comment:

Back to Example Comments by Topic

EXAMPLE – Hypothetical vs Verified Violations: Council Member Suen

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

At a previous city council meeting, Council Member Suen commented that the concerns about Flock ALPRs raised by residents were hypothetical risks. He said that if real violations had taken place then it would be worth a discussion.

A recent community audit of the Flock ALPR system in Elk Grove discovered that Elk Grove residents’ data has been shared more than 1.3 million times with federal and out-of-state agencies and non-governmental organizations in apparent violation of California state law, Senate Bill 34. One of those agencies appears to be U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, which is a federal immigration agency.

The audit also found that data was shared with California agencies that the Elk Grove PD explicitly stated did not have access to our data, including two that have been reported to share ALPR data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement—Riverside County Sheriff and Orange County Sheriff, who searched our data more than 1.2 million times combined.

The records the City provided to community auditors did not include the reasons for searches of the Flock ALPR camera data. However, residents matched unique search IDs to data from the City of Woodland’s unredacted Flock logs and were able to discover the reasons for some Elk Grove searches. They found that Elk Grove PD and external agencies used immigration enforcement terms and immigration agency assistance as reasons for searches, in apparent violation of California law, Senate Bill 54.

The concerns raised by residents are no longer hypothetical. They are real and backed by evidence obtained directly from the Flock system. I urge the city council, and Council Member Suen especially, to stand up for our residents’ privacy, safety, and civil liberties by cancelling the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replacing it with another ALPR vendor.

Thank you.

Back to Example Comments by Topic

EXAMPLE – Audit by the State of California: Council Member Robles and Mayor Singh-Allen

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

At a previous city council meeting, residents raised concerns about the Flock Safety ALPR system. In response, Elk Grove PD stated to the city council that the California Department of Justice could do an audit of the data. Council Member Robles enthusiastically supported asking for that audit. Mayor Singh-Allen appeared to support it, as well. Instead of initiating that state audit request, the city council voted to expand the Flock ALPR contract at the very next city council meeting.

Community members recently completed their own audit of the Flock ALPR system in Elk Grove, using data provided by the City through Public Records Act requests. The concerns raised by residents were confirmed by the community audit. They are real and backed by evidence obtained directly from the Flock system.

Elk Grove residents’ data has been shared more than 1.3 million times with federal and out-of-state agencies and non-governmental organizations, in apparent violation of California state law, Senate Bill 34. One of those agencies appears to be U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, which is a federal immigration agency.

Data was also shared with California agencies that the Elk Grove PD explicitly stated did not have access to our data, including two that have been reported to share ALPR data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement—Riverside County Sheriff and Orange County Sheriff, who searched our data more than 1.2 million times combined.

Flock ALPR logs include a “reason” for each search. But the City redacted all of the search reasons in the data provided to community members. Still, residents were able to discover the reasons for some Elk Grove searches by matching unique search IDs to data from the City of Woodland’s unredacted Flock logs. They found that Elk Grove PD and external agencies used immigration enforcement terms and immigration agency assistance as reasons for searches, in likely violation of California law, Senate Bill 54.

I urge the city council, and Council Member Robles and Mayor Singh-Allen especially, to stand up for our residents’ privacy, safety, and civil liberties by cancelling the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replacing it with another ALPR vendor.

Thank you.

Back to Example Comments by Topic

EXAMPLE – Flock Safety Data Security Issues

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

Flock’s track record repeatedly proves they cannot secure our data. Reports have shown Flock cameras are vulnerable to hacking using simple tools in under a minute. Council members should take the time to read the reporting on this and not rely solely on the talking points the Elk Grove PD has received and passed along from Flock Safety representatives.

As recently as 2025, Flock Safety has had cameras streaming live to the internet with no password required, accessible to the public. Regardless of which specific type of Flock cameras this occurred with, the fact that Flock Safety has a history of inadequate security protocols should be a major concern for City officials tasked with protecting the security and privacy of Elk Grove residents.

Additionally, Flock recently exposed police searches, sometimes including the specific searched license plates, in common search engines DuckDuckGo and Bing, according to tests by privacy advocates and 404 Media, and a statement from the company.

There is no way to secure the data Flock collects and controls with its faulty technology. Giving the current anti-constitutional federal government access to more of our private travel data is dangerous and unacceptable.

ALPRs have been misused in our community, putting all of us at risk. I urge the city council to stand up for our residents’ privacy and civil liberties by cancelling the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replacing it with another ALPR vendor.

Thank you.

—

Sources for this comment:

Back to Example Comments by Topic

EXAMPLE – People Searches, AI-capabilities, and Flock’s New Terms and Conditions.

Hello, my name is [your name] and I am a resident of district [your district number] here in Elk Grove. I am asking you to cancel our city’s contract with Flock Safety for automated license plate readers, known as ALPRs, and NOT to seek out an alternate ALPR vendor.

At previous city council meetings, Elk Grove PD assured residents that the Flock ALPR cameras only capture images of vehicles, and do not track people. Yet, a recent community audit found that “FreeForm” searches of Elk Grove data for “people characteristics,” including gender and race, were made by Elk Grove PD, Flock Safety, and external agencies. Search terms included “face tattoo,” “white male grey beard,” “elderly lady,” “male on bike,” “person with umbrella,” and more. These types of people searches were also recently reported by news outlet 404 Media.

Additionally, a Flock Safety patent describes capabilities of their AI system that can identify a person’s gender, race, clothing, height, and weight. Once the images from EGPD’s license plate readers have been captured by Flock’s system, the City does not have control over how those images are used or what type of AI capabilities are used to analyze them now or in the future.

And changes to Flock’s Terms and Conditions made in February 2026 gave Flock the right to “non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide license to (a) use and disclose Customer Data to provide the Flock Services; and (b) use Customer Data to support and improve Flock’s products and services.” Elk Grove PD may technically “own” the data it collects, but Flock now has permission to use the data captured in Elk Grove for any purpose, in perpetuity. This puts Elk Grove residents at immeasurable risk!

As the extensive evidence in the recent community audit shows, ALPRs have already been misused in our community, putting all of us at risk. I urge the city council to stand up for our residents’ privacy and civil liberties by cancelling the Flock ALPR contract and NOT replacing it with another ALPR vendor.

Thank you.

—

Sources for this comment:

Back to Example Comments by Topic