After hours of back-and-forth debate and public comment Tuesday night, the East Palo Alto City Council decided to uphold its current contract for Flock Safety cameras.
At a meeting two weeks ago, the council was expected to hold a discussion on reconsidering its contract with Flock. The automated license plate reader cameras are used for public safety but have raised privacy concerns around the country since there have been reports of federal authorities having access to the cameras’ data.
A rise in federal immigration enforcement under President Donald Trump has sparked growing resistance to Flock cameras over concerns that federal authorities can access camera data to conduct surveillance of civilians.
Regionally, cities including Mountain View, Santa Cruz, and Los Altos Hills have recently terminated their contracts with Flock Safety after learning that federal agencies could search the camera data.
However, three council members in East Palo Alto voted to shelve the item at the previous meeting, a move that sparked outrage among the several dozen members of the public who showed up to speak on the item.
But at Tuesday’s meeting, the council kept the item on the agenda recommending that the city amend its three-year contract with Flock to a one-year contract after learning that the city would have to pay the three-year contract in full even if it wanted to cancel early.
“That is not in the city’s best interest,” said Police Chief Jeff Liu. “We moved away from that, and instead, to protect us financially, just go with one-year contracts.”
Liu testified to the effectiveness of the Flock cameras and how they have helped police solve crimes. He tried to assure the council and the public that the data collected by the city’s Flock cameras is secure, saying that the East Palo Alto Police Department conducts frequent reviews of who accesses the data.
“Flock has truly proved to be a very essential and vital and tremendous tool for solving crimes and protecting our community from people who care to harm it,” he said. “I know there have been reported breaches in other cities, but that just inspires us more and reaffirms our resolve to make sure that that doesn’t happen with our data, and we’ve done a really good job with that.”
Concerns of federal government access
Vice Mayor Ruben Abrica and Councilmember Carlos Romero were not convinced.
“I cannot support the establishment of what is essentially a surveillance state,” Romero said. “There is a long arm of the federal government that could reach into Flock data if they wanted to, through executive order or not, and potentially use this data to track down disproportionately Latinos and undocumented in this community.”
Abrica was concerned that despite efforts by the Police Department to protect its Flock data, federal agencies could potentially hack the system. He referred to a University of Washington study that found that the U.S. Border Patrol gained unauthorized access to camera systems of several law enforcement agencies in Washington state in 2025.
“It is not a secure system,” Abrica said. “I’m not going to put my trust in cameras.”
Councilmember Mark Dinan, who was in support of Flock, thought that immigration authorities like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would not use Flock cameras to track down undocumented immigrants.
“If ICE comes to East Palo Alto, they’re not gonna be using ALPRs,” Dinan said. “They’re going to be flooding the streets with agents and stopping everybody.”
“I honestly don’t see any benefits in engaging in a long-term contract because there’s no financial incentive. It’s all risk for the city.”
Mayor Webster Lincoln
Most speakers from the public expressed how keeping Flock cameras in East Palo Alto could pose risks to the Latino community if immigration authorities were to hack into the system.
“Flock’s license plate readers compromise public safety,” said Menlo Park resident Scott Herscher. “Despite the safeguards put in place, Flock collects data that has been consistently hacked, misused and shared with the same federal agencies that are attacking community members here and throughout the country.”
Dinan and Mayor Webster Lincoln voted in favor of changing the three-year contract to a one-year contract with options to renew. Abrica and Romero voted against the motion, while Councilmember Martha Barragan abstained.
“I honestly don’t see any benefits in engaging in a long-term contract because there’s no financial incentive,” Lincoln said. “It’s all risk for the city.”
Community policing motion fails
Romero and Abrica presented an alternative motion to end the contract with Flock and instead use the money to expand community policing. Dinan and Lincoln voted against it while Barragan again abstained.
With neither motion getting approved, the original three-year contract with Flock was upheld.
But debate and disagreement continued as the council discussed a separate item introduced by Lincoln, proposing to amend the Code of Ethics by giving the mayor final authority to set agendas for City Council meetings.
Lincoln presented the idea as a way to boost efficiency when the mayor and the vice mayor disagree on what to add to agendas. In East Palo Alto, both the mayor and the vice mayor have the power to add agenda items.
Lincoln admitted that the idea stemmed from the outcome of the last council meeting with council disagreements over the item to reconsider the Flock contract.
“There’s no clear delineation of decision-making power within the mayor or the vice mayor when we disagree on the agenda content, timing or order,” Lincoln said. “It’s a waste of our community’s time to arrive to speak when an item gets pulled.”
Romero and Abrica blasted the idea, arguing that Lincoln wanted to gain more power as mayor.
“Let’s not mince words here,” Romero said. “This really is a bold power grab by a council member presently serving as mayor who wants to reduce openness on this body and the collaborative governance that we’ve had for decades and concentrate power within himself.”
The item did not pass. Ruben and Abrica voted no, Lincoln and Dinan voted yes, and Barragan abstained.
