Are Flock Cameras Legal in California? Yes, within the rules below. Flock’s license plate readers are lawful to operate in every state; the real question — the one this page answers — is what rules California puts on them: how long your plate data can be kept, who can search it, whether a warrant is needed, and what rights you have to see the record.
The rules exist, they have teeth, and knowing them is the difference between guessing and acting. All details are for general guidance, verified against California sources as of September 2026.
In This California Guide:
Are Flock Cameras Legal in California? The Short Answer
YES — California is one of the minority of states with an ALPR-specific statute. SB 34 (2015, Hill), signed October 6, 2015, effective January 1, 2016, codified at Civil Code Title 1.81.23, §§ 1798.90.5–1798.90.55. A separate, older provision governs the California Highway Patrol specifically: Vehicle Code § 2413. There is no single statewide retention clock for city and county police — see retention_law.
California has a state floor but real rules are set locally, and 2026 saw cities move hard. Every agency must adopt and publicly post its own SB 34 usage and privacy policy setting retention, access, purpose, and audit terms — so retention in California ranges city by city. Bay Area cities also operate under local surveillance-technology ordinances (Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, Santa Clara County) requiring council approval and annual reports before ALPR deployment. Documented 2026 local actions: Los Altos Hills discontinued its Flock deployment in January 2026; Mountain View turned its Flock cameras off after a council vote in February 2026; Alameda County supervisors postponed a Flock renewal vote in February 2026 over data-privacy and federal-access questions and pushed it to April 21, 2026, with the sheriff saying a new agreement would go out to bid; El Cerrito’s council voted 3-2 on May 6, 2026 not to renew, with all 40 cameras scheduled for physical removal by August 18, 2026; Bishop’s council moved to cancel in June 2026; LAPD ended its Flock contract July 15, 2026.
Trackers count roughly 23 California-area council cancellations, non-renewals, rejections, or deactivations since the start of 2026 — California leads the country.
What California Law Actually Requires
| Question | Rule in California |
|---|---|
| ALPR statute | YES — California is one of the minority of states with an ALPR-specific statute. SB 34 (2015, Hill), signed October 6, 2015, effective January 1, 2016, codified at Civil Code Title 1.81.23, §§ 1798.90.5–1798.90.55. A separate, older provision governs the California Highway Patrol specifically: Vehicle Code § 2413. There is no single statewide retention clock for city and county police — see retention_law. |
| Data retention | PARTIAL. There is NO statewide retention limit binding city/county police; each agency sets its own period in its SB 34 usage policy, which must state “the length of time ALPR information will be retained, and the process the ALPR operator will utilize to determine if and when to destroy retained ALPR information” (Civ. Code § 1798.90.51). The ONE hard statutory cap in California law applies only to the CHP: Vehicle Code § 2413 caps CHP retention at 60 days unless the data is evidence or is used in a felony investigation (auto theft, homicide, kidnapping, burglary, elder/juvenile abductions, Amber Alerts, Blue Alerts). Flock’s 30-day default is a vendor/contract setting, not a California legal requirement — local agencies can and do set longer or shorter windows. SB 1013 (2026), still pending, would impose a statewide 30-day deletion rule; SB 274 (2025) would have imposed 60 days and was vetoed. |
| Who can search | No warrant and no probable-cause standard is required by California statute for a routine ALPR query. Under Vehicle Code § 2413(c) CHP plate data “may be used by a law enforcement agency only for purposes of locating vehicles or persons when either are reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public offense” — a reasonable-suspicion-tied purpose limit. SB 34 (Civ. Code § 1798.90.51–.53) requires that access be limited to authorized users acting for an authorized purpose defined in the agency’s own public usage policy, with training required. Practically: an authorized sworn officer or trained agency user runs the query, subject to the agency’s stated purpose limits, and the query must be logged. Civil Code § 1798.90.55 bars any public agency from selling, sharing, or transferring ALPR information except to another public agency and only as otherwise permitted by law. |
| Immigration use | YES — two overlapping restrictions. (1) SB 34 (Civ. Code § 1798.90.55) limits transfer of ALPR data to “public agencies,” and the California DOJ has formally construed “public agency” to EXCLUDE federal and out-of-state agencies — so sharing with ICE or CBP is unlawful. AG Bonta issued a law-enforcement bulletin with model policies in October 2023 saying exactly that; EFF publicized the guidance in October 2023. (2) The California Values Act, SB 54 (2017, Gov. Code § 7284 et seq.), independently restricts local police from assisting federal immigration enforcement. Documented breaches: November 2025 — Santa Cruz Local reported ICE accessed Capitola PD plate data (department called it a mistake); September 2025 — EFF and the ACLU demanded SFPD stop sharing data with ICE and anti-abortion states after reporters found at least 19 searches flagged as ICE-related; July 2026 — ChicoSol reported Chico PD had granted ICE and Border Patrol access to its ALPR data and shut the sharing off on July 8, 2026, two weeks after a records request. |
| Data sharing | NO out-of-state or federal sharing. Civil Code § 1798.90.55 permits transfer only to another “public agency,” which California DOJ’s October 2023 bulletin interprets as California public agencies only. Selling ALPR data is prohibited outright; Vehicle Code § 2413 separately bars CHP from selling data or releasing it to non-law-enforcement. Enforcement is live: on October 3, 2025, Attorney General Bonta sued the City of El Cajon in San Diego Superior Court for sharing ALPR data with more than 100 out-of-state agencies; as of March 2026 El Cajon sought a delay of the next hearing and no final ruling had issued as of this writing — you may want to check the San Diego Superior Court docket for the current posture. A June 2025 CalMatters investigation found officers violated the no-out-of-state-sharing rule on more than 100 occasions. |
| Search audits | YES, in the sense of mandatory record-keeping — but no mandatory outside audit. Civil Code § 1798.90.52 requires ALPR operators to implement a usage and privacy policy and maintain reasonable security; § 1798.90.51/.52 require that an operator who accesses or provides access to ALPR information “maintain a record of that access,” including the date and time, the license plate or data accessed, the username of the person accessing it, and the purpose. Agency policies must also describe “the title of the official custodian” and a process for periodic system audits. What California does NOT have is a state-run random audit mandate — SB 274 (2025) would have added random state audits and was vetoed October 1, 2025. |
The retention number is the one to watch. Flock’s national default is 30 days; some states now force shorter windows by statute, and where California law is silent, the local contract decides. When people ask “are flock cameras legal in California,” the retention and search rules above are usually what they actually need to know.
Misuse penalties: YES — a private right of action. Civil Code § 1798.90.54 lets an individual harmed by a violation, including unauthorized access or use of ALPR information or a breach of an ALPR system, sue anyone who knowingly caused the harm. The court may award actual damages but not less than liquidated damages of $2,500, plus punitive damages on proof of willful or reckless disregard, reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, and injunctive or other equitable relief.
The Attorney General may also sue public agencies for injunctive relief, as in the El Cajon action. There is no dedicated criminal penalty in Title 1.81.23; officers who query for personal reasons are typically handled under agency discipline and general computer-misuse law.
Your Rights: Seeing What California Has on Your Plate
Knowing whether are flock cameras legal in California is only half the question — the other half is what you can see about your own plate. Use the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq., formerly § 6250 et seq.), filed with the specific law enforcement agency that operates the cameras — the city police department, sheriff’s office, or CHP — not with the DMV and not with Flock.
Ask for: the agency’s SB 34 usage and privacy policy (which must already be posted publicly under Civ. Code § 1798.90.51), the retention schedule, the Flock “Organization Audit” and “Network Audit” logs from the Flock Insights dashboard, and user access/query logs showing record ID, username, agency, date/time, plate or query terms, stated reason, case number, cameras and time frame searched, and filters.
Many drivers can get policy and aggregate audit records this way; individual query records tied to your own plate are often withheld under the CPRA investigatory-records exemption, so results vary by agency — check with the agency’s records unit. Statewide guidance and the AG’s ALPR bulletin are at the Department of Justice, oag.ca.gov.
A records request is the single most useful lawful move for a driver asking are flock cameras legal in California: it is free or cheap, it forces the agency to state its rules on paper, and the answers feed every other channel — council testimony, comments on pending bills, or a lawyer if the logs show misuse. If a camera-based citation is the concern, the Flock camera ticket guide for California covers that side.
The bills and rulings below are what will change the answer to are flock cameras legal in California next — each item is dated, and this section is refreshed as they move.
California ALPR Bills and Rulings in Motion
SB 1013 (Cervantes, 2025–2026 session) — Automated license plate recognition systems. Passed the Senate May 20, 2026, cleared Assembly policy committees, and sat at Assembly Third Reading as of August 2026; not signed. Would require deletion of ALPR data after 30 days unless the plate is on an authorized hot list or tied to an active investigation or a missing-person search; would limit use to locating vehicles or persons reasonably suspected of involvement in a public offense or locating missing individuals; and, beginning January 1, 2027, would require new or updated vendor contracts to provide no default access to any national ALPR database and to make an agency’s own scans non-accessible to other agencies by default.
Prior attempt: SB 274 (Cervantes) passed the Senate 28-6 and the Assembly 41-29 in September 2025 and was VETOED by Governor Newsom on October 1, 2025; it would have required 60-day deletion of most plate data and random state audits. Newsom’s veto message said the measure “does not strike the delicate balance between protecting individual privacy and ensuring public safety.” Federal and state lawmakers were still debating ALPR limits as of August 2026 (CalMatters, August 2026).
Where communities have pushed back, it shows up here: cancellations, lawsuits, and documented cases — the practical backdrop to are flock cameras legal in California, reported as cases and charges only.
The Backlash in California: Cancellations, Lawsuits & Cases
October 3, 2025 — People of the State of California ex rel. Bonta v. City of El Cajon, San Diego Superior Court: AG sued over sharing ALPR data with 100+ out-of-state agencies in violation of SB 34; El Cajon publicly pushed back, and as of March 2026 its counsel asked to delay the next hearing; no final ruling reported.
June 2025 — CalMatters investigation documented officers violating the out-of-state/federal sharing ban on more than 100 occasions. September 2025 — EFF and ACLU formally demanded SFPD stop sharing ALPR data with ICE and with anti-abortion states after at least 19 ICE-flagged searches surfaced.
November 7, 2025 — Santa Cruz Local reported ICE accessed Capitola PD plate data; police characterized it as a mistake. February 26, 2026 — Gibbs Mura and Milberg PLLC filed a class action in San Francisco Superior Court alleging Flock violated California’s ALPR Privacy Act by letting out-of-state and federal agencies, including ICE, CBP, FBI, and ATF, query California cameras; an amended complaint followed April 3, 2026. 2026 — three California class actions were consolidated as In re Flock Group Inc.
Automated License Plate Reader Litigation, No. 3:26-cv-02375-VC (N.D. Cal.), before Judge Vince Chhabria; litigation ongoing, no final judgment reported. May 2026 — the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition’s suit to force release of LAPD–Flock contracts and MOUs (records first requested February 2024) was reported; LAPD ended the Flock contract July 15, 2026. February 2026 — El Cerrito, Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, Bishop and Alameda County contract actions listed under local_control.
📨 Get Free Traffic Ticket Guides Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
VANDALISM AS CASES AND CHARGES ONLY: February 2026 — two Flock cameras were reported destroyed on Fletcher Parkway in La Mesa, California, weeks after the city’s Flock contract advanced over local opposition; no arrest reported in coverage reviewed.
Nationally, prosecutors have charged camera destruction as criminal vandalism/property crime with restitution exposure — one Virginia man faces 25 criminal charges over 13 cameras, and two people were arrested in southern Utah over a single camera. Destroying a camera is a prosecutable property crime, not a legal remedy; the lawful routes in California are the CPRA request, the § 1798.90.54 civil action, and city council testimony.
What Flock and Other Vendors Are Saying
February–March 2026 — responding to the California class actions, Flock Safety said “Flock intends to vigorously defend itself against the asserted claims and allegations,” that “Flock takes privacy, legal compliance, and data security extremely seriously,” and that it is “committed to helping communities and law enforcement agencies use technology responsibly and in compliance with applicable law,” adding that because the matter is pending litigation it would not comment further (Courthouse News Service, KTVU).
2026 — Flock spokesperson Paris Lewbel told Snopes, regarding a separate retail-surveillance class action, that “Flock’s products do not have facial recognition, and we have no facial recognition technology in development.” August 2026 — reporting noted Flock had obtained a California private investigator license, which critics characterized as a legal shield; Flock has not been reported to have disputed holding the license.
No dated public statement from Axon or Motorola Solutions specific to California ALPR backlash was verified in this research — UNVERIFIED for those two vendors.
Key Takeaways: Are Flock Cameras Legal in California
- Start with the statute question: the honest answer to “are flock cameras legal in California” begins with whether California has any ALPR law at all — and where it does not, vendor defaults and local contracts are the only rules.
- Retention is the number that matters: when drivers ask “are flock cameras legal in California”, what they usually need is how long a plate read is kept and who can search it, both covered in the table above.
- Your city may answer differently than your state: because local policy fills the gap, “are flock cameras legal in California” can have one answer in one town and another across the line.
- A records request is the lawful lever: for anyone asking “are flock cameras legal in California”, the search logs and the written policy are obtainable under the public-records law, and they are what changes council votes.
- Bills move monthly: the dated sections above are refreshed because the answer to “are flock cameras legal in California” is being rewritten in real time by legislation and court rulings.
- Cancellations are facts, not rumors: the backlash section records which California communities have ended contracts and why — the practical backdrop to “are flock cameras legal in California”.
- Damaging a camera is a crime: the lawful channels are the ones that work, and the cases above show the charges that follow the other route.
- Check the date on everything: including this page — the verification date is printed above, because “are flock cameras legal in California” is a moving answer.
- Vendor statements are not law: a company’s retention promise can change by press release; “are flock cameras legal in California” is answered by statute and contract, which is why both are quoted above.
- Sharing is the quiet issue: a plate read in California can be searchable by agencies elsewhere by default, and “are flock cameras legal in California” includes whether the local contract turned that off.
Bottom line on are flock cameras legal in California: confirm the current rule at the official sources below, keep every notice and envelope, and treat the dated sections of this page as the record of what changed and when.
California FAQ: Are Flock Cameras Legal in California
Can I find out if police searched my plate in California?
Often, yes. ALPR search logs are records, and public-records laws reach many of them — the request path in the rights section above is the route. Some state statutes require agencies to keep audit logs precisely so this question is answerable. Expect exemptions for active investigations, but the policy, the retention schedule, and aggregate search data are routinely producible.
Do Flock cameras use facial recognition?
No — the cameras photograph vehicles and plates, not faces, and the company states the system does not identify drivers or passengers. The privacy concern is different and real: a network of timestamped plate captures builds a movement history of your vehicle, which is why retention limits and search rules are where every serious legal fight is happening.
Is it illegal to block or damage a Flock camera in California?
Damaging one is criminal property destruction — and prosecutions are real: vandalism cases around the country in 2026 have drawn felony charges, including over a police decoy camera. Blocking or obscuring one on public land can also draw obstruction or tampering charges depending on state law. The lawful channels — records requests, council testimony, pending bills — are covered above, and they are the ones actually cancelling contracts.
Why the Answer to “Are Flock Cameras Legal in California?” Keeps Changing
ALPR law is the rare corner of traffic law being written in real time. The cameras spread faster than legislatures could react, so the first rules were whatever the vendor’s defaults and each city’s contract said. Now the statutes are arriving — retention caps, search standards, immigration-use bans, audit duties — and every session moves the line somewhere. A page that answered “are flock cameras legal in California” correctly last year can be wrong this year.
The fights driving it are concrete: officers caught running personal searches, federal agencies reaching into local data, cities discovering their contracts allowed sharing they never intended. Each scandal produces a bill; each bill resets the rules. That is why the dated sections on this page exist and get refreshed — the statute table is the stable part, and everything else is a moving front.
For a driver, the takeaway is to check the date on anything you read about are flock cameras legal in California — including this page, which is why its verification date is printed above — and to anchor on the statute citations, which are the one part of this fight that is always checkable at the source.
Official California Sources & Resources
- California Legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1013
- California DMV: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-sues-el-cajon-illegally-sharing-license-plate-data-out
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: nhtsa.gov
- Cornell Legal Information Institute: law.cornell.edu/wex
Statute reference: Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.90.5–1798.90.55 (Title 1.81.23, added by SB 34, Stats. 2015, ch. 532); Cal. Veh. Code § 2413 (CHP-specific, 60-day cap); Cal. Gov. Code § 7284 et seq. (California Values Act, SB 54, 2017)
Other California rules to know: (1) SB 34 covers PRIVATE ALPR operators too, not just police — any business or HOA running plate cameras must have a public usage and privacy policy, reasonable security, and access logs, and the $2,500 liquidated-damages action runs against private operators as well. (2) The statute’s own definition of “ALPR end-user” and “ALPR operator” is what makes vendor-hosted networks like Flock’s reachable — that is the theory in the consolidated N.D.
Cal. litigation. (3) There is no California statute requiring an agency to notify you that your plate was scanned or searched, and no statutory right to a report on your own plate — the CPRA is the only route, and agencies frequently invoke the investigatory exemption.
(4) A 2020 California State Auditor review of local ALPR programs found widespread noncompliance with SB 34 policy, retention, and audit requirements, which is why the 2025 and 2026 bills both centered on audits and deletion clocks. (5) An ALPR hit is an investigative lead, not proof of a violation — California speeding citations are issued by an officer or by an authorized speed-safety camera pilot program, not by a Flock plate reader, so an ALPR record alone is not the basis for a speeding ticket.
If ALPR evidence appears in your case, you may be able to challenge the agency’s compliance with §§ 1798.90.51–.53 — check with your court and consider consulting a California defense attorney.
This guide to are flock cameras legal in California was last verified against official sources in September 2026. ALPR law is the fastest-moving area of traffic law — the dated sections above are refreshed as developments land.
More California Traffic Ticket Guides
- California Speeding Ticket Cost
- California Driving Points & Suspension
- Speeding Ticket Cost Calculator
- All 50 States
Disclaimer: This guide is informational only and is not legal advice. Fines, points, and procedures are estimates for general guidance and change when state laws change. Always verify the exact amount and process with your state DMV or the court listed on your citation, and consult a licensed traffic attorney in your state for advice on your specific situation.