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. 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.
Data retention is 1 year, increased from the default 30 days for an extra fee of $300 per camera. (This was originally pitched as a free upgrade, but the year 2 invoice shows it as a surcharge.)
Camera locations are shown on the map here.
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.
The town of Yucca Valley approved their own Flock contract cameras around the same time for 32 cameras. 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.
What we’ve done so far
In January 2026, we started making public comments at the 29 Palms City Council meetings, asking to terminate the contract and hold a public discussion about this issue. We have continued making these comments at every meeting since then. One of these comments went viral on the Desert Trumpet’s instagram.
We have filed several public records requests with SBSD, asking for network audit logs and other information about their Flock system. These requests have been ignored since February, in violation of CPRA ยง 7922.535(a).
We have circulated a petition to cancel the contract, with over 800 signatures so far on change.org.
We continue to share updates through this website, Mastodon, and email.
Residents of council district 4 have met individually with Octavious Scott, asking for a public discussion. We are trying to identify residents in the other districts to schedule 1:1 meetings with their council person.
We have written a letter to the editor in the Desert Trumpet.
Local news coverage
- 6/12/2026 Z107: Flock Safety concerns spread to Yucca Valley Town Council
- 6/3/2026 Z107: What is Flock? An introduction to the technology surveilling the Morongo Basin
- 11/20/2024 Desert Trail: Company plans to install surveillance equipment on highway, Adobe Road
- 6/19/2026 Desert Trail: City Hall round table will focus on Flock cameras
We’ve made public comment at one San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors meeting, June 23, 2026.
29 Palms local documents
Order form and MSA, Dec 10, 2024
Yucca Valley order form, Sep 11, 2025
SBSD data sharing report for Motorola ALPRs (not Flock)
[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 Manager Stone 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.” That followup never happened.