Prostitution-related arrests in Pomona have surged as police expand surveillance, but questions remain about whether Flock cameras reduce trafficking and what their use could mean for privacy in Los Angeles.
As prostitution related arrests climb in Pomona, city officials are crediting surveillance technology with helping police address sex related crime. The city’s experience is prompting a broader question for Los Angeles: Could Flock cameras help combat prostitution and human trafficking, and what privacy risks would come with expanding their use?
According to Lt. Robert Sheppmann, prostitution related arrests in Pomona increased from 47 in 2024 to 96 in 2025, reaching 313 as of October 13, 2026. Of those arrests this year, 77 were made under a strengthened public nudity and indecency law that took effect September 3.
The revised law allows officers to make arrests for certain lewd acts in public under a general intent standard rather than the more difficult-to-prove specific intent standard. The legal change is an important factor when evaluating the increase in arrests, since the numbers reflect changes in enforcement as well as potential changes in criminal activity.
Pomona has also invested in surveillance technology to help officers monitor areas associated with prostitution. Police use Flock license plate reading cameras alongside a real-time information center launched in June 2025. The center gives officers access to surveillance footage and information that can support investigations and help identify vehicles connected to suspected criminal activity.
Sgt. Jesus Cardenas has credited the center and Flock cameras with helping reduce sex related crime, particularly along Holt Avenue, a corridor historically associated with street prostitution and known locally as The Blade.
Police say the technology can help investigators identify vehicles used by suspected traffickers and follow their movements. If a person suspected of exploiting a victim arrives in a vehicle and later leaves with that person, officers may be able to use camera data to support an investigation.
However, the increase in prostitution related arrests does not necessarily demonstrate that prostitution has declined. Nor does it establish that Flock cameras alone are responsible for any improvements in public safety. Changes in enforcement practices, staffing, and the city’s revised law may also influence the numbers.
Trafficking arrests have declined in Pomona, falling from four in 2024 to two in 2025 and one in 2026, according to the figures provided by police. Although officials credit surveillance technology with helping address sex related crime, the relatively small number of trafficking arrests makes it difficult to determine whether the cameras have directly contributed to the decline.
For Los Angeles, the debate is particularly relevant because prostitution and sex trafficking have been longstanding concerns along corridors such as Figueroa Street in South Los Angeles. Authorities have conducted operations targeting exploitation and trafficking networks, but the city must also consider how surveillance technology could affect residents who are not suspected of any crime.
The Los Angeles Police Department suspended its use of Flock’s license plate reading system in July 2026 amid concerns about privacy, security and information sharing. The decision intensified the debate over whether the investigative benefits of automated surveillance justify the risks associated with collecting and storing vehicle data.
Supporters of the technology argue that license plate readers can help police identify vehicles connected to investigations, track suspects and gather information that might otherwise be difficult to obtain. In cases involving trafficking, where victims may be moved between locations, investigators could potentially use vehicle records to establish connections between suspects and locations.
Privacy advocates, however, warn that these systems collect information about ordinary drivers as well as people suspected of wrongdoing. Concerns include how long information is retained, which agencies can access it and whether data gathered for local crime investigations could be used for unrelated purposes, including immigration enforcement.
These questions carry particular significance in Los Angeles, where immigrant communities have expressed concerns about cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. Any expansion of surveillance would require clear rules governing data access, sharing and retention, along with meaningful oversight.
Pomona’s experience offers a case study for Los Angeles, but not a definitive answer. Before considering a similar approach, city officials would need to examine whether cameras produce measurable reductions in prostitution and trafficking, rather than simply increasing arrests. They would also need to assess the financial costs, accuracy of the technology and potential consequences for civil liberties.
The distinction matters because arrest totals measure enforcement activity, not necessarily the prevalence of crime or the number of victims protected. Evaluating the program would require additional evidence, including trafficking investigations, victim services outcomes and comparisons of crime trends before and after the cameras were introduced.
Ultimately, Los Angeles faces a choice about how to balance investigative technology with privacy protections. Pomona’s results may encourage further examination of targeted surveillance, but the evidence must demonstrate more than an increase in arrests.
The central question is whether Flock cameras can help prevent exploitation and protect victims while respecting the rights of the wider public. For Los Angeles, any decision to follow Pomona’s example should depend on transparent evidence of effectiveness, strict safeguards and public accountability.
Automated License Plate Readers: Privacy and Data Protection Audit
