Los Angeles police stopped using Flock Safety’s license plate reader system over concerns about data privacy and sharing. But the cameras and the questions surrounding them have not disappeared.
An LAPD Inspector General’s review found that the technology helped police recover stolen vehicles. It also documented incorrect alerts and gaps in agreements governing how surveillance data are handled.
Now, a separate proposal to install Axon license plate readers on city streetlights is facing further review. For Los Angeles residents, the issue is straightforward: Are these systems helping keep people safe, and what safeguards make sure the data are used responsibly?
LAPD’s three-year agreement with Flock Safety expired in July 2026. The department paused its use of the company’s license plate reader system amid concerns about data security, privacy and information sharing.
The LAPD Office of the Inspector General’s review identified weaknesses in the department’s agreements with license plate reader vendors, including gaps in rules governing data security, access and sharing. The report recommended stronger safeguards and oversight.
The cameras’ status and the department’s access to their data are separate questions. A camera continuing to collect information does not necessarily mean LAPD officers can access those records or use them in an investigation.
As of October 13, 2026, I could not verify from the official records reviewed that LAPD had signed a replacement agreement with Flock Safety.
The LAPD Inspector General’s review examined the department’s use of automated license plate readers from August 1 through September 30, 2025. It looked at operational results as well as oversight, vendor agreements and information sharing.
During that two-month period:
- Flock cameras scanned more than 210 million license plates.
- Alerts were associated with the recovery of 337 stolen vehicles.
- In 161 instances, a vehicle flagged as stolen turned out not to be stolen.
These numbers show both why police use the technology and why its results need scrutiny.
The 161 incorrect alerts do not mean 161 people were wrongly arrested or stopped. The report noted that not every incorrect alert led to police intervention. And the total number of scans does not, by itself, tell us how often the system helped solve crimes or how its results compare with other investigative methods.
The recoveries are evidence of a potential public-safety benefit. The incorrect alerts raise a practical question: What must officers verify before acting on a system’s warning?
The audit alone does not settle whether the technology works well overall or whether its benefits outweigh its risks.
Who can see the data?
License plate readers record a vehicle’s plate and information such as when and where it was scanned. Police can use those records to look for stolen vehicles and develop investigative leads.
But the same records can reveal patterns of movement. That raises questions residents should not have to guess about: Who can search the data? How long is it kept? Can it be shared with other agencies? And what prevents someone from using it for a purpose unrelated to a legitimate investigation?
Concerns about sharing information with federal immigration authorities have been part of the Flock debate. LAPD’s decision to pause its agreement reflected concerns about data handling and sharing. That does not, by itself, establish that every feared form of misuse occurred in Los Angeles.
The Inspector General also identified limitations in the department’s agreements with Flock, Axon and Motorola, including unclear terms for data retention and sharing. The office recommended stronger contract language, regular audits and consistent rules for traffic stops prompted by plate-reader alerts.
Those safeguards matter because a public promise is not enough. The rules need to be clear, enforceable and open to review.
For more background, read our coverage of Flock cameras and privacy in Los Angeles.
Axon is a separate decision
On October 6, the Los Angeles City Council voted 10–4 to overturn approval of a proposed Axon pilot that would put license plate readers on city streetlights. The proposal was sent to the Public Safety Committee for further consideration.
That vote did not cancel LAPD’s separate 10-year, $235 million Axon contract, which covers other police equipment and services.
The distinction is important: the Flock agreement, the proposed Axon streetlight pilot and the separate Axon contract are different arrangements. They should not be treated as one decision.
Residents can follow the pilot’s status through the official City Council file.
What should residents be able to find out?
Los Angeles residents should be able to get clear answers to basic questions:
- How many cameras are operating, and who controls them?
- Who can search the records, and what limits apply?
- How long is data kept, and when can it be shared?
- How often are alerts wrong, and what must officers check before acting?
- How are searches and police stops audited, and are the results made public?
These questions are not an argument for or against every use of license plate readers. They are how the public can judge both the results and the safeguards.
The evidence so far points in two directions: license plate reader alerts have helped police recover stolen vehicles, and the Inspector General has identified problems with incorrect alerts and gaps in vendor agreements.
Los Angeles does not have to ignore either finding. The city can demand evidence that the technology is helping, set firm limits on how the data are used and make sure independent reviews can show whether those rules are being followed.
