At Committees This Week: Showdown on Flock at Public Safety—Update: Hofer Files Suit to Ban OPD's ALPR

Public Safety Committee

Update, 11/18/2025 8:05 am:

Today, Brian Hofer and Secure Justice are filing suit against the City of Oakland, alleging that OPD has failed to follow state law governing ALPR use, as well as its own use policies, city laws and a previous settlement agreement. The suit alleges that OPD: has no way of overseeing third party use of its ALPR, and agencies regularly share data with Federal agencies and other state agencies; has shared data with Federal agencies against state law; violates the City's bidding process by arguing no other vendor can fulfill the contract, which is at odds with facts.

Here's the lawsuit draft that OO received:

Oakland Flock Expansion:

After weeks of feints and fakes, OPD’s quest to take over and expand the City’s CHP-initiated Flock surveillance system will finally come before the Oakland Public Safety Committee on Tuesday at 6pm. The committee’s chair, CM Charlene Wang, first tried to avoid scheduling the Flock contract and use policy to her committee by asking Rules Chair Kevin Jenkins to send it directly to Council. When that failed, somehow the public safety committee where it was scheduled was cancelled—leaving dozens of community members concerned about Flock in an era of Trump’s unpredictable law enforcement agencies in the lurch at the last minute. Then the OPD itself tried to avoid the Public Safety Committee review by appealing to the Rules committee.

Now the legislation will finally be adjudicated by Committee members–Chair Charlene Wang, CM Carroll Fife, CM Ken Houston and CM Rowena Brown who will decide whether to forward it to a full Council meeting for approval. The public presence will likely be high, as opponents have been out in the dozens previously and are likely to do the same at this critical meeting. Supporters have numbered far fewer, but it appears that Wang has been asking for supporters to show up to the most recent meetings to lend an image of public support for the Flock contract.

Contrary to most confused mainstream reporting, the contract is more than just about transferring the contract for Flock automated license plate readers [ALPR] currently held by the CHP. The legislation before the Committee would transfer the CHP Flock contract for about 300 video camera license plate readers into City hands as the CHP’s contract ends, yes. But the OPD’s ambitions go much further. OPD is also requesting a Flock platform upgrade that would allow private camera integration and purchase and integration of a network of city owned Flock surveillance cameras—both with no functional upper limit. In its presentation to Council as well, OPD notes that the Flock upgrade would allow integration of existing and future capacities—that means OPD’s drones, but could include any innovation in Flock’s product line. Recently, for example, Flock debuted its new Shotspotter-esque Raven, which is designed to record not only gun shots, but voices in range of the device that are “in distress”  as an enhancement of the visual Flock system. 

The OPD proposal was first heard by the Privacy Advisory Commission [PAC] beginning in May, but quorum issues at the body delayed deliberation. That was compounded by the OPD’s own failure to bring a current draft of its Flock contract before the body, delaying the process over summer and into early fall. If a  screenwriter were writing a gripping thriller about a city grappling with rapidly shifting technological implications, they could not have created a more eventful 6 month period for Flock, however. Revelations that federal immigration authorities had illegally used California law enforcement agencies Flock databases in contravention of state law came in June. Specific reporting on the gigantic hole in OPD's PAC-approved use policy followed–revealing that OPD can't or won't functionally regulate the use of its database by other agencies in real time.

More stories about sanctuary cities inadvertently handing over their constituent's data through Flock cropped up in cities across the nation. The image of Evanston, IL, having to throw trash bags over the devices after unsuccessfully trying to cancel a Flock contract accentuated the growing sensation that a Flock contract is a pandora's box of unintended and irreversible outcomes.

Denver's City Council went as far as to question the motivations and ethics of the company—while in the Bay Area, it was revealed in a public PAC meeting that Flock's government liaison to the City is a former AIPAC lobbyist.

All of these issues, including OPD’s sloppy preparation and inability to explain why it couldn’t put the individual component surveillance contract out for bid, led the PAC to vote against approving the new project use policy, 4 to 2. 

But there's even more concerns, some of which are especially relevant to a City that just two years ago experienced a devastating ransomware attack–Flock's devices and software are remarkably vulnerable to hacking and cyber attacks. And after independent security researchers discovered a multitude of serious hacking vulnerabilities in the software and hardware of individual Flock devices, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden wrote to the Federal Trade Commission Chair just two weeks ago, warning "Flock has unnecessarily exposed Americans’ sensitive personal data to theft by hackers and foreign spies." That same independent research confirms the little discussed fact that even if the OPD were never to acquire video capture cameras, Flock ALPR devices constantly mass capture video footage of existing surroundings and people along with license plates, and records and stores the images, contrary to the company's own promises to clients. 

The accompanying OPD legislative report, written a month ago, wrestles with none of these issues and barely mentions PAC’s negative review or the by now well known loopholes in even the best intended use policy and contractual specs.

But the report does note that the expansion will give the OPD the ability to view in real time any private camera whose owner has opted in to the program; city cameras appear to also be capable of 24/7 livestream. And though OPD’s ask starts with 40 units, per the report, it also has no upper limit. OPD calls its proposed network of privately owned cams and video tilt and pan cameras “Community Safety cameras [CS]”. 

The report is a slap dash dump of crime statistics and demographics of crime victims—but an argument about how and why Flock has been effective over the past year under the CHP’s contract is conspicuously missing. In a vein similar to that gap between statistics and causality, the OPD makes an argument for the contracting urgency based solely on the possibility that Oakland’s decreasing crime rate could suddenly boomerang.

OPD has added a new power point presentation version, but it reveals little new information and suggests instead that OPD has continuously rushed half-finished copy before decision makers–like the boiler plate Flock contract it presented to PAC. A text on the OPD’s phantom “Real Time Operations Center” [RTOC] appears to have been re-written but still provides little information about whether the RTOC is an existing “center” or if the conceptual framework is simply a delegated focus for certain OPD officers. A “real-time center” would indicate that the OPD intends to build a centralized, staffed surveillance office, but it's unclear whether that name is aspirational or current reality. 

Both versions contain additional details not included in OPD’s legislative report—including contingencies meant to assure Council members. In the current draft, Flock can be cancelled in the event of a federal takeover of Oakland, and the company commits to not share or use Oakland’s data. But neither the report nor the presentation answer many of the questions already put to the OPD during the PAC meeting, nor any of the national scandals involving Flock that occurred in the meantime and prompted the body's negative findings. Nor the reality that information seen on video can be shared verbally or in other ways with no official log.

The legislation is likely to have a very lengthy comment period—APTP and other groups are organizing to speak at the meeting, bringing up questions about how long the meeting could go. It’s possible the Committee may continue one or more of the other items on the agenda, as well as limit speaker time. The odds of the Committee forwarding the legislation with positive recommendation seem high—Council already anticipated approving the transfer of Flock from CHP to Oakland and included $3 MM in the 25-27 budget for it. The total transfer and upgrade will cost $2.2 M.

Also at the meeting: 

—OPD’s Biannual Crime Report

—City Auditor’s Audit of OPD Response Times

–An informational report on the City’s Programs Responding to Domestic Violence, requested by Chair Wang

Finance Committee:

—Vacant Property Tax Ordinance Amendments: city staff is recommending changes to the Vacant Property tax that would allow a grace period for new owners inheriting a parcel with tax obligations; require officers to include findings of fact in assessments; and create a statute of limitations on claims against the tax assessment. Staff suggest the changes in total would have minimal impact on the revenue, about half a million per year. 

—Informational Report On Special Revenue Collection Project: An inquiry begun under Kaplan’s interim D2 position and taken over by Ramachandran thereafter. There’s no written report. 

—Cash Management Report For FY 2025-2026 First Quarter: Regular report on Oakland’s cash balance and investments portfolio. 

Public Works and Transportation

—Lakeside Drive/Lake Merritt Boulevard Complete Streets Construction Contract Award to Gallagher and Burke, not to exceed $8.8 MM

—Approving Ongoing Cooperative Purchase Agreements Exceeding $250,000, with additional $6.3 MM Purchasing Authority, Including New Patrol Vehicles/Maintenance

Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 10.20 (Speed Limits) Administrative Updates: Mostly minor updates

Community and Economic Development

—East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation Property Sale/Loan Forgiveness From: Housing And Community Development Department Recommendation: EBALDC is underwater on two of its ACAH program purchases, the first in the program that seeks to purchase currently affordable housing and deed restrict it from increases, using Measure KK funds. EBALDC got underwater on the purchases and the City is forgiving its loans and payment plan—to some degree a net 0 process, per the report. Apparently, however, when EBALDC sells the properties, it will not be required to return the proceeds to Oakland. 

—Economic Activation Zones: Legislation from CM Brown to enact open drinking zones for events in four specific locations, none of which are in East Oakland. The legislation adds the zones, based on state legislation allowing public alcohol consumption to Oakland’s laws. The legislation would also grant $1 MM to the Oakland Fund for Public Innovation to oversee the pilot program as well as an amorphous AI based program. 

—Conditional Use Permit Process Streamlining  

Life Enrichment Committee [a lot here, this is the highlights]

—Cultural Affairs Manager Position Restoration

—Disparities In Contracting Study Update

—Extension of Flex Streets Legislation to December 2026 before it sunsets this December