Last week saw a media frenzy over the alleged sharing of Flock Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) data by local law enforcement with Federal immigration authorities. The attention has created additional scrutiny over the policies that govern how the Emeryville Police Department and the many other law enforcement agencies utilize the technology.

On Monday June 13, nonprofit state news publication CalMatters published a story revealing that some Southern California Law Enforcement agencies had violated state law by sharing ALPR data with federal agents. The following day, The SF Standard published a story alleging that SF and Oakland police had illegally “funneled” license plate data to the feds.

The Oakland PD called the SF Standard article “misleading” in a media release saying that any alleged searching or sharing of their data did not come from members of the Oakland Police Department but by outside agencies including the SFPD, The CHP and Fremont PD who have access to their database.

Privacy advocates have cautioned for years that the technology can be abused and have pushed for greater safeguards including greater transparency features and clearer retention policies.

California SB 34 & 54

California has two laws on the books the explicitly forbid the sharing of data collected by local municipalities with federal authorities.

California SB 34, passed by the California legislature in 2015, requires law enforcement agencies to publicly disclose their use of ALPR technology and prohibits them from sharing its data with out-of-state or federal agencies, including immigration authorities, without strict safeguards and authorization.

SB 54 (AKA “The California Values Act”) was passed in 2017 and prohibits municipalities from sharing data with federal authorities like ICE. This act was established in response to the Trump administration‘s focus on aggressive deportation policies and purportedly to foster trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.

In 2023, The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) and the ACLU found that 71 California law enforcement agencies had violated SB 54. This prompted California Attorney General Rob Bonta to issue an advisory providing police with guidance on how to comply with the law.

Emeryville PD Not Implicated in SB 54 Violations

The Emeryville PD was not named in any of these allegations, but the fact that this data can be accessed and potentially shared by other agencies is cause for concern by some.

ALPR technology has been praised for its cost-effectiveness and impact. The cameras are actively used for real-time “hotlist” alerts helping identifying vehicles associated with felonies and ongoing criminal investigations.

Following approval by council in late 2023, Emeryville deployed 16 Flock cameras in Fall, 2024. Emeryville has a huge of influx of vehicles via its I-80 access and border with an under resourced Oakland.

While clearly not the only factor, the installation coincided with a notable drop in reported crime.

The EPD’s continuously updated transparency portal lists 387,047 vehicles scanned by the EPD’s 16 cameras over the past 30 days with 3,426 Hotlist hits.

The Emeryville PD’s transparency portal specifically states immigration enforcement as a prohibited use of the technology. A comprehensive document outlining the city’s policy is published on their website.

OPDs transparency portal lists additional details that govern who can access their data and prohibited uses like “reproductive healthcare services.” The much larger Oakland has both a Police Commission and a Community Police Review Agency that provide additional layers of scrutiny and accountability for the OPD. Emeryville’s Public Safety Committee consists of two councilmembers and does not have any citizen members.

Berkeley is the only remaining city in Alameda County that is not using the technology but recently approved their use after a two year process.

CM Priforce Attempts to Agendize Discussion

Following the news, Councilmember Kalimah Priforce attempted to agendize further discussion of EPDs policies at the July 15 City Council Meeting. Priforce previously co-chaired the public safety committee that recommended the technology for use in the city. He was removed from this and all committees following approval of his censure last year. “We rolled out this technology with the understanding that community oversight would follow, not as an afterthought, but as a safeguard,” Priforce spoke reading from a prepared statement.

Priforce requested a future agenda item to discuss a possible “Citizen Oversight Committee” on surveillance technology with a specific focus on ALPRs. “I do not want to wake up to reports that Emeryville’s surveillance data was used to detain undocumented residents or violate someone’s civil liberties.”

Mayor David Mourra, presiding over the meeting, pressed Priforce if his these prohibitions had already been addressed by staff in any previous discussions. Mourra seemingly expressed reluctance to pursue the item if the answer was already determined and weary of the creation of another committee that could be redundant with others and further tax the city’s small staff.

EPD Chief Jeff Jennings was asked by Councilmember Courtney Welch to approach the dais and clarify the EPDs policy. “It’s in our policy. We’re not part of the the group of 77 [agencies] that had violated SB 54 or their own policies,” Jennings assured.

Aware that any substantive discussion of the issue could violate the Brown Act, Mourra put the item to a vote by council. The request failed to gain support from any of the other four councilmembers ending further discussion.

“Somebody needs to be made an example of”

The SF Standard has published a follow up article questioning if SB 54 “has any teeth” with privacy groups like Secure Justice calling for “aggressive enforcement.” “Somebody needs to be made an example of,” Secure Justice executive director Brian Hofer stated in the piece.

To help agencies better comply with these laws, Flock is rolling out new features including one that allows police to require a case number in order to search their systems and another that automatically flags and blocks searches that include certain keywords such as “immigration” or “ICE.”