Home/Positions/Flock cameras

Position: Privacy & Public Safety

Why I Oppose Renewing Laguna Hills' Flock Camera Contract

By Tiffany Boccieri, candidate for Laguna Hills City Council, District 4 · Updated October 15, 2026

Public safety is one of my top priorities in District 4. But lasting safety depends on community trust, accountability, and respect for the rights of the people the city serves. A surveillance system that logs the movements of everyone, and that residents cannot see into, works against that trust.

What the cameras do

In 2021 the City Council voted unanimously to contract with Flock Safety for citywide automated license plate readers (ALPRs). The city's announcement described them as a tool for identifying stolen or wanted vehicles, stolen plates, and missing persons. Those are legitimate goals. The question is whether an always-on, citywide system is the right way to pursue them, and whether it comes with the protections residents are owed.

Because the cameras record every passing vehicle, not just vehicles tied to a crime, ordinary routines such as school drop-off, commuting, and errands end up in a searchable database.

Why I am opposed

• Misuse is documented. In a September 22, 2026 letter to the U.S. Attorney General, Senators Raphael Warnock and Katie Britt cited reporting of dozens of cases of officers using license plate readers to stalk or harass people, and at least 50 officers charged with or accused of unauthorized use. Reason reported in July 2026 that at least 20 officers in Georgia misused the Flock database for personal reasons. These cases are from other communities. The point is that any system like this can be misused, and residents should know how Laguna Hills guards against it.
• Data can leave the city. California law bars sharing license plate data with out-of-state and federal agencies. In October 2025 the state Attorney General sued the city of El Cajon, alleging it shared its data with more than 100 out-of-state agencies. In February 2026, Mountain View turned off its Flock cameras after finding that federal agencies had accessed its data through a nationwide search tool.
• Accuracy problems have real consequences. An analysis of Roseville Police Department records, reported by Business Insider, found that 71 percent of alerts flagging vehicles as stolen or linked to a felony involved a misread plate. Flock disputes that framing and blames Roseville's equipment and installation. Either way, a false alert can put an innocent driver in an uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous traffic stop.
• The crime-reduction case is contested. Flock promotes a working paper reporting an 11 percent drop in vehicle theft where its cameras were installed. Analysts at the Institute for Justice argue the drop appears only under certain weighting choices and that crime was already trending down before many installations.

Where the law stands

Courts have not settled whether this kind of surveillance requires a warrant. In January 2026 a federal court in Virginia ruled that Norfolk's Flock system is not a Fourth Amendment search, and the plaintiffs are appealing. A federal court in California reached a similar conclusion in a criminal case in September 2026. Whether or not a court calls it a search, the City Council still decides whether Laguna Hills should build a system like this, and on what terms.

A smarter, accountable approach

Safety and privacy are not opposites. Taxpayer dollars are better spent on transparent, proven measures such as community-oriented policing, better neighborhood lighting, and targeted law enforcement, rather than a multi-year vendor contract that asks residents to trade away their privacy.

Laguna Hills would not be alone in rethinking this. Santa Cruz and Los Altos Hills ended their Flock contracts in January 2026, and the Los Angeles Police Department let its agreement expire in July 2026, citing "serious concerns around civil liberties and civil rights issues."

My commitments as your District 4 representative