In the early hours of Wednesday, the Berkeley City Council deferred voting on a proposed expansion of surveillance infrastructure that includes security cameras, drones, and investigative software, all manufactured by the security company Flock Safety that has come under fire in other neighboring cities.
The proposal, brought forth by the Berkeley Police Department, seeks to introduce or extend the use of a host of surveillance technologies, including controversial automated license plate reader cameras.
Police departments use ALPR cameras to investigate crimes like stolen vehicles. But privacy watchdogs have raised concerns about federal agencies being able to access the camera data — a potential violation of state law — and using it for targeted surveillance of immigrants and other vulnerable groups.
Over the last few months, many Bay Area cities and counties have been re-examining their contracts with Flock Safety, considering the federal administration’s crackdown on immigrants and the company’s checkered record of sharing ALPR data with federal agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
In the last three months, the city councils of Santa Cruz, Mountain View, and Los Altos Hills terminated their respective contracts with Flock Safety, citing privacy concerns, and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors also voted to adopt a new surveillance use policy that prohibits the county Sheriff’s Office from contracting with Flock Safety as a vendor for ALPR cameras.
However, in December, the Oakland City Council voted to approve their Police Department’s proposal to expand its Flock surveillance network, citing its importance for public safety.
Last week, the Richmond City Council also extended its contract with Flock Safety after a close 4-3 vote for similar reasons as in Oakland.
Berkeley contract up for two-year renewal
Berkeley’s contract with Flock Safety for its 52 ALPR cameras is set to expire this July, and the proposal requests a two-year renewal, with an option for an additional two-year extension.
The proposal also includes the addition of 16 pan-tilt-zoom cameras that do not record license plates but are used for police investigations, drones that can be deployed as first responders to gather information, the integration of privately owned security cameras into the Flock surveillance network, and an investigative software sold by Flock Safety.
Altogether, the expansion would cost around $2 million.
In the meeting that started Tuesday evening, the Berkeley Police Department delivered a presentation outlining how Flock Safety tools are essential for investigations. The ALPR cameras, for instance, led to more than 120 arrests and investigative leads in 2025.
Berkeley Police Chief Jen Louis also said that the consolidation of all the tools on the Flock Safety platform would enable swifter investigations with a higher probability of solving crimes.
“No other single vendor can deliver ALPR, fixed cameras, drones, and investigative software on one unified platform,” said Louis.
Louis also explained that the proposed contract with Flock includes financial penalties for data breaches and ensures that the city would own all data collected through the cameras.
“No other single vendor can deliver ALPR, fixed cameras, drones, and investigative software on one unified platform.”
Police Chief Jen Louis
However, the city’s civilian Police Accountability Board then asked the council to defer its decision, saying that an expansion and consolidation of the city’s surveillance infrastructure requires more deliberation.
Police Accountability Board Vice Chair Leah Wilson said that if approved, the proposal would make the city’s law enforcement dependent on Flock Safety, making it difficult to exit the contract later.
Additionally, Wilson called into question the Berkeley Police Department’s procurement process.
“We have not seen any documentation of the vendor selection process at all,” Wilson said.
A three-hour public comment followed, with the overwhelming majority of people speaking against the proposal.
Finally, as the clock approached 1:30 a.m. Wednesday, the council decided to table the remaining public comment and further deliberations on the issue for June 2.