SIGNALDATAAccountability. For the People. Preview
License-plate readers · Orange County

Orange County

Using license-plate readers · 9 agencies documented

← Statewide map
Alameda CountyAlpine CountyAmador CountyButte CountyCalaveras CountyColusa CountyContra Costa CountyDel Norte CountyEl Dorado CountyFresno CountyGlenn CountyHumboldt CountyImperial CountyInyo CountyKern CountyKings CountyLake CountyLassen CountyLos Angeles CountyMadera CountyMarin CountyMariposa CountyMendocino CountyMerced CountyModoc CountyMono CountyMonterey CountyNapa CountyNevada CountyOrange CountyPlacer CountyPlumas CountyRiverside CountySacramento CountySan Benito CountySan Bernardino CountySan Diego CountySan Francisco CountySan Joaquin CountySan Luis Obispo CountySan Mateo CountySanta Barbara CountySanta Clara CountySanta Cruz CountyShasta CountySierra CountySiskiyou CountySolano CountySonoma CountyStanislaus CountySutter CountyTehama CountyTrinity CountyTulare CountyTuolumne CountyVentura CountyYolo CountyYuba County

Orange County Sheriff's Department

Status
Program documented, current use unconfirmed
Vendors
Vendor not named in source
  1. June 18, 2025 CalMatters/The Markup reported the sheriff's department ran plate-reader searches on behalf of CBP or Border Patrol; it did not respond to a request for comment. (The Markup / CalMatters, June 18, 2025)
Conflicts and open questions
  • No contract, camera count or vendor found; search budget ran out before county records were checked.

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Costa Mesa Police Department

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Flock Safety
Cameras
46
Fixed Flock cameras per city agenda report for July 21, 2026.
Contract
Flock Safety: $306,900 three-year not-to-exceed · from 2024 · to April 2027 · approved by Costa Mesa City Council Feb. 2024 · Lease of 31 existing cameras via Omnia Partners/Insight Public Sector, general fund. (City of Costa Mesa (Legistar), Feb. 2024; City of Costa Mesa (Legistar), July 21, 2026)
Contract
Flock Safety: $153,750 three-year not-to-exceed · from March 2024 · to Feb. 2027 · approved by Costa Mesa City Council (on agenda) March 19, 2024 · Lease of 15 additional cameras funded by an Organized Retail Theft grant; council outcome not shown in Legistar API. (City of Costa Mesa (Legistar), Feb. 2024)
Data sharing
City report says the national lookup setting was never enabled and no Costa Mesa data was shared with out-of-state or federal agencies; search records kept 365 days (ca1-costamesa-2026).
  1. June 2022 City entered an agreement with Flock for 31 fixed cameras. (City of Costa Mesa (Legistar), July 21, 2026)
  2. July 21, 2026 Police staff recommended the council continue Flock use, citing over 100 felony arrests and 20 stolen vehicles recovered in 12 months, total annual cost of $151,800 ($3,000 per camera), and a 2023-2024 internal misuse case in which an employee resigned and was charged by the Orange County District Attorney. (City of Costa Mesa (Legistar), July 21, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Council's decision on July 21, 2026 not found (minutes not posted in Legistar API).

From agency records.

Fullerton Police Department

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Flock Safety
Cameras
19
Flock cameras per city agenda report for Oct. 6, 2026.
Contract
Flock Safety: $51,000 per year (combined recurring) · from July 2023 · to 2028 · Five-year agreement July 2023 for 15 cameras, plus orders in November 2025 (two fixed) and March 2026 (two Flex); about $236,000 spent since 2021. (City of Fullerton (Legistar), Oct. 6, 2026)
  1. Nov. 20, 2007 Council approved a Vigilant Solutions ALPR purchase with UASI grant funds; the department switched to Flock in 2021. (City of Fullerton (Legistar), Oct. 6, 2026)
  2. Oct. 6, 2026 Council received a staff report asking for direction on continuing the Flock program. (City of Fullerton (Legistar), Oct. 6, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Outcome of the Oct. 6, 2026 council item not found.

From agency records.

Newport Beach Police Department

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Flock Safety
Contract
Flock Safety: $1,618,100 total not-to-exceed · approved by Newport Beach City Council consent agenda (approval not recorded in source) Sept. 9, 2025 · Amendment No. Two added four units and raised retention from 30 days to one year at a cost of $144,800. (City of Newport Beach (Legistar), Sept. 9, 2025)
  1. Sept. 9, 2025 Amendment No. Two to the Flock agreement was placed on the council consent agenda, raising data retention from 30 days to one year. (City of Newport Beach (Legistar), Sept. 9, 2025)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Below 100,000 population; included for the retention change. Approval outcome not confirmed from minutes.

From agency records.

Seal Beach Police Department

Status
Program documented, current use unconfirmed
Vendors
Flock Safety
Contract
Flock Safety: $54,150 three-year cap · from 2026 · approved by Seal Beach City Council (consent) April 2026 · Cameras near the 405 and 22 freeways. (Sun News (Seal Beach), April 16, 2026)
Contract
Flock Safety: $36,600 three-year cap · from 2026 · approved by Seal Beach City Council (consent) April 2026 · Cameras on Lampson Ave. at Basswood and at Tulip. (Sun News (Seal Beach), April 16, 2026)
  1. April 2026 Council approved two Flock contracts as consent items, with neither pulled for discussion. (Sun News (Seal Beach), April 16, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Small city; included as a 2026 purchase.

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Anaheim Police Department

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Motorola Solutions
Cameras
90
Total for Anaheim after an expansion of 72 mobile cameras approved in April 2026, as reported by the Daily Titan; includes 18 earlier cameras placed in the Orange County operational area with 2012 UASI funds.
Contract
Motorola Solutions: $736,334 budgeted purchase (72 mobile cameras, software, accessories, hardware warranty) · approved by Anaheim City Council April 2026 · Daily Titan says the vote was unanimous. Police Foundation donations fund the 11 Resort-area cameras and a state organized retail theft grant funds 20 citywide cameras. The article does not say how the 41 county-area cameras are funded. (Daily Titan, April 27, 2026)
  1. Feb. 2020 In survey answers published by the State Auditor, the department said it operated ALPR cameras and accessed ALPR data through Vigilant Solutions, and kept data not tied to investigations for more than five years. (California State Auditor, Feb. 13, 2020)
  2. Dec. 10, 2025 Listed in the Oxnard Police Department's 2024–2025 ALPR data sharing review among California agencies with access to Oxnard's ALPR detections through Vigilant. (Oxnard Police Department, Dec. 10, 2025)
  3. April 2026 City council voted unanimously to add 72 Motorola Solutions mobile cameras: 11 for the Anaheim Resort area, 20 elsewhere in the city and 41 across the county operational area. Data goes to Motorola’s LEARN platform, normally kept one year. (Daily Titan, April 27, 2026)
  4. April 2026 Chief Manuel Cid told the council the department does not share ALPR data with any federal agency, including ICE. (Daily Titan, April 27, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Daily Titan (Apr. 27, 2026) said the council voted on a Tuesday; exact meeting date and staff report not pulled.

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Santa Ana Police Department

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions
Cameras
57
'Approximately 57' fixed and mobile cameras from Flock and Motorola, per CALÓ News, Nov. 11, 2025.
Contract
Flock Safety: · approved by Santa Ana City Council May 2025 · CALÓ News reports a 4-3 council majority approved contracts with Flock and Motorola in May 2025. Amounts not found. (CALÓ News, Nov. 11, 2025)
Contract
Motorola Solutions: · approved by Santa Ana City Council May 2025 · Same May 2025 vote as the Flock contract, per CALÓ News. (CALÓ News, Nov. 11, 2025)
Data sharing
The department’s ALPR page says it shares ALPR data with California law enforcement agencies only, not with out-of-state or federal agencies, and does not use or share it for immigration enforcement.
  1. Feb. 2020 In survey answers published by the State Auditor, the department said it operated ALPR cameras using Vigilant Solutions. (California State Auditor, Feb. 13, 2020)
  2. May 2025 City council approved ALPR contracts with Flock Safety and Motorola Solutions 4-3. CALÓ News lists Phan, Amezcua, Bacerra and Penaloza in favor and Lopez, Hernandez and Vazquez against. (CALÓ News, Nov. 11, 2025)
  3. Sept. 9, 2025 Police department denied a public records request for records about the installation of its Flock cameras, per CALÓ News. (CALÓ News, Nov. 11, 2025)
  4. March 2026 After several public records requests, including one from the newsletter Inadvertent for camera locations, the city published a list of intersections with ALPR cameras. (Inadvertent (Substack), March 16, 2026)
  5. Oct. 17, 2026 City ALPR page (checked Oct. 17, 2026) names Flock Safety and Motorola Solutions and says Flock data is kept one year and Motorola data three years. (City of Santa Ana / Santa Ana Police Department, date not shown)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Retention conflict: the city ALPR page says Motorola data is kept 3 years; CALÓ News (Nov. 2025) and Inadvertent (Mar. 2026) say department policy keeps it 5 years.
  • Daily Titan (Apr. 2026) says Santa Ana added 57 cameras in November 2025; CALÓ News says contracts were approved in May 2025 and about 57 cameras were in place by November. Install date unconfirmed.
  • An Action Network advocacy petition cites reporting that the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center searched Santa Ana’s Flock system for federal and out-of-state agencies. The underlying report was not found; not recorded as fact.

From agency records.

Irvine Police Department

Status
Program documented, current use unconfirmed
Vendors
Motorola Solutions
  1. Feb. 2020 In survey answers published by the State Auditor, the department said it operated ALPR cameras and accessed ALPR data through Vigilant Solutions, keeping data two to five years. (California State Auditor, Feb. 13, 2020)
  2. Dec. 10, 2025 Listed in the Oxnard Police Department's 2024–2025 ALPR data sharing review among California agencies with access to Oxnard's ALPR detections through Vigilant. (Oxnard Police Department, Dec. 10, 2025)
Conflicts and open questions
  • No current contract, camera count or council action found; search budget ran out.

From agency records.

Garden Grove Police Department

Status
Program documented, current use unconfirmed
Vendors
Motorola Solutions
  1. Feb. 2020 In survey answers published by the State Auditor, the department said it accessed ALPR data (but did not operate cameras) through Vigilant Solutions. (California State Auditor, Feb. 13, 2020)
  2. Dec. 10, 2025 Listed in the Oxnard Police Department's 2024–2025 ALPR data sharing review among California agencies with access to Oxnard's ALPR detections through Vigilant. (Oxnard Police Department, Dec. 10, 2025)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Records show data access through Vigilant, not department-owned cameras. No current contract found.

From agency records.

Statewide

  1. Jan. 1, 2016 SB 34 (Statutes of 2015, Chapter 532), codified at Civil Code section 1798.90.5 and following, took effect. It requires ALPR operators and end users to keep a usage and privacy policy, log access, and share ALPR information only with public agencies. The Attorney General reads 'public agency' to exclude out-of-state and federal agencies. (California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Oct. 27, 2023)
  2. Feb. 13, 2020 The California State Auditor released report 2019-118 on the Fresno Police Department, LAPD, Marin County Sheriff's Office and Sacramento County Sheriff's Office. It found none of the four audited staff searches of ALPR images, three of the four shared images without first checking the recipient's right and need to know, and 70 percent of surveyed agencies ran or planned to run ALPR. It recommended a state model policy and a maximum retention period set in law. (California State Auditor, Feb. 13, 2020)
  3. Oct. 27, 2023 The Attorney General's Division of Law Enforcement issued Information Bulletin 2023-DLE-06, telling state and local agencies that SB 34 bars sharing ALPR information with out-of-state and federal agencies, with model policy guidance. (California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Oct. 27, 2023; California Office of the Attorney General, Oct. 3, 2025)
  4. April 2, 2024 Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a California Highway Patrol contract with Flock Safety for about 480 cameras: about 290 on Oakland surface streets and 190 on East Bay state highways, with a 28-day retention period. (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, April 2, 2024)
  5. June 18, 2025 CalMatters and The Markup reported, from a search log obtained by Oakland Privacy covering April 28 to May 30, 2025, that 10 agencies, nine in Southern California and six in Los Angeles County, ran searches for ICE, including LAPD; the Orange and San Diego County sheriffs ran searches for Border Patrol. Riverside County logged four 'hsinvest' searches but said they were narcotics cases. (The Markup / CalMatters, June 18, 2025)
  6. Oct. 2025 Gov. Newsom vetoed SB 274, which would have required deletion of some ALPR data after 60 days, officer training, documented case reasons for searches and random Department of Justice audits. His veto message said the 60-day limit could impede investigations, particularly cold cases. (CalMatters, Oct. 3, 2025)
  7. Oct. 3, 2025 Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a petition for a writ of mandate in San Diego County Superior Court against the City of El Cajon, its police department and Chief Jeremiah Larson, alleging the department shared ALPR data with agencies in 26 other states in violation of SB 34. The AG's office said it had contacted 18 agencies about possible violations since 2024. (California Office of the Attorney General, Oct. 3, 2025; CalMatters, Oct. 3, 2025)
  8. Nov. 24, 2025 CHP Commissioner Sean Duryee wrote to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley that data from CHP's Flock cameras may not be shared with federal officials, citing the contract's bar on sharing outside California. (KTVU FOX 2, Nov. 24, 2025)
  9. Jan. 2026 The Attorney General filed a motion in California v. City of El Cajon asking the court to order the city to stop sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies; the AG said the data reached more than 100 agencies outside California. A hearing was set for Feb. 13, 2026. No ruling was found in sources checked as of Oct. 17, 2026. (California Office of the Attorney General, Jan. 21, 2026; NBC 7 San Diego, Jan. 22, 2026; NBC 7 San Diego, Feb. 8, 2026)
  10. Aug. 31, 2026 SB 1013 (Cervantes), similar to the vetoed SB 274, passed the Senate but did not receive an Assembly floor vote before the session ended; CalMatters reported Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry held it. CalMatters counted this as the fifth straight year without new ALPR rules; nearly 40 law enforcement agencies and unions opposed the bill. (CalMatters (republished by LAist), Sept. 3, 2026; CalMatters Digital Democracy, date not shown)
  11. Oct. 2026 A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge dismissed a challenge to San Jose's ALPR network, rejecting claims that warrantless searches of ALPR data violate the state constitution's privacy and search provisions (outside this researcher's counties; recorded as statewide legal context). (San Jose Spotlight (republished by Local News Matters), Oct. 7, 2026)

State agencies

California Highway Patrol

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Flock Safety, Vendor not named in source
Cameras
Count not documented
No statewide count found. The 2024 East Bay contract covers about 480 Flock cameras (about 290 Oakland streets, 190 East Bay highways); CHP also runs mobile ALPR on patrol vehicles under General Order 81.1.
Data sharing
CHP's contract with Flock bars sharing with the federal government or any entity outside California, per the commissioner's Nov. 2025 letter (ca1-ktvu-chp-letter). Vehicle Code 2413 bars making data available to non-law-enforcement agencies or individuals.
  1. Oct. 2020 General Order 81.1 (revised October 2020) sets CHP's ALPR rules: mobile ALPR data is kept 60 days and then purged, access is limited to personnel with an investigative need, and ALPR use is reported each year in the auto theft report to the Legislature. (California Highway Patrol, Oct. 2020)
  2. Oct. 2020 Vehicle Code 2413 limits CHP retention of plate-reader data to 60 days except for evidence or felony investigations, bars selling the data, and limits its use to locating vehicles or people suspected in a public offense. (California Legislature (via california.public.law), date not shown)
  3. Feb. 8, 2024 The Oaklandside reported CHP would run Oakland's 300-camera Flock network funded by a $1.2 million state loan; CHP keeps data 60 days while Oakland and Flock agreed to 30. (The Oaklandside, Feb. 8, 2024)
  4. April 2, 2024 The governor's office announced the CHP-Flock contract for about 480 cameras in Oakland and the East Bay with 28-day retention. (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, April 2, 2024)
  5. Nov. 24, 2025 The CHP commissioner told Flock in writing that CHP camera data cannot be shared with federal officials. (KTVU FOX 2, Nov. 24, 2025)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Retention differs by source: 60 days (GO 81.1, mobile ALPR; Vehicle Code 2413 cap), 28 days (governor's release on the East Bay Flock network), 60 days (Oaklandside on CHP practice). These may describe different systems.
  • No CHP Flock deployment in the ten southern counties was found; not checked through CHP contract records (searches exhausted).

From agency records.