SANTA CRUZ – The Santa Cruz City Council voted 6-1 to terminate the city’s contract with Flock Safety, the company that provides automated license plate cameras to Santa Cruz, Capitola and Watsonville along with other jurisdictions across the country, at its meeting Tuesday afternoon.

Santa Cruz first signed its contract with Flock in 2024. Over the past several months, controversy around and opposition to the company has spread as reports about the use of the cameras’ data has emerged. Demands to cease the use of Flock cameras grew when Santa Cruz police Chief Bernie Escalante confirmed that the city’s Flock data had been accessed by out-of-state agencies. Now, the City Council has voted to end the contract with Flock and directed city staff to seek out alternative options for automated license plate readers.

Councilmembers Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson, Gabriela Trigueiro, Scott Newsome, Susie O’Hara and Renee Golder, along with Mayor Fred Keeley, voted in favor of terminating the Flock contract. Councilmember Sonja Brunner was the sole vote against the motion.

O’Hara, who prepared the motion with Kalantari-Johnson and Golder, presented the case for ending the Flock contract. O’Hara outlined the issues Santa Cruz has had with Flock, including reports that the chief executive officer of Flock had referred to anti-Flock groups as “terroristic.” She also discussed the community’s fears that the Trump administration would use data from Santa Cruz for immigration enforcement purposes and said that the Flock platform had repeatedly created opportunities for Santa Cruz’s data to be used in ways the city never intended.

“The question isn’t whether we trust our own intent or even our own officers’ intent,” O’Hara said. “It’s whether we can guarantee our data won’t be used in ways that conflict with Santa Cruz values and create fear in our community. Right now, we do not believe we can, and that is why termination is necessary.”

Brunner presented a substitute motion during deliberation that would maintain and renew the city’s contract with Flock, but would put more safety measures in place. Many of these were already being considered by the city and police department, including limiting data sharing to nearby jurisdictions and having those jurisdictions sign attestations that they would use data only in alignment with Santa Cruz’s values. The motion also included regular reviews of the system and ways to continue reviewing the use of the technology.

Brunner said she felt a responsibility to maintain public safety, and that her motion was about creating a framework to use license plate cameras while addressing the community’s concerns.

Brunner’s motion did not receive a second from any other member of the council, and died on the floor. O’Hara and Kalantari-Johnson did, however, thank Brunner for speaking her mind and agreed that regulations similar to those in the substitute motion would be necessary if the city were ever to consider an alternative to Flock.

Several members of the council, including Golder and O’Hara, expressed that the decision to terminate was a difficult one. Both councilmembers acknowledged that the cameras had helped the Santa Cruz Police Department solve crimes, including recovering stolen vehicles and identifying suspects in some burglaries and violent crimes. They clarified that the motion to end the Flock contract was not a statement against the police department and expressed their gratitude to the Santa Cruz Police Department. Still, they said, the privacy concerns and lack of community trust in Flock outweighed the benefits to the police department.

Over 20 people, both in person and over Zoom, spoke out against the use of Flock cameras during the meeting. Among them were Peter Gelblum, chair of the Santa Cruz County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Jill Clifton from the Get the Flock Out group. Most of the people who spoke against Flock also opposed the use of any automated license plate reader technology in the future. Some expressed concerns that the technology was easy to hack, which could lead to stalking or escalation of domestic violence. A few other concerns included that the cameras capture people’s faces, and that Flock Safety has not proven itself to be a trustworthy company. One of the most prominent fears was that the cameras could be used to track down immigrants, despite Santa Cruz being a sanctuary city.

“Continuing to use the Flock cameras is irreconcilably inconsistent with Santa Cruz being a sanctuary city,” Gelblum said. “If we really mean that, you can’t have these cameras here.” Sgt. Josh Trog, president of the Santa Cruz Police Officers’ Association, also spoke at the meeting. He discussed the ways in which the Flock system had helped the Santa Cruz Police Department solve crimes more efficiently, and asked the council not to terminate the contract. He added that the department faces staffing challenges, and that losing effective tools can cause issues with morale and retention.

“We’re not asking for unchecked authority,” Trog said. “We’re asking to continue using a proven investigative tool within clear boundaries with accountability, transparency and oversight.”

Escalante answered some of the council’s questions during the meeting. In his answers, he said that the Flock cameras only capture a photo of the back of each car that passes by them. This statement is contrary to many claims that the cameras constantly livestream an audio and video feed, capturing pedestrians’ and drivers’ faces. Last month, journalists from 404 Media used Flock cameras to track themselves in real time on livestream video on the internet.

Escalante also said that Flock had never shared data from Santa Cruz without the city’s knowledge. Santa Cruz owns its own data collected by Flock cameras, Escalante said, and is in control of which other agencies to share it with. When data was searched by out-of-state agencies, it was because Santa Cruz — along with several other California communities, including Capitola — was “unwittingly” opted into a nationwide sharing portal, according to Escalante. This data sharing was against state law, and Flock disabled the setting in California on Feb. 11, 2025.

In November, Santa Cruz opted out of the system’s statewide sharing portal, as well. This meant that any outside agencies would have to get express permission to access Santa Cruz data. The police department began work on an attestation form that agencies would be required to sign if they were to have access to the Santa Cruz database, stating that they would operate in alignment with the city’s values.

Finally, Escalante discussed other measures that have recently been put in place to safeguard the Flock system. Flock prohibited searches in California that include terms such as “immigration,” “ICE” or “border patrol,” according to Escalante and Santa Cruz City Manager Matt Huffaker. Plus, agencies must now select a reason for the search from a drop-down menu of set options when they search Flock. Before, agencies could type anything into the box to justify their search, though Santa Cruz has always required a case number to be associated with each search, Escalante said.

Keeley addressed Escalante and the rest of the police department right before the vote. “Frankly, this is not about you. This is about a company we can’t trust,” he said. “We trust you, we don’t trust them.” Keeley said that he had been against the Flock system since the beginning, citing the fact that he voted against the contract back in 2024. He directed that city staff could go ahead and search for a replacement for Flock’s automated license plate readers, but expressed doubt that any system would meet Santa Cruz’s standards.

“I will probably vote against that, if that ever arrives here during my remaining time as mayor on the City Council,” Keeley said.

The Santa Cruz Police Department has already discontinued its use of Flock cameras, said Erika Smart, communications manager for the city of Santa Cruz. The police department is coordinating with Flock to remove the city’s eight cameras, and expects them to be taken down within a few weeks.

“This decision does not change the Police Department’s core mission, but it does remove a tool that had proven investigative value and could result in certain investigations requiring more time and resources, or going unsolved,” Smart wrote to the Sentinel in an email.

Huffaker added that though the Flock system was useful, the city prioritizes transparency and community trust.

“Public safety includes both effective investigations and protecting civil liberties,” Huffaker wrote in an email to the Sentinel. “While ALPRs (automated license plate readers) can be a useful tool, community trust and safety remain our top priority. That is why the City is ending the current contract and committing to only consider future use if a solution can be demonstrated to be truly safe, secure, and aligned with Santa Cruz values.”

The vote was met with applause and cheers from the crowd, with many audience members shouting “Thank you!” as they filed out of the City Council chambers.