County supervisors vote to take down all sheriff's Flock cameras.

Access and use of Flock cameras for the County of Monterey Sheriff’s Office is officially shut down.

In a complete reversal of their earlier ask to expand Flock cameras, the sheriff’s Flock system will drop from 63 to zero. 

Flock Safety is a public safety technology company that utilizes cameras called Automated License Plate Readers, or ALPRs, as surveillance; the interconnected system often allows data sharing between agencies across cities, counties and the nation. 

On a 3-2 vote, the Board of Supervisors declined to negotiate a contract with Flock, and told the Sheriff’s Office to direct Flock to end its access to an existing 63 cameras across the county and to remove the cameras as soon as possible, or within 60 days. 

It’s a win for many members of the public who spoke out, and the three supervisors who voted to end the use of Flock: Kate Daniels, Wendy Root Askew and Glenn Church. 

But it was a loss for those who voted to keep it: supervisors Luis Alejo and Chris Lopez. The District Attorney and the the sheriff also advocated heavily for the Flock cameras.

The Sheriff’s Office is hardly the only entity that installs the cameras within the county limits; cities including Monterey, Salinas, Seaside, Marina and more still have contracts with Flock, as do many private organizations.

The Board of Supervisors shot down the sheriff’s request to negotiate a contract with Flock that would have committed the county to a $1.7 million contract and 10 years of their surveillance cameras.  

Undersheriff Keith Boyd and Sheriff Tina Nieto argued for the technology, with Boyd calling it a 24/7 source of information for criminal investigations. It was used in August to identify a suspect vehicle connected to a dead infant found on the side of Struve Road in Moss Landing. No suspect has yet been apprehended. 

Boyd noted in the presentation that deputies had queried the Flock system nearly 20,000 times between Aug. 1, 2025 and Sept. 1, 2026, and estimated that over 500,000 queries had been made by partner agencies. While Monterey County Flock cameras must be searched with a case or CAD number and reason, other agencies have varying search policies, which raised concern of abuse from outside agencies among supervisors and public commentators. 

The Weekly found that Flock camera data in Monterey county has been improperly accessed by agencies outside California, which Nieto said was due to a system error by Flock in 2025. 

Boyd said that the Sheriff's Office had the ability to look at data from over 400 other agencies, while about 300 have access to Monterey County’s.

The County hasn’t actually yet paid for its Flock cameras—the board did not allocate funds to their first year of use, but Flock still allowed the Sheriff’s Office to utilize the cameras from 2025-2026. In exchange, the Sheriff’s Office agreed to pursue a long-term contract for 10 years. 

The Sheriff’s Office previously asked for an expansion of 40 additional Flock cameras, which would have meant a total of 103, for about a $2.8 million over 10-year contract. They walked that back in their ask of the Board of Supervisors, and shrunk their ask to maintain an existing 63 cameras. 

District Attorney Jeannine Pacioni presented, emphasizing that thousands of cases had been solved thanks to ALPR data. She said that mass surveillance was monitoring people and their movements “without course or cause” and that ALPRs did not track people, which led to murmured pushback from the audience. 

“The answer isn’t to reject the tool, it’s to govern it well,” Pacioni said. 

The sheriff also drew ire from some speakers for not staying in-person throughout public comment period. 

“They are responsible for surveilling us all the time, but they couldn’t stay to hear the public, those they’re entrusted to protect,” Monterey resident Shirley Ramos said during public comment. 

Nieto called into Zoom at the end of public comment period to say that she had listened to the concerns of constituents. 

One commenter, Jason Asmus, noted that while a car that hit him while riding his motorcycle was caught thanks to a Flock camera, he still had concerns about who had access to its data and policies to prevent unnecessary searches. Despite it helping solve his personal case, he expressed broader privacy concerns.

County Supervisors Daniels and Askew made their skepticism clear over Flock cameras, and voiced their concerns over data sharing and the privacy of constituents.   

County Supervisor Glenn Church, who represents North County, disliked the contract on the basis of it being for 10 years, and called for more stringent regulations. He said the option of the County operating the cameras, rather than a third-party vendor, should be considered. 

Supervisor Chris Lopez had a different perspective. Representing South County, where few deputies patrol after-hours, he said the community had asked for the cameras and better security during listening sessions. 

“We don’t all live in the same Monterey County,” Lopez said.