Following the release of a 15-month activity log of Monterey Park’s 34 Flock cameras, a city watchdog group has released an analysis of the records, citing “widespread audit failures” by city entities.
But city officials say the “amateur” analysis skews the results, giving a misinformed view of the controversial, AI-powered license plate readers.
According to DeFlock Monterey Park’s analysis of the records, which included internal communiques between officials and technical and operational records, the Monterey Park Police Department conducted potentially illegal searches on behalf of outside agencies, bypassing both state privacy laws and the city’s Flock contract.
Flock cameras have emerged as a flashpoint issue in many cities across the region and the country. Residents and local leaders are coming to terms with a technology that uses cameras and artificial intelligence to capture images of cars, license plates and other vehicle features, which feed into a database accessible to law enforcement agencies.
Civil liberties advocates say the cameras invoke surveillance concerns, high rates of false-positive identifications, various instances of police misuse and illegal sharing of local data with federal agencies, such as immigration enforcement.
The full request – all contracts and agreements, financial records, communications, data sharing and privacy policies, technical and operational records, public meetings, and performance reports – sought information dating back to 2020, when Flock cameras entered Monterey Park. Currently, only search query logs from May 2025 to July 2026 were provided.
According to Monterey Park police, Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are solely used as a law enforcement investigative tool for “recovering stolen vehicles, identifying suspect vehicles associated with criminal activity, locating missing or at-risk persons, and confirming or eliminating investigative leads using time-stamped and location-based data.”
Flock Safety prohibits “immigration enforcement, traffic enforcement” uses.
Monterey Park Police Department officials said their use of Flock is in “strict compliance with California laws,” and that they conduct “ongoing reviews and audits of ALPR data use to confirm that no federal or out-of-state entities have unintended or improper access to ALPR data.”
But according to critics, the 15-month audit logs tell a different story.
On Oct. 3, 2025, MPPD made three queries with the reason “henderson pd 25-16925”; and while there’s no Henderson Police Department in California, Henderson Police Departments exist in Nevada, Kentucky and other states.
Henderson Police Departments in Kentucky and Texas stated unresponsive records for queries made between Oct. 1 and 3 from their police departments through MPPD’s Flock system. Henderson Police Department in Nevada has not yet responded.
Additionally, on April 8, 2025 and May 2, 2025, MPPD made five total queries with the reason “Nova Investigation” – the name of a private, Los Angeles-based investigation firm.
According to DeFlock Monterey Park, these searches could potentially violate state law under SB 34, an 11-year-old California measure in which state law enforcement agencies are barred from sharing license plate reader data with out-of-state public agencies or federal entities.
They are also concerned that the police department’s activity might be violating the state’s civil code, which requires “reasonable” data security safeguards.
As it is, according CalMatters, civil liberties groups in 2023 found that 71 California law enforcement agencies had broken it. Later that year, Attorney General Rob Bonta issued an advisory providing police with specific guidance on how to comply with the law.
The 15-month timeframe analysis, according to DeFlock Monterey Park, found 188 searches related to traffic enforcement — a use they say is explicitly prohibited by the City’s Flock contract. Related queries include vague search terms, like “parking,” “parking citation” and “traffic.”
Another 281 searches contain no justification, and 4,799 queries lack case numbers the city says are required, which DeFlock Monterey Park members said makes auditing “nearly impossible.”
Monterey Park police officials said they require personnel to enter an Offense Code when conducting a search in the system. The “Reason” field is optional and not required to perform a search. Additionally, a user was not required to enter an offense code before December 2025.
City officials said they are waiting on approval from Monterey Park police to provide DeFlock Monterey Park with information with the unique user ID information from the specified agent and organizational network access logs that state which entities searched specific queries and accessed specific Flock networks in conjunction to Monterey Park’s.
“We saw traffic-related searches, which are prohibited … 82 searches in 90 minutes,” member Alle Mims said, adding that without unique user identification information, it becomes impossible to discern whether a single officer, Monterey Park agency or entirely different entity had accessed the log during that timeframe.
According to member Hrag Balian, unique user identification information discloses entities that are “potentially more or less problematic than others.”
“Agent information should have been included in the organizational logs,” Balian said.
“There is nothing in the data that cannot be readily explained,” said Monterey Park Mayor Henry Lo.
“The allegations presented … are uninformed and reflect a troubling pattern of deliberate or negligent misinformation being spread through social media and other public channels,” Lo said. “The City’s strict policies, procedures, and requirements remain in place and the Monterey Park Police Department follows all state law, including without limitation SB 54 and SB 34. Amateur ‘audits’ of data without an understanding of law enforcement policies, procedures, or practices simply adds to misunderstandings.”
Since July, when Monterey Park residents began demanding the cancellation of the city’s auto-renewing Flock camera contract, MPPD has held informational meetings about the technology’s importance.
In response, on Sept. 12, DeFlock Monterey Park held a resident-led Community Teach-In about Flock cameras.
“The City is aware of the assertions made by a group of concerned citizens regarding the Flock organizational logs, Lo said. “As always, the City and its elected representatives welcome public participation and interest in matters of public concern … We are disappointed by the manner in which these assertions have been presented without the benefit of the full understanding of the data provided under the California Public Records Act.”
The City Clerk’s Office will continue to produce responsive, non-exempt records as they become available; records yet to be produced include approximately 20,000 records regarding internal communications related to Flock Safety among city staff and police.
Currently published on the city’s website are the city’s contract with Flock Safety – annual cost for the 34 Flock cameras are $97,500 – and the 15-month audit log.
“These findings raise serious questions that the City needs to answer,” Mims said. “The residents of Monterey Park deserve to know: did the City’s audits miss these issues or are they ignoring them?”
Joshua Silla is a correspondent with the Southern California News Group.