DeFlock Auburn Ca — Stop Illegal ALPR Surveillance

232 ALPR cameras in Placer County (deflock.org)

20M+ Total external searches of Auburn and Placer County Sheriff's Office cameras since 2022

4.8M Searches conducted by out-of-state or federal agencies across Auburn and Placer County, violating California Civil Code

4K+ Federal or Out-of-state agencies accessed your data AFTER Civil Code § 1798.90.55(b) took effect

SOURCES: CPRA-OBTAINED AUDIT LOG FILES · Auburn Police Department and Placer County Sheriff's Office, 2022-2026 · Note- We are still awaiting several missing months; final numbers subject to change (we expect numbers to increase)

WHAT'S HAPPENING // LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

NO VOTE YET. THE COUNCIL WANTS ANSWERS.

On October 12 2026, the Auburn City Council heard the Police Chief's report on Flock and voted to continue the item instead of deciding yet. Council asked the Chief to come back with answers on questions, and asked staff to survey the community. No return date has been set.

Aug 10Residents begin speaking out at Council
Sep 21City-hosted ALPR Town Hall
Oct 12Staff report; item continued, no vote
NextDate TBD · community survey coming

The Council's questions, and what the City's own documents already say

01 // RESULTS

How many crimes has Flock solved?

The staff report says Flock "expedited 230 case investigations" since the first camera went up in August 2022.

What it doesn't say

How many of those cases led to an arrest, a charge or a conviction. "Expedited" is not "solved."
What most of the 230 cases were. Only 92 are broken out by type (29 stolen vehicles, 14 burglaries, 11 hit-and-runs, 11 missing persons, 27 violent crimes).
Three of the five "real-world results" in the presentation happened outside Auburn, and one dates to 2017, five years before Auburn's first camera.

02 // DATA SHARING

Who gets Auburn's data?

The staff report says As of October 1, 2026, Auburn shares its camera data with 274 agencies, can search 511 other camera networks, and shares with 0 out-of-state or federal agencies. That sharing is now "disabled."

What it doesn't say

Whether the paperwork exists. Auburn's Policy 469 says data may be shared only after a written request is reviewed, approved and kept on file.
It omits that Auburn's audit logs show over 4000 out-of-state and federal entities searched Auburn's network, which residents found out through their own investigation.
What NCRIC, a fusion center, does with Auburn's records. The answer describes NCRIC's mission, not what happens to our data.

03 // COST

Is it worth the money?

The staff report says Flock costs about $30,000 a year under a contract that runs through June 2028. Ending it early costs a one-time fee of at least $6,000 ($500 for each of 12 cameras).

What the numbers add up to

Keeping the contract through June 2028 costs roughly $50,000, about eight times the cost of ending it now.
Auburn's transparency portal reported 178,268 vehicles recorded in 30 days, and 95 searches by the department in the same period.
Staff wrote that there is currently no way to track how often the system flags the wrong car.
Why does the 2022 Flock contract list costs as $15,000 a year, while the report lists them as $30,000?

04 // THE RULES

Who writes the rules?

The staff report asks Council for direction on a City ALPR policy, and the Chief proposed a committee to help write one. Auburn PD's current written policy (Policy 469) doesn't match what the public was told:

Retention: the department says it keeps data 30 days. Policy 469 says data "should be stored for a minimum of one year."
Justification: the presentation promised "no random or unjustified searches." Policy 469 says "reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required."
Sharing: Policy 469 allows sharing with "other law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies," with no California-only limit.
More cameras: the same report disclosed live-feed cameras with pan-tilt-zoom and "self-moving / tracking software" at City Hall, the airport, city parks and more. No Council-adopted policy covers them.

COMING SOON

A community survey

Council directed staff to survey residents about the Flock cameras. The format isn't decided yet. A fair survey should:

Be open to anyone who lives or works in Auburn, Bowman, or North Auburn
Use neutral wording, reviewed by someone outside the police department
Offer clear choices (including ending Flock, and putting any plate reader system under an ordinance)
Ask whether residents want an independent oversight board made up of community members
Share the cost and data-sharing facts alongside the questions
Publish the full results

WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW

Get ahead of the survey

Show Council where Auburn stands before the next meeting is scheduled. Sign the petition, email your Council members, and come table with us.

Sign the Petition Volunteer to help Email the Council →

SOURCES: AUBURN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT, ITEM 3, OCT 12, 2026 (PDF) · AUBURN PD POLICY MANUAL, POLICY 469 · AUBURN PD FLOCK TRANSPARENCY PORTAL (AS SHOWN IN STAFF REPORT) · CPRA-OBTAINED AUBURN PD AUDIT LOGS

WHAT'S HAPPENING // LOCATIONS

WHERE + WHAT TO LOOK FOR

Community-reported ALPR camera locations. If you spot one that's missing, add it to the map.

Flock cameras often have: Black housing · Teardrop shape · Usually with solar panels

An ALPR camera mounted on a pole with a solar panel, against a blue sky

WHY IT MATTERS

OUR CONCERNS

PRIVACY + DATA SHARING

On June 13, 2022, Auburn police told City Council "We want it to be that you can't enter the city of Auburn without your license plate being scanned." They got their wish: cameras now track your license plate, location, time, and direction of travel. They record pedestrian activity, perceived demographics (race, gender, height, weight), and any unique identifiers. And all that data is now under corporate control.
The service contract between Auburn PD and Flock gives the company a broad license to use Auburn's data, including a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, fully paid license to use, reproduce, modify, and distribute your data (Service Agreement, section 4.2).
ALPRs can be extended with ever-more-invasive surveillance technology, such as sensors that track the unique identifiers in your phone, your wearables, your infotainment systems, your Bluetooth devices- even your pet's microchip- to enable identification.

HIGH COST, LOW EFFECTIVENESS

Auburn's 2022 service agreement with Flock Group Inc. showed costs of $2,500 - $3,250 per camera; in 2023 PCSO approved a 2-year, $236,600 contract for 42 Flock cameras. Meanwhile, many of them end up stolen, vandalized, stripped for parts, or dumped in the canal.
There is no evidence to suggest that either Auburn's or Placer County's ALPR cameras have been effective at solving or preventing crime; data from Atlanta has shown both their extensive Flock and Axon surveillance systems have not improved clearance rates.
The millions of documented instances of access from out-of-state and federal agencies leave the city's finances at risk of the exact type of lawsuit that affected the city of El Cajon. It also leaves the city vulnerable to legal action for Constitutional violations.

SECURITY RISK

Flock employees have demonstrated their ability to observe playgrounds and children's gymnastics rooms.
We found 219 searches in which Flock Inc. itself accessed Auburn's cameras.
The technology contains 92 published vulnerabilities and can be hacked in under 30 seconds.
Dozens of law enforcement officers have abused it to stalk romantic interests.
It's been used to surveil people seeking abortions in Texas and harass protesters .
It's been used by immigration enforcement officers who shot a Chicago Montessori schoolteacher (they falsely claimed she was a terrorist and made sexual jokes as they shot her five times.)

LACK OF PUBLIC CONSENT

The California Civil Code § 1798.90.55(a) states: "a public agency that operates or intends to operate an ALPR system shall provide an opportunity for public comment at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the governing body of the public agency before implementing the program." City Council mentioned businesses were pushing the program; no residents spoke in support.
The subsequent renewal of the contract with Flock was pushed through city council via the consent calendar, with no discussion. Consent items are intended for non-controversial agenda items.
They are massively unpopular: Between August 2021 and May 2026, 82 Flock contracts were terminated across 28 states, and cities like Los Angeles, Mountain View, Santa Cruz, and Los Altos Hills have ended their programs.
They are eyesores: cities cancel contracts and must cover them up with trash bags.

More news →

THE DATA // FIRST-PASS AUDIT

WE FOUND MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL SEARCHES

Civil Code § 1798.90.55(b) SB 34, effective January 1, 2016 bars any California public agency from selling, sharing, or transferring ALPR data except to another California public agency; out-of-state and federal agencies don't qualify.
October 2023 California Attorney General issued Information Bulletin 2023-DLE-06, reminding agencies of this law and explicitly warning against sharing ALPR data with immigration enforcement agencies like ICE and CBP.
October 2025 California Attorney General sued the City of El Cajon for violating this exact statute.
We found several federal agencies logged as "inactive" only after their access had already occurred.

SOURCES: CIV. CODE § 1798.90.55(b) (SB 34, 2016) · CAL. AG BULLETIN 2023-DLE-06 · CAL. AG v. EL CAJON (2025)

4,811,034 Searches conducted by federal and out-of-state agencies, in violation of Civil Code § 1798.90.55(b) (SB 34)

4,406 Prohibited agencies accessed Auburn/Placer cameras

535,727 Searches by NCRIC, a Federal fusion center

10 Searches conducted by US Border Patrol, in violation of Civil Code § 1798.90.55(b) (SB 34)

WHAT'S HAPPENING // LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

How many searches lack a substantive reason?

10,140,586*

*We made an additional request that PCSO supply the "reason" fields, but they refused.

All of Placer County Sheriff's Office's ~8.6M searches have the reason hidden, and ~1.4M (about 12.5%) of Auburn PD's are either blank or use non-substantive strings such as "Inv" or "n/a."You can't claim to be accountable if the one field that proves accountability, is the one field you won't hand over.

THE DATA // FEDERAL + OUT-OF-STATE ACCESS

WHO'S LOOKING?

During the April 27, 2026 City Council session, the Auburn Police Chief said "The only information we share from the license plates we read are with California agencies only." That was a lie. Over 4 Million searches were conducted by 4,406 non-California or federal entities, despite it being prohibited. Here are the top-accessing agencies and their # of searches:

Houston TX PD 849,831	Dallas TX PD 101,330	Cobb County GA SO 34,656	New York State Police 33,414
Fort Worth TX PD 32,202	Fairfax County VA PD 28,238	Oklahoma City OK PD 26,841	Illinois State Police 26,570
NCRIC ( a Federal Fusion Center) 535,727

SOURCES: CPRA-OBTAINED AUDIT LOG FILES · CAL. CIVIL CODE § 1798.90.55(b) PROHIBITS SHARING WITH NON-CALIFORNIA ENTITIES

LEARN

FIND OUT MORE

NOTHING TO HIDE?

A fact-based guide to license plate readers and surveillance networks, with an executive summary and hundreds of sources to help you explore the evidence and draw your own conclusions.

FLOCK 101

Flock is a private surveillance company that builds automated license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras used by police departments, HOAs, and private businesses. Each camera photographs plate, make, model, and color, and timestamps the location.

CPRA TOOLKIT

Learn how to file a California Public Records Act request to obtain audit logs, vendor contracts, and retention policies — use our template to request the same records we did.

More resources →

TAKE ACTION

LET'S DEMAND...

End all ALPR Contracts and Remove the Cameras

A substantial wave of cities and towns have ended or declined to renew their Flock Safety contracts. Ending Auburn's is "Alternative 1" in the City's own October 12 staff report, at a one-time cost of about $6,000. Auburn's residents deserve the same choice, made in the open.

Put Council, Not the Department, in Charge of Surveillance

If the public is to be subject to any new or expanded surveillance technology, now or in the future, they deserve to know the details and implications, and to have a say in the matter. That means a Council-adopted ALPR ordinance modeled on the ACLU model bill (which staff attached to the October 12 report) and a Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) ordinance, so no surveillance tool arrives without a public vote.

TAKE ACTION // PUBLIC COMMENT

DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY? READ THIS.

My name is [your name]. I'm a resident of Auburn and I've lived here for [number] years. Auburn's own Flock audit logs show over 11 million external searches of our camera network —including federal agencies like the FBI and ATF, and thousands of out-of-state agencies that California law doesn't allow this data to go to. The City's staff report says that sharing is now turned off, but not when, or who got our data before then. I'm asking the Council to end the Flock contract and remove the cameras, account for the out-of-state access, and commit to no new surveillance technology without a public vote. I understand by making a public comment, that my name and email may be disclosed.
Thank you for your time.

My name is [your name]. I'm a resident of Auburn and I've lived here for [number] years. [Placeholder — two or three sentences on your personal connection to this issue.] [Placeholder — a sentence naming a specific concern: cost, data-sharing, or lack of oversight.] We requested the actual Flock audit logs for Auburn and Placer County through the California Public Records Act, and what we found should concern every resident here. Auburn's cameras were externally searched over 11 million times. At least 15 federal entities had access — including the FBI, ATF, and even U.S. Border Patrol — several logged as "inactive" only after the fact, meaning nobody stopped this access until well after it happened. Thousands more searches came from out-of-state agencies in states with different laws than ours- all in apparent conflict with the California statute that's supposed to keep our license-plate data inside California. And when we asked Placer County Sheriff's Office why these searches happened, we found the "reason" field had been stripped entirely from the records — they told us we'd need a court order just to see why our own cameras were queried. The City's own October 12 staff report doesn't answer these questions. It says out-of-state and federal sharing is now disabled, but not when it was turned off or who accessed our data before then. It credits Flock with 230 "expedited" investigations without a single arrest or conviction figure. And it confirms Auburn could end the contract for about $6,000, while keeping it through June 2028 will cost roughly $50,000 more. A growing number of cities across the country have already ended their Flock contracts over exactly these concerns. I'm asking this Council to do three things: first, end Auburn's Flock contract and remove the cameras; second, publicly explain the stripped records and the out-of-state and federal access we've documented; and third, commit that no new surveillance technology comes to this city without full transparency and a real public process. I understand by making a public comment, that my name and email may be disclosed.
Thank you for your time and for representing this community.

Auburn City Council meetings

are on the 2nd and 4th Monday of each month, at 6pm, in the City Council Chambers at City Hall1225 Lincoln Way Auburn, CA

Make a Public Comment

Placer County
Board of Supervisor meetings
are on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month, at 9am, in the Placer County Administrative Center175 Fulweiler Ave. in Auburn, CA

Make a Public Comment

TAKE ACTION // UPCOMING MEETINGS

DON'T MISS A MEETING

City Council and Board of Supervisors dates, kept up to date on a shared calendar. Subscribe to get reminders on your own phone or computer.

Update, Oct 12: Your public comments got us a Town Hall in September and a full Council discussion on October 12. Council continued the Flock item without a vote and asked the Police Chief for more answers. No return date is set yet; we'll add it here as soon as it's on an agenda. See what happened →

TAKE ACTION // EMAIL

SEND AN EMAIL.

Speaking up in person is the most effective thing you can do, but sending a quick email helps too. Here's who to contact, and a pre-written email you can copy, paste, and personalize.

Mayor Kelley Davis Vice Mayor Rachel Radell-Harris Alice Dowdin Calvillo Sandra Amara Bridget Powers

Subject: Public comment — ALPR camera program


To the Auburn City Council,

I'm writing as a resident to ask that you end Auburn's Flock Safety ALPR contract and
remove the cameras, publicly account for the surveillance-sharing practices documented
below, and commit
to no new surveillance technology without full public transparency.

[One or two sentences on why this matters to you personally.]

Through a California Public Records Act request, we obtained Auburn PD's and Placer
County Sheriff's Office's Flock Safety audit logs. The findings raise serious legal
and policy concerns:

Auburn's cameras were externally searched more than 11.5 million times, including
access from at least 15 federal entities -- among them the FBI, ATF (at two field
offices), and U.S. Border Patrol's Grand Forks Sector -- several logged as "inactive"
only after their access had already occurred. Thousands more searches came from
out-of-state agencies across nearly every U.S. state.

Under California Civil Code Section 1798.90.55(b) (enacted via SB 34, effective
January 1, 2016), a California public agency may not sell, share, or transfer ALPR
data except to another California public agency. Out-of-state and federal agencies
do not qualify. This is not a hypothetical concern: in October 2025, the California
Attorney General sued the City of El Cajon for the same underlying conduct.

Separately, when we requested the "reason" field documenting why each search was
conducted, Placer County Sheriff's Office refused to produce it, stating it would
require a court order -- despite Placer's own transparency portal stating that "all
system access requires a valid reason." Residents cannot audit a policy the agency
itself won't let them see enforced.

On October 12, the Council continued this item and asked the Police Chief for more
information. As you review his answers, I ask that you look for:

  - Arrests, charges and convictions, not just the 230 "expedited" investigations
    counted in the staff report;
  - When out-of-state and federal sharing was disabled, and a full accounting of
    the access that happened before then;
  - The cost of keeping the contract through June 2028 (roughly $50,000) compared
    with the roughly $6,000 cost of ending it now.

We are asking the Council to:

  1. End Auburn's Flock Safety contract and remove the cameras (the staff report's
     Alternative 1), as a growing number of cities nationwide have already done;
  2. Publicly explain the stripped "reason" records and the extent of out-of-state
     and federal access to Auburn's camera data;
  3. Commit that no new or expanded surveillance technology will be adopted without
     full public disclosure and a real opportunity for community input; and
  4. Make the upcoming community survey neutral, open to every resident, and
     include ending the contract as an option.

Full findings and source documents are available at www.deflockauburnca.com .

Thank you for your consideration,
[Your name], [Your neighborhood]

TAKE ACTION // STAY IN THE LOOP

Chances are, you've
been illegally searched.