⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 9 findings
F1
The ALPR operator’s ALPR policy was not posted in a manner that appears consistent with the California Attorney General’s guidance on “conspicuous” posting.
F2
The ALPR operator’s ALPR Policy appears to be outdated because it describes ALPR operations as mediated by NCRIC, a practice the investigation found was discontinued several years ago.
F3
The ALPR operator shared ALPR information with private university security entities but did not establish that the receiving entity was a “public agency” as defined in Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b), or that the sharing was otherwise permitted by law within the meaning of Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b).
F4
The ALPR operator did not produce records demonstrating that audits required by its ALPR policy had been conducted.
F5
The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator were insufficient to substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.
F6
The ALPR operator’s Flock Safety contract does not include provisions specifically requiring compliance with applicable California ALPR laws.
F7
The operator’s ALPR policy described a process requiring written requests and executed agreements for ALPR data-sharing relationships; however, the records produced did not substantiate that this process was followed or that the required agreements were obtained.
F8
The operator’s ALPR policy did not establish criteria governing the approval of in-state ALPR data-sharing requests or the termination of existing network-sharing relationships.
F9
The retention period specified in the operator’s ALPR Policy does not match the retention period as reported by the Flock transparency portal or Flock contract.
Recommendations 9
-
R1The ALPR operator should conspicuously post the current version of their ALPR Policy as required by Civil Code sections 1798.90.51(a)–(b).
-
R2The ALPR operator with outdated ALPR policies should revise those policies to accurately reflect current operational practices.
-
R3The ALPR operator currently identified as sharing ALPR data with private university security entities should obtain and retain a written legal and factual determination that the recipient is a “public agency” under Civil Code section 1798.90.5(f), or that the sharing is otherwise permitted by law; if no lawful basis exists, the operator should terminate the sharing relationship.
-
R4The ALPR operator should prepare audit reports in accordance with the frequency stated in the operator’s published ALPR policy.
-
R5The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator should substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.
-
R6Upon contract renewal, the ALPR operator should incorporate contractual language requiring vendor compliance with applicable California law and prohibiting vendors from disclosing ALPR data to unauthorized third parties. Operators should consider provisions similar to those contained in the Town of Colma contract with Flock.
-
R7The ALPR operator should update its ALPR policy to accurately reflect the process used to approve ALPR data-sharing relationships.
-
R8The ALPR operator should include in their ALPR policies written criteria governing the approval, denial, periodic review, and termination of in-state ALPR network-sharing relationships.
-
R9The ALPR operator should update their ALPR policy or Flock contract terms, as necessary, so that the stated retention rule accurately reflects operations.
No Responses Found 21
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Atherton
Town
Belmont
City
Brisbane
City
Burlingame
City
Colma
Town
Daly City
City
East Palo Alto
City
Foster City
City
Half Moon Bay
City
Hillsborough
Town
Menlo Park
City
Millbrae
City
Pacifica
City
Portola Valley
Town
Redwood City
City
San Bruno
City
San Carlos
City
San Mateo
City
San Mateo County Sheriff
Elected County Office
South San Francisco
City
Woodside
Town
In the Press 2
Press coverage of this report, automatically tracked.
San Mateo Police Department restricts data sharing - San Mateo Daily Journal
San Mateo Daily Journal
· October 10, 2026
Cop cams causing stir with San Mateo County Grand Jury Report - San Mateo Daily Journal
San Mateo Daily Journal
· October 7, 2026
