Council Takes First Step Toward Canceling Flock Contract

San Diego’s Budget and Government Efficiency Committee voted unanimously on Wednesday to advance a proposal to cancel the city’s contract with the controversial Flock surveillance company. The proposal would also rewrite the city’s surveillance ordinance to restrict police from utilizing automatic license plate readers in the future.

“Rescinding the automated license plate reader policy is not just about reducing surveillance, it’s about safeguarding our fundamental rights and fostering trust within our communities,” said Councilmember Henry Foster, who brought the item to committee.  

With the item’s passage in committee, it will move to a vote of the full City Council. Exactly when that will happen still isn’t clear, but a representative for the City Attorney’s office said it will occur on an “appropriate timeline.”  

Despite rising opposition nationwide to automated license plate readers and all manner of surveillance tech, even getting to this position was an uphill battle.

Councilmember Foster led an effort during June’s budget negotiations to strip funding from Flock cameras, but the move failed 5 to 4. The four members of the Budget and Government Efficiency Committee were its only supporters. 

That sticky political equation changed last week, when Councilmember Stephen Whitburn announced he supported cancelling the contract. He previously opposed the June efforts to cancel the contract.  

Whitburn’s announcement was welcome news for Flock opponents. It set into motion the lightning fast, at least by political standards, effort to move the cancellation through the pipeline.  

“This is the best shot we’ve had in as long as we’ve been hammering away at this,” said Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, a longtime proponent of cancelling the Flock 

Still, whether the effort will succeed is uncertain. The council’s five-member anti-Flock majority will need to conjure a sixth vote to override a likely mayoral veto — and fast. 

The Fight Today 

With the committee’s passage of the item, the messy work of trying to find that sixth vote begins. Elo-Rivera is hopeful.  

“I imagine there will be an overwhelmingly positive response to this action at committee … that makes it so clear where the public sentiment is that we kind of get out of the trenches of the 5-4 politics on this issue and just end the contract,” Elo-Rivera said.  

If the public comment section of the committee’s meeting is any indication, there’s plenty of appetite locally for the change. Dozens of community members spoke, almost all of them in support of cancelling Flock’s contract. The local chapter of the ACLU also sued the city to force the cancellation of the contract. 

The company has been on the receiving end of mountains of national pushback in recent months, as reports of law enforcement abuse of the system have spread. Concerns of false identifications have also been widespread, with one high profile instance occurring in San Diego that led to an innocent man spending nearly a month behind bars.  

But exactly which councilmember would hop on board the anti-Flock train isn’t clear. Of the councilmembers who voted “No” in June, only Councilmember Joe La Cava responded to requests for comment about whether their thinking on Flock had changed. A spokesperson said La Cava would be sharing his views in upcoming hearings. 

Meanwhile, Mayor Todd Gloria isn’t backing down on his support for Flock, underlining the virtual certainty of a veto. In a statement following the vote, Gloria urged the City Council to reject efforts to cancel the Flock contract, saying the city’s surveillance system has helped police solve serious crimes.  

“Taking this proven tool away from our officers would a serious mistake and a step backward for public safety,” Gloria wrote. “Elected leaders shouldn’t be making life easier for criminals. We should be making it easier for our constituents.” 

He also wrote that the city’s 2022 TRUST Ordinance, which established oversight mechanisms for surveillance tools, allowed the city to strike the right balance between ensuring citizens’ safety and their privacy. 

San Diego Department Police Chief Scott Wahl has also been vocal in his opposition to the contract’s cancellation. In a statement, he wrote that the technology has been effective and the department has put the work in to build safeguards against its misuse.

“Removing a proven public safety tool from our streets is a loss for San Diego communities,” Wahl wrote. “What it will do is make it harder for our officers to solve crimes, find suspects and deliver justice for victims.”

But for some of the councilmembers, whether the police were bothering to follow the ordinance at all was a key driver in their decision to advance the measure. One element of the ordinance is a restriction on sharing data with outside agencies. That possibility caused fear among activists and community members, particularly as President Donald Trump has ramped up deportation efforts.  

Those fears of data-sharing also aren’t unfounded, despite city policies expressly forbidding the sharing of data with outside agencies. A report last year showed a slew of outside agencies — including Border Patrol and ICE — had accessed San Diego ALPR data. Other outside agencies had conducted nearly than 13,000 searches on that data. 

Whitburn himself listed this as the primary driver for his change of heart. He’s advocated for the $2 million spent on Flock to be rerouted to lower police response times. Elo-Rivera echoed some of that desire to see the funding spent on Flock diverted to other programs during the meeting. 

“In June, we were told that the city couldn’t afford full library hours, rec centers, and arts funding. Some of us proposed a different choice … take the money we spend watching every car in our streets and invest it instead in the things that actually make neighborhoods strong,” Elo-Rivera said. “Every dollar in our budget can only be spent once, and today we’re taking action to choose again.”  

The (Possible) Fight Tomorrow 

There’s also a ticking timer in the background of the effort. If the full Council doesn’t pass the proposal before new councilmembers are seated in January, the delicate anti-Flock majority could be shaken up. 

“There’s a reality where the outcomes of these races will 100 percent impact the viability of canceling the contract,” Elo-Rivera said. 

In anti-Flock activists’ views, the best outcome would be Nicole Crosby beating Richard Bailey in District 2 and “yes” votes Foster and Councilmember Kent Lee pulling through their re-election bids in Districts 4 and 6, respectively.  

Crosby supports getting rid of Flock. If elected, she would replace Councilmember Jen Campbell, who’s supported Flock’s use. That combo would give the anti-Flock crew the sixth vote they need to override a mayoral veto without having to convince any sitting councilmembers to switch sides.   

In proponents’ worst-case scenario, Bailey wins and Foster and Lee are defeated by challengers Martha Abraham and Mark Powell, respectively.  

Lee losing isn’t entirely likely. But while Powell, a former police officer, has expressed reservations about Flock, he hasn’t called for its removal. Powell didn’t respond to a call for comment.  

The races for Districts 2 and 4 seem like the more competitive contests.  

Bailey, a Republican-turned-Independent, has said the city’s ALPR system needs more guardrails but has stopped short of calling for its dismantling. Muddying the water even further were mailers supporting Bailey that described him as “opposed to Flock cameras.” Interestingly, it was the one policy position that didn’t come with a citation on the mailer.  

Where Abraham stands on removing Flock cameras also isn’t entirely clear, despite her insistence that it is. (“My stance is clear and driven by data,” she wrote in a social media post.) 

In the post, Abraham highlighted that Southeastern San Diego, one of the majority Black and Latino neighborhoods she’s running to represent, has the highest concentration of automated license plate readers anywhere in the city. She also wrote that mistakes had been made and that the city needs an independent audit of who’s had access to the data. She stopped short, however, of calling for the removal of the surveillance devices.   

“Your information should be protected and used appropriately every single time.” Abraham wrote in the post. “I will fight for your safety and privacy.” 

A representative for Abraham said they did not have a comment on whether she would support the removal of Flock cameras.

The post Council Takes First Step Toward Canceling Flock Contract appeared first on Voice of San Diego.