Richmond Flock Camera Legal Battle Continues

License-plate cameras are back in Richmond, but the real story is that the fight never ended. The City Council voted 4-3 on March 18 to revive the city’s Flock Safety system through the end of 2026. Now privacy advocates are threatening to sue, saying the city restarted a surveillance tool that may already have exposed local data to thousands of outside agencies. That turns a local contract fight into something bigger — a test of how much control cities actually have over police tech they buy. (richmondconfidential.org) ### What is Richmond fighting about? Richmond uses Flock Safety automated license-plate readers — cameras that log plate numbers, time, and location so police can search for vehicles tied to crimes. Supporters say the system helps solve car thefts, trafficking cases, and other fast-mov(richmondconfidential.org)is too open. (ktvu.com) ### What went wrong last year? The break came in November 2025, when Police Chief Timothy Simmons discovered a “national lookup” or “national search” feature had been active. That setting meant outside agencies could query Richmond’s local plate data if they had a full plate number. Simmons shut the cameras off on November 19, 2025, because that reciprocal sharing appeared to conflict with Richmond policy and California law. (richmondside.org) ### Why is that such a big deal? California has been unusually clear here. State guidance says police agencies cannot share automated license-plate-reader data with out-of-state or federal agencies, and separate sanctuary rules raise the stakes if immigration enforcement is involved. So this is not just a privacy vibe check. The argument is that Richmond may have been plugged into a data-sharing setup the law already forbids. (eff.org) ### Why did the council turn the cameras back on anyway? Because the public-safety case still has real political force. At the March 18 meeting, supporters argued the shutdown hurt investigations and removed a tool police had used in urgent cases. The council ended up extending the Flock contract through Decemb(eff.org) to split the difference — keep the cameras, promise tighter guardrails. (ktvu.com) ### So what changed this week? The threat of litigation got explicit. In a letter before the vote and in comments after it, attorney Brian Hofer said public-records findings suggest Richmond police data may have been shared with more than 2,700 out-of-state agencies. He said his group is already suing neighboring jurisdictions over si(ktvu.com)ganizing public outreach alongside that legal pressure. (richmondconfidential.org) ### Does Richmond think the problem is fixed? City officials and police say the risky feature has been disabled, and the new contract language is supposed to stop unauthorized sharing. But opponents do not trust that fix. That is the catch with networked surveillance systems — if the v(richmondconfidential.org) own the steering wheel when they only control the dashboard. (richmondconfidential.org) ### Why does this matter outside Richmond? Because Bay Area cities are already moving in different directions. Santa Cruz, Mountain View, and Santa Clara County have ended Flock contracts, while Oakland and San Jose still use the technology in some form. Richmond now sits in the middle of that split, and a lawsuit here could shape how other California cities weigh crime-fighting claims against sanctuary rules and privacy law. (ktvu.com) ### Bottom line? Richmond did not settle its Flock dispute in March. It just moved the argument from the council chamber to the courts. If a lawsuit lands, the question will not only be whether the cameras help police — it will be whether a California city can use a national plate-reader network without breaking its own rules.