West Hollywood Reviews Flock Deal After Feds Accessed Camera Data

The City will review West Hollywood’s Flock Safety camera agreement after reports that federal immigration enforcement agencies accessed surveillance data through local police departments.

Council told staff Monday night to look at the Flock Safety contract and come back in 30 days with recommendations. Terminating the agreement is on the table if the City can’t be sure data won’t get shared with ICE.

Councilmember John Erickson brought the item with Councilmember Chelsea Byers.

“I want to get to the bottom of it,” Erickson said. “I want to understand it. We’re not terminating anything tonight.”

Byers made clear this is about the license plate readers—not business cameras or other surveillance gear. She’s concerned about “a vendor that continues to be loose with their data.”

Vote was 5-0.

What’s out there now

West Hollywood has 39 license plate readers running right now, plus one mobile security trailer. The real-time cameras Council approved in January aren’t on yet. That pilot program hasn’t started. The watch center at the Sheriff’s station is built but nobody’s using it.

Flock sells camera tech to thousands of police departments. Reports say ICE got into Flock’s network through local cops even though ICE doesn’t have its own contract with the company.

Flock says it doesn’t work with ICE or any Department of Homeland Security agency. The company says ICE doesn’t have direct access to Flock cameras, systems, or data, and that it has no contract with ICE. The company says customers own and control all data. Local agencies decide whether to share access with other departments, including federal ones. “Decisions about whether, when, and how data is shared are made by the customer that owns the data, not by Flock,” the company says on its website.

But reports claim ICE officials asked state and local agencies to search Flock cameras on their behalf. Over 4,000 searches have been done for federal immigration purposes, according to these reports.

What the law says

Two California laws should stop this. SB 34 passed in 2015—it blocks public agencies from sharing license plate data with out-of-state agencies, federal ones included. SB 54 passed in 2017. It stops state and local cops from using money or people for immigration enforcement.

Those laws exist. Agencies violate them all the time.

The ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation requested records in 2023 that showed 71 California law enforcement agencies broke SB 34 by sharing license plate data with federal agencies and out-of-state departments. Attorney General Rob Bonta responded by sending warning letters to 18 agencies since 2024 for possible violations. In October, he sued the El Cajon Police Department for allegedly sharing data with law enforcement agencies in 26 states.

Newsom had a chance to tighten the rules this past October when the Legislature passed SB 274. The bill would have forced agencies to delete some collected data within 60 days, required officers to better document which specific cases their searches related to, and mandated random state audits of how license plate technology gets used.

Newsom vetoed it. In his veto message, he said the restrictions would hurt criminal investigations. “For example, it may not be apparent, particularly with respect to cold cases, that license plate data is needed to solve a crime until after the 60-day retention period has elapsed,” he wrote.

So the laws stay weak, and California agencies keep sharing info with ICE anyway.

What the Sheriff says

West Hollywood Sheriff’s Captain, Fanny Lapkin told council they don’t share data with federal agents or ICE. Only station personnel can see the cameras.

Contract says data gets kept 30 days. Sheriff’s Department controls who sees what.

Danny Rivas, West Hollywood’s Public Safety Director said Flock reps told him twice the company doesn’t have an ICE contract and hasn’t shared data. Erickson kept pushing.

“If ICE subpoenaed their data and threatened to sue them, do they have a legal strategy that they can share with the city?” Erickson asked.

Rivas said they haven’t talked about that yet but that he would work with the city attorney to help get those answers during the review.

Trust issues

Byers said the fundamental problem is confidence in the vendor.

“We have low confidence issues when it comes to the vendor,” she said. “Flock is our vendor that we use for our automated license plate readers. And that vendor has not been able to answer questions, not just in our city, not just in conversations we’ve had with our sheriff’s department, but in many other cities.”

She pointed to police chiefs around the country making decisions about these cameras. Mountain View’s Police Chief Mike Canfield announced Monday he was shutting down all Flock cameras after discovering federal agencies had accessed the city’s data without authorization. The city council is scheduled to discuss the program Feb. 24.

She called the item “a modest step” compared to cities that have already decided to turn off cameras.

“Cities have already made a decision to turn off their cameras. Doesn’t mean terminate their contract, get rid of the cameras,” Byers said. “It means recognize that we have enough information from cities across the country who are facing the same level of immigration threats.”

Erickson noted the good Samaritan who captured a license plate number during a recent assault near the Abbey—not the city’s cameras. The suspect remains at large.

“The only reason we have the license plate number is because of a good Samaritan, not because of any of our cameras,” Erickson said. “And most of the time, even when we have this on video, individuals are uncaught.”

Different perspectives

Heilman said he’s appalled by what ICE is doing but doesn’t want to get rid of the cameras.

“I think we would be endangering the safety of our residents by doing so,” he said. He brought up the recent assault—camera tech could help catch who did it.

Any camera can be subpoenaed, Heilman noted. Business cameras, the cameras in Council chambers, all of it.

“I share the concerns that both of you have about the potential misuse of the information,” Heilman said. “But I also don’t think we want to get rid of all of the technology that we have that we’ve been investing in to try to keep our community safe.”

He said he reads the item as asking staff to review the Flock agreement and come back with options. “So, I don’t see it as terminating anything at this moment.”

Councilmember Lauren Meister asked if other companies do what Flock does.

Rivas said yes. The city uses one other company at one intersection already. Switching vendors means going through a request for proposal process, which takes time, but it’s doable.

Meister wants staff looking at other companies “specifically that have not been accused of sharing data.”

She brought up cell phones, Meta, Snapchat—federal agents are getting into everything.

“It’s not just these types of things, but it’s your cell phone. It’s Meta. It’s Snapchat, and they’re hacking into everything,” Meister said. “So just, are you gonna shut off your cell phone next?”

Byers said the difference is what the council controls.

“This is the decision that we can make as a council,” Byers said. “This is a vendor that we empower as a city, that we give our public dollars to.”

The federal government is making cities choose, she said.

“For me, the bigger value we make when we make a statement around public safety is that we’re not going to continue to give our public dollars to a vendor who we cannot trust to maintain the safety and protection of their public’s data,” Byers said.

Vice Mayor Danny Hang said he appreciates the item and wants staff finding ways to ensure data doesn’t get shared improperly.

“I do appreciate the spirit of this item in terms of reviewing the Flock contract and possibly closing any loops if staff can come back to the council with options to ensure that data isn’t inappropriately distributed out,” Hang said. “This is a challenging time, and we need to do what we can to protect our community.”

Then he got personal.

“Of the people sitting up here, I’m the one that’s going to be most likely to be picked up by ICE, not any one of my colleagues up here,” he said.

The review

Community Safety oversees the Flock agreement and works with the Sheriff’s Department. Staff will check if the contract actually protects data and follows California law.

Erickson said they have to assume federal agents will use any tool they can get.

“The saddest part about this item is that we now have to assume all of these tools that we have used will be used against the public eventually,” Erickson said. “And I think we’re seeing that.”

Policies don’t matter when the feds show up, he said. “I have great respect for Captain Lapkin and everyone at LASD and the work that they do to keep everyone safe, but when the feds come, they don’t even comply with their masking rules. They don’t even comply with half the laws that we already have on the books.”

West Hollywood calls itself a sanctuary city. The City has joined lawsuits against Trump administration immigration policies.

Staff has 30 days to come back with options for keeping camera data private. If they can’t guarantee that, terminating the contract stays on the table.