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

Santa Clara 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

San José Police Department

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Flock Safety
Cameras
474
Flock ALPR cameras citywide, per KQED, ABC7 and San José Spotlight (March 2026) and KALW (Aug. 2026). KTVU and NBC Bay Area described the network as about 500 cameras.
Contract
Flock Safety: · to 2034 · KQED reported the contract renews each June on annual extensions through 2034, after which competitive bidding is required. No dollar value was reported. (KQED, March 11, 2026)
  1. 2022 The city began installing fixed plate cameras at street corners; it had used car-mounted readers since 2006, per KALW. (KALW, Aug. 5, 2026)
  2. Nov. 2025 Two nonprofits, SIREN and CAIR California, represented by the ACLU of Northern California and EFF, sued the city in Santa Clara County Superior Court, arguing warrantless searches of the plate database violate the state constitution. (KALW, Aug. 5, 2026; KQED, Oct. 5, 2026)
  3. March 10, 2026 City Council voted unanimously to keep the Flock cameras with new limits: default retention cut from one year to 30 days, no cameras near places of worship or reproductive health facilities, and added documentation for agencies requesting data. Companion memos directed staff to explore other vendors and barred facial-recognition integration. (KQED, March 11, 2026; KTVU FOX 2, March 10, 2026; ABC7 San Francisco, March 10, 2026)
  4. Sept. 2026 Police said an off-duty officer used a personal device to run unauthorized plate searches that helped a relative find a domestic violence victim; the officer was fired. The district attorney's office said the conduct was outside state criminal law. (Local News Matters (Bay City News), Sept. 14, 2026; KQED, Sept. 24, 2026)
  5. Sept. 2026 Mayor Matt Mahan and Vice Mayor Pam Foley proposed more audits of individual searches, a ban on access from personal devices, and a request for state criminal penalties for misuse. Foley said the city did not plan to end the Flock contract. (KQED, Sept. 24, 2026)
  6. Sept. 30, 2026 The council's Rules Committee directed staff to return with a plan to revamp the ALPR program; full-council hearings are to follow. (NBC Bay Area, Sept. 30, 2026)
  7. Oct. 2026 Santa Clara County Judge Jeffrey El-Hajj dismissed the state-court lawsuit, finding the readers did not invade privacy as alleged. A separate federal suit by three residents was pending. (KQED, Oct. 5, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Camera count differs by source: 474 (KQED, ABC7, San José Spotlight, KALW) vs. about 500 (KTVU, NBC Bay Area, KQED Oct. 5).
  • Date of officer's firing is unclear: KQED (Sept. 30, SF article) said April 2026; Bay City News reported the firing on Sept. 14, 2026, and NBC said more than a year passed between discovery and firing.
  • Ruling date inferred as Oct. 2, 2026 ('Friday' before the Oct. 5 article).
  • Police Chief Paul Joseph said in March 2026 the department had never shared data with federal immigration authorities (KQED).

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office

Status
Ended or removed
Vendors
Flock Safety
Cameras
Count not documented
Sheriff managed Flock cameras in contract cities Saratoga, Cupertino and Los Altos Hills; San José Spotlight described the office's purchases as 'dozens.' KTVU reported Saratoga alone had 72 cameras (7 city-paid, 65 resident-paid). Los Altos Hills had 31.
Contract
Flock Safety: $0 no county cost · from March 11, 2025 · to June 30, 2026 · approved by Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors March 11, 2025 · No-cost MOU with the City of Cupertino for city-funded Flock Falcon plate readers; the city pays all costs. Passed 4-0 (Arenas, Duong, Lee, Abe-Koga yes; Ellenberg abstained). (County of Santa Clara, March 11, 2025)
  1. 2022 Board of Supervisors approved ALPRs for Saratoga and Los Altos Hills, per the county's 2025 board item. (County of Santa Clara, March 11, 2025)
  2. Jan. 2024 Board unanimously approved extending sheriff's ALPR coverage to unincorporated areas, unfunded and capped at two years from funding; vendor not named. (San José Spotlight, Jan. 25, 2024)
  3. March 11, 2025 The Board of Supervisors took up Cupertino's surveillance use policy and a no-cost agreement with the city for its license-plate cameras; the item passed 4-0, with Supervisor Ellenberg abstaining. (County of Santa Clara, March 11, 2025)
  4. Jan. 15, 2026 Los Altos Hills Town Council voted to terminate its Flock agreement effective immediately; its 31 cameras went offline and were being removed. The town had approved the Flock agreement April 15, 2021, for 40 cameras at up to $120,000 a year. (Town of Los Altos Hills, Jan. 15, 2026)
  5. Jan. 27, 2026 Supervisor Betty Duong had renewal of the sheriff's camera use policy deferred one month and asked for a county review of Flock. (San José Spotlight, Jan. 30, 2026; KALW, Feb. 2, 2026)
  6. Feb. 24, 2026 Board voted 3-2 to amend the county surveillance use policy so the sheriff's office may no longer operate or use data from Flock cameras in Cupertino, Saratoga and Los Altos Hills. Duong supported; Ellenberg voted no. The policy adds board reporting of any unauthorized federal sharing and audits every four months. (KQED, Feb. 25, 2026; KTVU FOX 2, Feb. 25, 2026; ABC7 San Francisco, Feb. 25, 2026)
  7. March 2026 A sheriff's spokesperson said the office was "exploring alternative options." KTVU reported Saratoga's cameras would stay up, and its mayor said he was exploring options. (San José Spotlight, March 4, 2026; KTVU FOX 2, March 2, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Status 'ended' refers to the Flock program; no source names a replacement ALPR vendor. The 2024 unincorporated-area authorization did not name a vendor and its current use is not confirmed.
  • KQED reported the county cannot force contract cities to end their own Flock contracts; Cupertino's contract was still active as of Feb. 25, 2026.
  • Only Duong (yes) and Ellenberg (no) votes on Feb. 24, 2026 are named in sources; three other votes unconfirmed.
  • Some event dates here are inferred from weekday references (such as “Tuesday”) in news reports; confirm from meeting records.

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Santa Clara Police Department

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Flock Safety
Cameras
80
80 cameras, per San José Spotlight, March 2026.
  1. Oct. 2021 Department planned to ask council to approve 10 stationary Flock readers at $33,000 the first year and $30,000 a year after; it then had four mobile readers. (Silicon Valley Voice, Oct. 21, 2021)
  2. March 2026 San José Spotlight reported Las Vegas police appeared in thousands of 2025 searches that included Santa Clara's network, including 5,600 out-of-state searches in March 2025. A police lieutenant said the city learned of it after the fact. (San José Spotlight, March 4, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Council approval of the 2021 proposal not confirmed in sources found.
  • Some event dates here are inferred from weekday references (such as “Tuesday”) in news reports; confirm from meeting records.

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Flock Safety
Cameras
20
20 Flock cameras, per San José Spotlight, April 2026. A 2024 CEQA notice covered 4 camera locations at US-101 interchanges.
Contract
Flock Safety: · to 2027 · Contract expires in 2027; reevaluation planned before then. (San José Spotlight, April 23, 2026)
  1. Oct. 11, 2024 City filed a CEQA exemption notice for Flock cameras at four US-101 interchange locations. (California CEQAnet / City of Sunnyvale, Oct. 11, 2024)
  2. April 2026 City Council voted unanimously to keep the Flock cameras, adding annual audits; an audit found no sharing with federal immigration authorities. Data is deleted after 30 days. (San José Spotlight, April 23, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Vote date likely April 21, 2026 (inferred).
  • Some event dates here are inferred from weekday references (such as “Tuesday”) in news reports; confirm from meeting records.

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Mountain View Police Department

Status
Ended or removed
Vendors
Flock Safety
Cameras
30
30 leased cameras, per KTVU (March 2026).
Contract
Flock Safety: $154,000 pilot total (approx.) · from May 2024 · to Feb. 24, 2026 · approved by Mountain View City Council May 2024 · KTVU: about $154,000 spent on 30 cameras in a pilot approved May 2024. (KTVU FOX 2, March 2, 2026)
  1. Feb. 2, 2026 Police Chief Mike Canfield turned off all Flock cameras after an audit found federal agencies had searched city data in 2024 via a nationwide setting the city had not enabled. (ABC7 San Francisco, Feb. 4, 2026; KTVU FOX 2, March 2, 2026)
  2. Feb. 24, 2026 City Council voted unanimously to terminate the Flock contract; leased cameras to be returned. (CBS San Francisco (KPIX), Feb. 24, 2026; Local News Matters (Bay City News), March 1, 2026; KTVU FOX 2, March 2, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Some event dates here are inferred from weekday references (such as “Tuesday”) in news reports; confirm from meeting records.

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Palo Alto Police Department

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Flock Safety
Cameras
30
30 Flock cameras (20 under 2023 contract plus 10 added 2024), per Palo Alto Online, March 2026.
Contract
Flock Safety: · from 2023 · to Dec. 2029 · approved by Palo Alto City Council · Three-year contract in 2023 for 20 cameras; 2024 amendment added 10; agreement runs through Dec. 2029. (Mountain View Voice / Palo Alto Online, March 6, 2026)
  1. March 2026 Council committee considered $30,000 for an independent audit of the Flock system after breaches in other cities. (Mountain View Voice / Palo Alto Online, March 6, 2026)
  2. Aug. 24, 2026 City Council scheduled to take up an independent audit of the program. (KQED, Aug. 7, 2026)

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Campbell Police Department

Status
Ended or removed
Vendors
Flock Safety
Cameras
22
22 cameras operated since 2022, per San José Spotlight.
  1. Feb. 2026 A council member said the city was decommissioning its Flock cameras and moving to an in-house system. (San José Spotlight, April 15, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • Replacement system vendor not named.

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department

Status
Using license-plate readers
Vendors
Flock Safety
Cameras
17
17 Flock-owned cameras, per Los Gatan, Jan. 2026.
Contract
Flock Safety: $78,750 two-year total · from 2021 · Two-year agreement for 15 cameras. Later Flock proposed a 60-month agreement at $255,000 ($51,000/yr) for 17 cameras, expiring 2029; approval not confirmed. (Los Gatan, Jan. 28, 2026)
  1. Jan. 20, 2026 Chief Jamie Field briefed the Town Council; the department shares data only with Santa Clara County agencies and keeps it 30 days. (Los Gatan, Jan. 28, 2026)

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

Stanford University Department of Public Safety

Status
Program documented, current use unconfirmed
Vendors
Genetec
Cameras
19
19 Flock cameras on campus before the switch, per Local News Matters (Aug. 2026); Flock cameras switched off late July; Genetec install scheduled for early September, count not reported.
  1. July 2026 Stanford ended its Flock contract; cameras were covered and switched off. Genetec Cloudrunner hardware was to be installed by early September. (KQED, Aug. 7, 2026; Local News Matters, Aug. 7, 2026)
Conflicts and open questions
  • University agency, included because it made news. A San Mateo County grand jury reported at least 12 of that county's 18 police agencies shared plate data with private university security forces, naming Stanford (KQED).

Reported by news outlets; agency records not yet obtained.

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.