Residents press Bakersfield council to end Flock camera deal

Key Takeaways

1. Residents on Sept. 16 urged the Bakersfield City Council to end its contracts with Flock cameras.
2. Speaker Alexandria Park warned the system risks false accusations and data misuse.
3. Councilmember Andrae Gonzales asked staff for a public accounting of Flock spending and audit rules.
4. City meeting notes this summer cited about 133 Flock cameras and a contract near $430,000 a year.
5. No vote was taken; staff will report back on spending and policy.

The red three‑minute timer on the lectern beeped. One speaker after another told the Bakersfield City Council last Wednesday that the city should end its contracts with Flock, the company behind a network of automated license‑plate reader cameras across town.

"Public safety should mean more than catching people who commit crime," Alexandria Park said during public comment. "It should also mean protecting innocent people from being wrongly accused, wrongly tracked or having their information misused."

What residents asked for

Jose Galindo, who lives in Lamont, asked the city to publish a clear budget line showing how much money, including grants, has gone into buying, maintaining and subscribing to Flock services. He also asked for an explanation of how the system is audited so the public can see checks against misuse. Others echoed concerns about errors in license‑plate matches and the breadth of data sharing beyond Bakersfield.

Several speakers framed the issue as both privacy and cost. They argued the city hasn’t shown whether the cameras reduce crime compared with other options the council could fund.

What the council did

Councilmember Andrae Gonzales said he supports the public records request Galindo described and asked staff for a plain‑English tally of what Bakersfield has spent on Flock technology. He also renewed a prior request for a written policy that explains how the city audits use of the system and how it handles any violations. He said those rules should apply citywide, not only inside the police department.

There was no vote to end the contracts. Staff didn’t give a return date. For now, it remains a public comment fight and an information request.

What the contract covers

In June, meeting notes compiled from the city’s agenda described about 133 Flock cameras deployed, plus software access to outside video feeds, under a deal reported around $430,000 per year. Those notes also captured residents’ complaints that the system expanded without a stand‑alone public hearing. Police have argued in past briefings that automated plate readers help them move faster when a vehicle is linked to a case, but they did not present fresh data at last week’s meeting.

Flock systems scan license plates and compare them to hotlists, then alert police if there’s a match. Supporters say the cameras are a force‑multiplier in stolen‑car cases. Critics worry about retention periods, mistaken matches and how widely data is shared.

What’s next for Bakersfield

The council’s next step is paperwork. Staff owes the dais a budget breakout and a policy memo on audits and use. If those come back with gaps, this likely lands on a future agenda as an action item. If the numbers are clean, the council may still hear more public comment. People aren’t done talking about this.

A city clerk slid another speaker card across the counter without looking up.