In November 2024, San Bernardino Sheriff Lieutenant Al Huff presented this to the 29 Palms city council, asking permission to install Flock surveillance cameras in 3 phases to help deter crime. Enthusiastic about this plan, the Council added it to the consent calendar for the following meeting, which was approved with no discussion in December.
Phase 1 of this plan includes 31 Falcon cameras, at 9 intersections along Hwy 62 and Adobe Rd, with a first year cost of $130,200, plus annual recurring cost of $102,300 thereafter. So far, only 22 of these cameras have been installed, as shown on the map below. The plan does not explain what Phases 2 and 3 would look like, but Flock CEO Garrett Langley says that he wants them on every street corner. The initial contract will be due for renewal in December, 2026.
This map shows the current camera locations. Additional cameras are planned to cover all 4 directions at each intersection.
The contract between Flock and 29 Palms includes an MSA (Master Service Agreement) with an older version of their terms. (Linked below in the staff report.) Since that time, in contracts with other cities (including Yucca Valley), Flock has shifted to online terms, which weaken privacy protections, granting Flock more abilities to use and share the data with third parties. It’s very likely Flock will try to switch to online terms at the next renewal.
Several community members have been expressing concerns to City Council at every meeting since Jan 27, repeatedly asking for a public discussion, but so far the Council refuses to acknowledge the issue. Sign this petition if you want the city to cancel the contract and cut ties with Flock.
The town of Yucca Valley approved their own installation of 20 Flock cameras in 2025, but so far they haven’t been installed. A group of local activists has started a separate petition there, to cancel the contract.
Flock offers a tool called the “Transparency Portal” which helps inform the public about how the system is used and build trust. SBSD has chosen not to enable this.
29 Palms local documents
[PDF] Staff Report, Dec 10, 2024
[video] City Council presentation, Nov 12, 2024
[video] Yucca Valley town council meeting, Sep 16, 2025
[video] City Council public comments, Jan 27, 2026 (Pauline, Austin, Heather, Gretchen, Elliott, Stacey, Jack, Ivah). Statement from City Manger James:
One of the things that the council had asked about was Flock, and specifically, does Flock share data with ICE or federal agencies? So, our staff got some communication from Flock and I can read just a quick sentence. This is from Flock and it says, “Flock does not have a contract with US Immigration and Customs or any subagencies of the Department of Homeland Security. Flock does not share customer data with any federal agency without a local customer’s explicit choice and control.” And so I would imagine there could be a situation if there is, let’s say, you know a serious crime. I don’t know that ICE would be investigating that crime that would probably continue to fall under this jurisdiction of the sheriff’s department. And then one other thing too, I have been keeping a loose eye on a case that was mentioned earlier and that was Schmidt versus the city of Norfolk and that was in regards to what is the legality. Is this an infringement on the fourth amendment? This is going to require a little bit more investigation, but I believe a court decision came down today that said that that is not an infringement on the fourth amendment rights. So, I need to do a little bit more research on that, but I believe that was delivered today. And that is all that I have to report.
[video] City Council public comments, Feb 10, 2026 (Gretchen, Heather, Alex, Heather, Joseph, Elliott, Pauline)
[video] City Council public comments, Feb 24, 2026 (Heather, Victor, Jeff, Heather, Gretchen, Pauline, Booker, Elliott
[video] City Council public comments, Mar 10, 2026 (Alex, Jess, Heather, Ivah, Pauline, Booker, Heather, Elliott). At the end of this meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Scott asked about a Flock presentation that was previously discussed. City Manager James replied, “I will reach out to the Sheriff’s department and see if that is something they can do. I think that stereotypically, the concern has been centered around ICE. They don’t cooperate with ICE so there’s probably not a lot for them to share, but I’m happy to reach out to them again.”
California ALPR data sharing
Sharing data between agencies is a core piece of Flock’s business model. That, combined with massive scale, is what makes them so much more powerful than their competitors. They advertise a national network with over 5,000 law enforcement agencies and 1,000 private entities. In California, sharing ALPR data with out-of-state or federal agencies is prohibited by SB 34. This law has been on the books for over a decade, but the Electronic Frontier Foundation discovered 71 California agencies sharing ALPR data illegally, including San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (SBSD). Attorney General Rob Bonta is currently pursuing legal action against the city of El Cajon for this.
Public records from July show SBSD shares ALPR data with over 270 other agencies in California, Arizona, and Nevada, as well as federal DEA, USPS, ATF, Veterans Affairs, and US Marshals. That data is specifically about Motorola ALPRs, but it seems likely that they would apply similar policies to their newer Flock cameras.
In June, Flock said they disabled their national sharing feature for California to comply with SB 34, but as of January 2026, their website still shows a green dot on this state.
In August, Flock admits federal immigration agents have direct access to tracking data, despite previous claims
Another California law, SB 54, prohibits using state/local resources for immigration enforcement purposes, which includes sharing non-public personal information about individuals with immigration authorities. And yet public records show thousands of Flock searches being performed for immigration-related reasons, including data from states like Illinois, which specifically bans the use of ALPR data for immigration enforcement. In some cases, this is an informal arrangement where ICE agents ask a local cop to run a search for them. Several cops have been found sharing their Flock account passwords with ICE and DEA agents to make this easier. This account sharing violates Flock’s terms of service, and probably the law, but Flock does nothing to prevent it. In fact they help to facilitate it by not requiring Multi-Factor Authentication. MFA is one of the most basic, common sense requirements for any modern computer system, that helps avoid phishing by requiring an additional code after you enter your password.
Leave a Reply