Pasadena continues to collect millions of vehicle-location records, South Pasadena has pulled back from Flock and Los Angeles is renegotiating its agreement as concerns grow over privacy, data sharing and police access.
For drivers moving through Los Angeles, the black cameras mounted on poles can be easy to overlook. But those cameras can record license plates, vehicle characteristics and the locations where vehicles are seen, creating a searchable record that can help police reconstruct where a car has traveled.
Now, a growing debate over Flock Safety’s automated license-plate reader network is playing out across Southern California. Pasadena is continuing to operate a large network of Flock cameras, neighboring South Pasadena has moved to end its relationship with the company, and the Los Angeles Police Department has temporarily halted its use of Flock while negotiating new safeguards for the data.
The controversy has intensified nationally after reports of law-enforcement officers misusing the technology, including allegations of using cameras to track people for personal reasons. Concerns have also centered on whether license-plate data can be shared with federal agencies, including immigration authorities. Flock recently announced new privacy and accountability measures in response to the backlash.
The three Los Angeles-area cities offer a revealing snapshot of a much larger question: How much surveillance is acceptable in exchange for public safety?
Pasadena: 1 million vehicle detections in a month
In Pasadena, Flock has become a significant part of the city’s law-enforcement infrastructure.
The Pasadena Police Department currently lists 61 Flock cameras. During the most recent 30-day period reported on its public transparency portal, the cameras recorded 1,018,754 unique vehicle detections, while officers conducted 500 searches. Pasadena retains the data for 30 days.
The department says the cameras are used to investigate crimes after they occur and to receive real-time alerts involving vehicles on law-enforcement hotlists.
Pasadena’s policies prohibit using the technology for immigration enforcement, harassment, intimidation or personal purposes. Searches are required to have a legitimate law-enforcement reason.
But the sheer scale of the data illustrates why privacy advocates are concerned.
A city with 61 cameras can generate more than a million vehicle detections in a month—not necessarily a million different people, but a record of vehicles passing cameras throughout the city.
That creates a powerful investigative tool.
It also creates a powerful database.
South Pasadena chose a different path
Just across the municipal boundary, South Pasadena has taken a markedly different approach.
The city chose not to renew its Flock contract and began removing cameras in March 2026, citing concerns surrounding privacy and data sharing. A Los Angeles City Council document specifically cited South Pasadena’s decision as an example of a local government choosing to end its relationship with Flock.
Interestingly, South Pasadena’s Flock transparency portal still lists 13 cameras, 329,378 unique vehicle detections during its most recent 30-day reporting period and 38 searches. The portal was last updated July 25.
The discrepancy underscores one of the complications surrounding the technology: understanding exactly which cameras remain active, who controls the data and how long information remains accessible can itself be difficult for residents to determine.
Los Angeles presses pause
Los Angeles is now confronting many of the same questions.
The LAPD has 138 pole-mounted Flock cameras operating on city property, according to department officials cited by the Los Angeles Times. In July, LAPD said it had halted its relationship with Flock because of concerns over who owns the data collected by the cameras and who can access it.
The cameras themselves did not simply disappear.
The data continued to be stored in Flock’s cloud system, while LAPD officials negotiated a possible new agreement with additional safeguards.
The situation is particularly significant because Los Angeles already operates a much broader automated license-plate reader system involving multiple vendors.
An LAPD inspector general audit identified 248 pole-mounted ALPR cameras, 140 cameras mounted on police vehicles, about 1,500 cameras installed inside police vehicles and seven mobile trailer cameras. The inspector general recommended pausing new deployments and contracts until stronger requirements for privacy, security, access, retention and auditing were established.
Immigration is part of the debate
The controversy has taken on additional urgency in Los Angeles because of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.
Flock has faced criticism over the potential sharing of license-plate information with other law-enforcement agencies. Immigration advocates and civil-liberties groups have warned that information collected for local policing could potentially be used to identify or track people for federal immigration purposes.
That concern has become particularly sensitive in Los Angeles, where immigrant communities have expressed fear over increased federal immigration enforcement.
The debate is therefore no longer only about whether cameras can help police find stolen cars or identify suspects.
It is also about who gets access to the information and what happens to it after it is collected.
A technology facing a national backlash
Flock’s controversy is not limited to Southern California.
The company operates roughly 120,000 cameras nationwide, and more than 50 law-enforcement officers have reportedly been accused of misusing the technology, including allegations involving stalking or unauthorized surveillance.
In August, Flock announced a series of changes intended to address those concerns.
Beginning next year, law-enforcement agencies will be required to use auditing tools designed to flag suspicious searches. Flock also announced that searches will have to be connected to specific criminal cases and that the default data-retention period will be reduced from 30 days to seven days, with exceptions for active investigations.
Privacy advocates have questioned whether those changes go far enough, arguing that police agencies still retain significant control over how the technology is used.
The question Los Angeles must answer
There is a legitimate public-safety argument for automated license-plate readers.
Police can use them to locate stolen vehicles, identify vehicles associated with criminal investigations and potentially find missing people.
But the technology also changes the scale of surveillance.
A conventional eyewitness may remember seeing a particular vehicle.
A network of cameras can potentially create a record of where that vehicle was seen across a city. That distinction is at the heart of the debate.
For Pasadena, the answer so far has been to keep the system while establishing rules intended to prevent misuse.
For South Pasadena, the answer has been to walk away.
For Los Angeles, the answer remains unsettled.
The LAPD is negotiating new terms with Flock while city officials and community groups continue to question how the technology should be governed.
And as the cameras continue to watch the streets, the central question is no longer simply whether they can help police solve crimes.
It is who is watching the watchers—and what happens to the information they collect.
