Agenda packet — Berkeley City Council, May 7, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

Thursday, May 7, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 1

R E V I S E D P R O C L AM AT I O N

C AL L I N G A S P E C I AL M E E T I N G O F T H E

B E R K E L E Y C I T Y C O U N C I L
(REVISED TO ADD A TELECONFERENCE LOCATION)
In accordance with the authority in me vested, I do hereby call the Berkeley City Council in special session as follows:

Thursday, May 7, 2026
5:00 PM
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702 TELECONFERENCE LOCATION - 1027 BANCROFT WAY, BERKELEY, CA 94710

ADENA ISHII, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SHOSHANA O’KEEFE DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – BRENT BLACKABY
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – CECILIA LUNAPARRA DISTRICT 4 – IGOR TREGUB DISTRICT 8 – MARK HUMBERT
This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model with both in -person and virtual attendance. Attend this meeting remotely using Zoom. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” function in Zoom. To join by phone: Dial 1-669- 254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 161 674 7986. To provide public comment, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair. To submit a written communication for the public record, email [email protected].

Live captioned broadcasts of Council meetings are available on B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet video stream.

All Council meetings are recorded.

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting, however, if you are feeling sick, please do not attend the meeting in person.

The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda.

Pursuant to the City Council Rules of Procedure and State Law, the presiding officer may remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting. Prior to removing an individual, the presiding officer shall warn the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. The presiding officer may then remove the individual if they do not promptly cease their disruptive behavior. “Disrupting” means engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, a failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body, or engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force.

Government Code Section 84308 (Levine Act) - Parties to a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use are required to disclose if they made contributions over $5 00 within the prior 12 months to any City employee or officer. Parties and participants with a financial interest are prohibited from making more than $500 in contributions to a decisionmaker for the 12 months after the final decision is rendered on the proceeding.

The above contribution disclosures and restrictions do not apply when the proceeding is competitively bid, or involves a personnel or labor contract. For more information, see Government Code Section 84308.

Rev - 1

Thursday, May 7, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Action Calendar
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again during the Action Calendar public comment period on the item
The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak line up at the podium, or use the "raise hand" function in Zoom, to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking on an individual agenda item, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. Th e Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

The Presiding Officer may open and close an additional comment period for Action items on this agenda (excluding any public hearings, appeals, and/or quasi-judicial matters), at the start of the Action Calendar.

Those who speak on an item during this comment period may not speak a second time when the item is taken up by Council.

Rev - 2
Action Calendar – Old Business

Thursday, May 7, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 3
1a. Public Safety Technology: Surveillance Technology Ordinance and Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals, Policy Updates, and Contract Authority (Continued from March 24, 2026) (Item contains revised and supplemental material.) From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the following actions:

Surveillance Technology Ordinance (BMC 2.99)

1. Accept the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approve the Surveillance Use Policy for the Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) program.

2. Accept the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approve the Surveillance Use Policy for Community Video Streams.

3. Approve updated Surveillance Use Policies for fixed video cameras, reflecting Council-directed revisions to previously approved technology.

Police Equipment Ordinance (BMC 2.100)

4. Accept the Police Equipment Impact Statement and approve the Police Equipment Use Policy for UAS.

Contract Authority

5. Authorize the City Manager to amend the existing contract with Flock Safety to add Drone as First Responder (DFR) hardware, software, and services for an initial three-year term, in an amount not to exceed $750,000.

6. Authorize the City Manager to amend the existing contract with Flock Safety to add Condor PTZ fixed surveillance cameras for an initial four-year term, in an amount not to exceed $310,000, with an option to extend for one additional three- year term, for a total not to exceed $600,000.

7. Authorize the City Manager to amend the existing contract with Flock Safety to add Flock Nova investigative software for a one-year term, in an amount not to exceed $75,000, funded by the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP) grant previously accepted by Council on July 29, 2025.

8. Authorize the City Manager to amend the existing contract with Flock Safety to renew Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) for a two-year term, in an amount not to exceed $330,000, with an option to extend for an additional two-year term, for a total not to exceed $660,000.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jennifer Louis, Police, (510) 981-5900

1b. Social Justice Implications of contracts with the Immigration Data Broker, Flock Safety (Continued from April 21, 2026)
From: Peace and Justice Commission
Recommendation: Approve a Policy approving the following actions with regard to safeguards for Berkeley’s surveillance-derived images and footage: Cancel Berkeley’s Flock Safety contracts for public surveillance images and video footage, due to Flock’s repeated sharing of such data with immigration authorities, and the inherent exposure of “cloud-based” storage to Trump administration access.

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Tasha Tervalon, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-7000

Adjournment
Rev - 3

Thursday, May 7, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 4
I hereby request that the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley cause personal notice to be given to each member of the Berkeley City Council on the time and place of said meeting, forthwith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of the City of Berkeley to be affixed on this 1ST day of May, 2026.

/s/ Adena Ishii, Mayor
Public Notice – this Proclamation serves as the official agenda for this meeting.

ATTEST:

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Archived indexed video streams are available at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas.

Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

Communications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street, and through the City's online records portal:
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/.

Agendas, agenda reports, and revised/supplemental material may be accessed via the online agenda for this meeting at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas
and may be accessed at reference desks at the following locations:

City Clerk Department - 2180 Milvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]

Libraries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street,
Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch – 1901 Russell

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at [email protected], (510) 981-6418 (V), or (510) 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.

Rev - 4

Thursday, May 7, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 5
Attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various scents, whether natural or manufactured, in products and materials. Please help the City respect these needs.

Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B -TV, and on the Internet. In addition, assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City Clerk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting.

If you have obtained interpretation services for your use during a City Council meeting and would like to request assistance, please contact the City Clerk Department at (510) 981 -6900, [email protected], or in-person during the meeting.

Questions regarding public participation may be addressed to the City Clerk Department (510) 981 -6900 or by email at [email protected].

Communications
Council rules limit action on Communications to referral to the City Manager and/or Boards and Commissions for investigation and/or recommendations. All communications submitted to Council are public record. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

Item #1a: Public Safety Technology: Surveillance Technology Ordinance and Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals, Policy Updates, and Contract Authority Item #1b: Social Justice Implications of contracts with the Immigration Data Broker, Flock Safety

1. Jackie Fishbein, on behalf of Flock Group, Inc

2. Commission on Labor

3. Human Welfare & Community Action Commission

4. David Soloff

5. Gabriel du Toit

6. Gael Alcock

7. Vanessa Vega & Brian Pasley

8. Chris Hamilton

9. Christi Tuleja

10. Hali Hammer

11. Peter VanArsdale

12. Bobbie Steinhart

13. Victoria Wesson

14. Irene Rice

15. Vijay Ramesh

16. Melanie Lawrence & John Smail

17. Janice Schroeder

18. Jesse Rosemoore

19. Arlene Owseichik

20. Sonya Baehr

21. Leslie Firestone

22. Justine Kessler

23. Dorothea Dorenz

24. Steen Jensen

25. Stephani Lesh

26. Shirley Kirsten

27. Linda Wood
Rev - 5

Thursday, May 7, 2026 REVISED AGENDA Page 6

28. Eric Friedman

29. Margots999

30. russbumper

31. 11 similarly-worded form letters

Rev - 6

Thursday, May 7, 2026 AGENDA Page 1

P R O C L AM AT I O N

C AL L I N G A S P E C I AL M E E T I N G O F T H E

B E R K E L E Y C I T Y C O U N C I L

In accordance with the authority in me vested, I do hereby call the Berkeley City Council in special session as follows:

Thursday, May 7, 2026
5:00 PM

SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM - 1231 ADDISON STREET, BERKELEY, CA 94702

ADENA ISHII, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model with both in -person and virtual attendance. Attend this meeting remotely using Zoom. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” function in Zoom. To join by phone: Dial 1-669- 254-5252 or 1-833-568-8864 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 161 674 7986. To provide public comment, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair. To submit a written communication for the public record, email [email protected].

Live captioned broadcasts of Council meetings are available on B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet video stream.

All Council meetings are recorded.

The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda.

Page 1 ends

Thursday, May 7, 2026 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

Those who speak on an item during this comment period may not speak a second time when the item is taken up by Council.

Page 2 ends

Action Calendar – Old Business

Thursday, May 7, 2026 AGENDA Page 3
1a. Public Safety Technology: Surveillance Technology Ordinance and Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals, Policy Updates, and Contract Authority (Continued from March 24, 2026) (Item contains revised and supplemental material.) From: City Manager
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the following actions:

Surveillance Technology Ordinance (BMC 2.99)

1. Accept the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approve the Surveillance Use Policy for the Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) program.

2. Accept the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approve the Surveillance Use Policy for Community Video Streams.

3. Approve updated Surveillance Use Policies for fixed video cameras, reflecting Council-directed revisions to previously approved technology.

Police Equipment Ordinance (BMC 2.100)

4. Accept the Police Equipment Impact Statement and approve the Police Equipment Use Policy for UAS.

Contract Authority

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jennifer Louis, Police, (510) 981-5900

Financial Implications: None
Contact: Tasha Tervalon, Commission Secretary, (510) 981-7000

Adjournment

Page 3 ends

Thursday, May 7, 2026 AGENDA Page 4
I hereby request that the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley cause personal notice to be given to each member of the Berkeley City Council on the time and place of said meeting, forthwith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of the City of Berkeley to be affixed on this 30th day of April, 2026.

/s/ Adena Ishii, Mayor
Public Notice – this Proclamation serves as the official agenda for this meeting.

ATTEST:

Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Archived indexed video streams are available at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas.

Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

City Clerk Department - 2180 Milvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: [email protected]

Libraries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street,
Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch – 1901 Russell

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location.

Page 4 ends

Thursday, May 7, 2026 AGENDA Page 5
Attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various scents, whether natural or manufactured, in products and materials. Please help the City respect these needs.

Questions regarding public participation may be addressed to the City Clerk Department (510) 981 -6900 or by email at [email protected].

1. Jackie Fishbein, on behalf of Flock Group, Inc

2. Commission on Labor

3. Human Welfare & Community Action Commission

4. David Soloff

5. Gabriel du Toit

6. Gael Alcock

7. Vanessa Vega & Brian Pasley

8. Chris Hamilton

9. Christi Tuleja

10. Hali Hammer

11. Peter VanArsdale

12. Bobbie Steinhart

13. Victoria Wesson

14. Irene Rice

15. Vijay Ramesh

16. Melanie Lawrence & John Smail

17. Janice Schroeder

18. Jesse Rosemoore

19. Arlene Owseichik

20. Sonya Baehr

21. Leslie Firestone

22. Justine Kessler

23. Dorothea Dorenz

24. Steen Jensen

25. Stephani Lesh

26. Shirley Kirsten

27. Linda Wood

Page 5 ends

Thursday, May 7, 2026 AGENDA Page 6

28. Eric Friedman

29. Margots999

30. russbumper

31. 11 similarly-worded form letters

Page 6 ends

Public Safety Technology Update
March 24, 2026
Police Department

Page 1 of 156 ends

Page 7 ends

Real-Time Information Center (RTIC)
How technology feeds support analysts and field operations

TECHNOLOGY FEEDS RTIC ANALYSIS ACTIONABLE
OUTPUT

FIELD DEPLOYMENT
ALPRs
PTZ Cameras
Community
Video Streams
Drones
Analysts
────────────────
assisted by
Investigative
Software
CAD • RMS • Digital Evidence
Case-Linking • Data Analysis
Situational
Awareness
Case
Intelligence
Trend Analysis
Detectives
Investigations
& Case Work
Patrol Officers
Real-Time Field
Response
Research: RTIC’s are proven resource multipliers. Peer-reviewed studies show 66% better odds of clearance for cases supported by RTIC. Peer agencies report 25% of drone calls cleared without dispatching officers. 2

Page 2 of 156 ends

Page 8 ends

Field-Deployed UAS
Policy Update to allow dept purchase
• On-scene aerial views and interior building assessment during high-risk searches, warrants, and emergencies.
• Increases ability to de-escalate.
• Evidence retained according to department retention policy • Council approved mutual aid UAS. Contract authority for BPD-owned units requested.

Investigative Software
Grant-Funded • 1yr
• Centralizes existing databases like CAD, RMS, and digital evidence into one searchable platform for case -linking. • Directly supports the Gun Violence Intervention and
Prevention Program.
• 100% funded by Byrne SCIP grant accepted July 2025. No General Fund impact.

PTZ Cameras
Policy Update with Council-directed revisions.
• Located in business districts with high pedestrian traffic. • Objective video evidence for prosecution; real -time
situational awareness; visual deterrence.
• 180-day retention; no external direct access to data. • Approved July 2025. Updated policies reflect Council - directed revisions.

ALPRs
Contract Renewal
• 52 cameras cross-referencing plates against hotlists for stolen vehicles, missing persons, felony warrants.
• Real-time alerts to patrol;
• 30-day retention; Federal access blocked.
• Approved July 2023. No policy changes.

Renewals + Updates
120+
Arrests and leads in 2025
16 Council-approved cameras
0 Injuries or complaints
reported
$0
General Fund
impact
3

Page 3 of 156 ends

Page 9 ends

Community Video Streams
4 • How it Works
• Opt-in program: business and non-residential commercial building camera integration allowing BPD to view security feeds during specific incidents. No City-purchased cameras. • Pre-integration review with in-person site assessment • On site public notification signage. All camera locations published on City website. • Public Safety Benefit
• Replaces the slow, manual process of canvassing to locate cameras and request footage after a crime. • Real-time visual awareness of scenes before officer arrival. • Improves coordination in response to active calls for service like a robbery or active shooter. • Privacy Protections
• Access restricted to active investigations. Camera owners retain ownership; can revoke access at any time. • Facial recognition strictly prohibited. All accesses logged and auditable. • Cannot be accessed by outside agencies.
• Any data with evidentiary value is downloaded to department's secure evidence collection system. $0
City hardware cost.

Cameras are privately owned

Page 4 of 156 ends

Page 10 ends

Drone as a
First Responder
5 • How it Works
• Drones launch from docking stations on the roof of the Public Safety Building and fly directly to the scene. • Analysts see live aerial video and relay what they see to responding officers. • All hardware is installed and maintained by Flock under a subscription. No City infrastructure required. • Public Safety Benefit
• Rapid first-on-scene capability for police, fire, and EMS. • Greater certainty enables better tactical planning and facilitates de-escalation. • Resource multiplier: extends operational capacity without expanding headcount. • Privacy Protections
• Launched only for specific calls; never random patrol. Cameras face horizon until on scene. • All flight paths logged and publicly available on transparency portal within ~1 hour of docking. • Drones will never be weaponized. No facial recognition. • Data downloaded to department's secure evidence collection system ~2 mins
Avg. drone response time
25%
Calls cleared without a
patrol unit

Page 5 of 156 ends

Page 11 ends

Why do we need these technologies?
Resource Multiplier
• Staffing challenges- running well below authorized strength • Budget constraints- funded by reducing 3 positions, ~$160K/yr net savings • Bringing multiple technologies into an ecosystem streamlines operations Investigative Impact
• High-quality leads
• Faster apprehension of suspects
• Improves clearance rates- 66% better odds with RTIC support (peer-reviewed research) • Strengthens case investigations- real-time data correlation across cameras, drones, ALPRs, and community video 6 Community Impact
• Victim closure and justice- cases solved faster, dangerous offenders off the street sooner • Data-driven policing- officers arrive with information, not uncertainty • Crime deterrent
• Thriving and vibrant community- better public safety outcomes with constrained resources

Page 6 of 156 ends

Page 12 ends

Why we are recommending Flock Safety
Single Ecosystem
• One dashboard, one audit trail, one MSA.
• Consolidated alerts and oversight
• Native real-time data correlation- impossible
with fragmented multi-vendor systems.

Vendor Comparison
• No other single vendor delivers ALPRs, fixed cameras, DFR, analytics, and community video integration. • Drone camera quality and connectivity is far superior to all other competitors. • Every city in Alameda county uses Flock ALPR. Network effect multiplies public safety value. • Other vendors require City-owned hardware, lack real-time alerting, or cannot match Flock’s technical support and included upgrades.
• Axon came closest but its ALPR/camera hardware is untested and the software lacks real-time alerts and hotlist support- core to BPD operations.

Fiscal Advantage
• 10% discount on new product lines (DFR, PTZ) if
executed by end of March 2026- over $100K in
savings.
• Subscription model includes hardware,
maintenance, and upgrades- no City-owned
infrastructure to manage.
7

Page 7 of 156 ends

Page 13 ends

How do we mitigate potential risk
Technical Security
• End-to-end encryption across all product lines.
• SOC 2 certified, CJIS compliant infrastructure.
• All access logged and auditable.
• Flock must promptly notify City of any security
incident and describe scope and corrective steps.

Sanctuary Protections
• Federal agencies require a court order to access
data. Administrative subpoenas are insufficient.
• Consistent with Sanctuary City Ordinance.
• Flock has stopped federal data-sharing pilot
programs nationally and introduced restrictive-by-
default permission controls.

Master Services Agreement
• City Attorney’s Office negotiated MSA accepted
in full by Flock - every redline the City proposed
was accepted.
• City owns all data, including anonymized
derivatives. Flock prohibited from selling,
sharing, or distributing City data.
• Contractual financial penalties for data breaches
or unauthorized disclosures, mirroring
framework approved by Oakland Council in
December 2025.
• City’s data ownership and control survives
contract termination.
• Department supports additional terms being
considered.
8

Page 8 of 156 ends

Page 14 ends

Recommended Actions
STO Approvals (BMC 2.99)
• Accept Acquisition Reports +
Use Policies: UAS and
Community Video Streams
• Approve updated Use Policies:

Fixed Video Cameras
Police Equipment (BMC 2.100)
• Accept Impact Statement +
Use Policy: Unmanned Aerial
Systems
Contract Authority
• Amend contract to include:
• DFR
• PTZ Cameras
• Investigative Software
• ALPR renewal
1 1

Page 9 of 156 ends

Page 15 ends

P O L I C E A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y B O A R D
Police Accountability Board’s
Surveillance Technology
Recommendations for Item 26
Berkeley City Council · March 24, 2026

Page 10 of 156 ends

Page 16 ends

C O R E R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
Defer final action on the three surveillance items.

BPD’s proposal to (1) authorize a drone-as-first-responder program, (2) integrate Community Video Streams, and (3) combine license plate readers, fixed cameras, community video feeds, and aerial drones on a single integrated platform under a single vendor represents the largest expansion of BPD’s surveillance capacity in Berkeley's history.

A decision of this magnitude demands thoughtful deliberation and review. This burden has not yet been satisfied.

Page 11 of 156 ends

Page 17 ends

B e r k e l e y C r i m e T r e n d s
The case for urgency has not been made.

Robberies
2024 → 2025
20%↓
2021 → 2025
33%↓
Shootings
2024 → 2025
40%↓
2021 → 2025
70%↓
Commercial
Burglaries
2024 → 2025
31%↓
2021 → 2025
13%↓
Vehicle Thefts
2024 → 2025
46%↓
2021 → 2025
48%↓
Catalytic
Converter Thefts
2024 → 2025
21%↓
2021 → 2025
57%↓
■ Year-over-year change (2024→2025) ■ Five-year change (2021→2025) Source: 2025 BPD Annual Report

Page 12 of 156 ends

Page 18 ends

W H Y N O T N O W ?
Four reasons action is premature.
01 Concerns with Flock Safety and the lack of a documented vendor selection process.

The record contains no criteria used to evaluate Flock Safety against alternatives and no justification for choosing a single-vendor approach for Berkeley's entire surveillance infrastructure. 02 Inadequate review time
BPD submitted the full MSA to the PAB a day before the March 11 meeting. CVS policies had only a single PAB meeting for consideration. The public has had no more time than the PAB to review these policies or the proposed overall surveillance architecture. 03 No combined system assessment
Each of the four programs was evaluated individually. The integrated ecosystem - ALPR, fixed cameras, CVS, and drones - has never been assessed as a whole.
04 Too many unresolved issues including actions needed for regulatory compliance The PAB identified ~30 material issues: MSA provisions undisclosed in any acquisition report, policy non-compliance with regulatory requirements across all three program areas, inadequate notification standards, insufficient vendor sanctions, and a liability framework that would leave Berkeley without appropriate remedy in a major data breach.

Page 13 of 156 ends

Page 19 ends

F L O C K S A F E T Y
Why Flock Safety?
BPD proposes Flock Safety as the sole vendor for Berkeley’s integrated surveillance platform.

Page 14 of 156 ends

Page 20 ends

F L O C K S A F E T Y
Flock Safety: BPD Justifications and PAB Concerns
BPD Justifications
• Fully integrated, centralized surveillance system
ALPR, cameras, CVS, and drones on one platform under one vendor.
• More advanced drone technology
Flock’s drone-as-first-responder (DFR) platform claimed to offer superior capabilities for BPD.

PAB Concerns
• Concentration risks
Operational dependency, vendor lock-in, and magnified privacy impact from a single integrated platform.
• Experience of other jurisdictions
Over 50 jurisdictions have walked away from Flock over privacy and data-sharing failures.
• Flaws in the Master Services Agreement
Perpetual data licenses, no exit rights, and no consent required for new features.
• Conflict with Sanctuary City commitments
Flock’s network model creates structural risk of federal immigration agency access.
• Lack of documented vendor selection process

Page 15 of 156 ends

Page 21 ends

R E C O M M E N D E D A C T I O N 1 O F 4
A single operator could identify a vehicle by plate, pull fixed and community camera footage, and dispatch a drone in real time. When ALPR, cameras, CVS, and drones integrate on one platform, the combined tracking capability far exceeds what any individual program authorization contemplated.

C O N C E N T R A T I O N R I S K S T H E R E P O R T M U S T A D D R E S S Operational Dependency
One vendor controlling hardware, software, and data storage across multiple critical systems means any outage, security incident, or policy change can impair several core capabilities simultaneously.

Weakened Governance Leverage
Consolidation makes it significantly harder to negotiate privacy terms, conduct independent audits, or manage data parameters. The city's leverage diminishes once multiple systems depend on the same vendor.

Cost Lock-In Over Time
Initial bundled pricing shifts bargaining power to the vendor. Subscription increases, hardware costs, license fees, and add-on charges become difficult to resist once switching is operationally disruptive and expensive.

Integration Magnifies Privacy Impact
Combined ALPR, camera, and drone data on one platform creates tracking capability that significantly exceeds what any individual program authorization contemplated and what no single BMC 2.99 review has evaluated.

Additional factors to be considered in consolidated assessment:
• Combined data access capabilities and cross-program data rights • Adequacy of audit mechanisms to detect platform-wide unauthorized access • Corrected "experience of other entities" documentation, including adverse findings from comparable jurisdictions • BPD's need for dedicated technology staffing to competently manage the ecosystem Complete a consolidated BMC 2.99 assessment for the full ecosystem.

Page 16 of 156 ends

Page 22 ends

R E C O M M E N D E D A C T I O N 2 O F 4
If Council Chooses to Contract With Flock Safety,
Renegotiate the Flock Master Services Agreement.

The MSA contains provisions that leave Berkeley without basic protections:
• An irrevocable service license and perpetual anonymized data license that survive contract termination • No city consent required before Flock activates new platform features including convoy tracking, predict-a-path, and Flock Nova
• No termination-for-convenience right. Berkeley cannot exit without proving material breach • No post-termination data deletion requirement for city-associated data • No city consent required before Flock assigns the agreement to an affiliate or acquirer

Page 17 of 156 ends

Page 23 ends

R E C O M M E N D E D A C T I O N 2 O F 4
Strengthen the MSA penalty amendment.

As Submitted
• $75,000 penalty per violation is sole and exclusive
remedy, eliminating legal recourse
• Lookup tool carve-out exempts the exact mechanism
behind the Mountain View, Ventura, and other similar
incidents
• Federal task force carve-out creates proxy-access
loophole
What's Needed
• $200,000–$290,000 per violation. Flock accepted this
range in Oakland and Richmond
• Delete the lookup tool carve-out entirely
• Preserve full legal remedies where actual harm
exceeds penalty amount
• Require individual written authorization by Berkeley
for any federal access
There is no basis for Berkeley accepting a lower standard than peer cities have already negotiated.

Page 18 of 156 ends

Page 24 ends

CVS, UAS, and Fixed Camera
Use Policies
BPD Policies 351, 355, 611, 709, 1303, and 1306

Page 19 of 156 ends

Page 25 ends

S U R V E I L L A N C E T E C H N O L O G Y R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S Surveillance programs under review: policies and governing law Type of Surveillance Tool Applicable BPD Policies Relevant Laws Community Video Streams
Policy 355, Policy 1306, and
Acquisition Report
BMC 2.99 (STO) & Berkeley’s Sanctuary City
Commitments
External Fixed Video
Surveillance Cameras
Policy 351
BMC 2.99 & Berkeley’s Sanctuary City
Commitments
Unmanned Aerial System
(UAS)
Policy 611, Policy 709, Policy 1303,
and Acquisition Report
BMC 2.99 (STO), BMC 2.100 (Military
Equipment), AB 481 (Military Equipment),
and Berkeley’s Sanctuary City
Commitments

Page 20 of 156 ends

Page 26 ends

R E C O M M E N D E D A C T I O N 3 O F 4
Correct policy deficiencies across all programs.

Policies 351, 355, 611, 709, 1303, and 1306 share common deficiencies:

No First Amendment protections
Only UAS Use Policy prohibits using Flock technology to monitor protests, political assemblies, or protected activity.

Inconsistent notification standards
Triggering criteria for notifying of non-California and federal agency access vary across programs and must be standardized at 72 hours.

Insufficient auditing requirements
Audit requirements are inconsistent, and insufficient, across all programs.

No enforceable vendor sanctions
Policies do not include legally enforceable penalties against Flock for unauthorized access, unauthorized feature activation, or data security violations.

Drone policies carry additional concerns: inadequate use restrictions, fiscal discrepancies, and unresolved FCC Covered List issues for the proposed foreign-produced fleet.

Page 21 of 156 ends

Page 27 ends

D R O N E P O L I C Y
Surveillance Use Policy -
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)
BPD proposes Flock Safety as the sole vendor for Berkeley’s integrated surveillance platform.

Page 22 of 156 ends

Page 28 ends

D R O N E P O L I C Y | R e c o m m e n d e d A c t i o n 4 o f 4 Eight critical deficiencies must be addressed before any drone program can advance.

Authorized Uses Too Broad
UAS Use Policy lists permitted uses (e.g.,
active pursuits, missing persons) but
does not limit DFR to those uses. PAB
recommends explicit permitted uses and
limiting DFR to a closed list for a pilot
period. The permissive language allows
deployment for any purpose not
expressly prohibited, creating broad
operational discretion with no warrant
or exigency requirement for most
deployments.

Data Retention Too Broad
UAS Use Policy sets a uniform 60-day
retention period for all footage
regardless of evidentiary value. PAB
recommends tailoring retention periods
to achieve the specific permitted
purpose, most of which are serviced by
immediate video confirmation. Long
data retention periods raises privacy
concerns, constitutional policing issues,
and exposure to federal immigration
enforcement.

Oversight & Accountability Gaps
Require supervisory approval before
each deployment. Mandate logging of
reason for deployment and recording
times.

No Performance Baseline
No framework to evaluate program
effectiveness. Require metrics before
authorization: CFS response time, crime
clearance rates, use-of-force rates, and
demographic distribution.

No Clear Decertification
Procedure & Complaint Intake
Process
UAS Use Policy contains no process for
revoking officer certification. Repeat
violations carry no defined
consequence. Also no mechanism exists
for community members to report
concerns about drone deployments or
request review of incidents.

Accountability requires an accessible
intake channel.

First Amendment Concerns
UAS Policy would authorize use to
respond to “active criminal activity at
mass gatherings or special events.” PAB
is concerned that this offers broad
discretion in light of expansive definition
of what could constitute ”criminal
activity” (i.e. refusing to follow unlawful
dispersal order) and could chill
protected First Amendment speech.

FCC Covered List Risk
December 2025 FCC action designates
foreign-produced drones as national
security risks. BPD’s proposed fleet is
affected. Equipment authorization
status must be confirmed before
procurement.

Three-Policy Structure Creates
Gaps
Policies 709, 611, and 1303 are
interlocked through circular cross-
references, creating confusion and
version-control and accountability risks.

Policy 709 must be self-contained for AB
481 purposes.

Page 23 of 156 ends

Page 29 ends

P A T H F O R W A R D
The PAB is ready to support this work and to expedite review once conditions are met.
1 Complete and publish the consolidated BMC 2.99 ecosystem assessment. 2 3
4 If Council to authorize drone program, approve PAB’s recommendations for Drone Use Policy If Council decides to contract with Flock, renegotiate the MSA.

Correct deficiencies across all six submitted policies.

Page 24 of 156 ends

Page 30 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 1 REVISED AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 3

Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Item Number: 26

Item Description: Public Safety Technology: Surveillance Technology Ordinance and Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals, Policy Updates, and Contract Authority

Submitted by: Councilmember Ben Bartlett
“Good of the City” Analysis:

The purpose of this supplemental material is to clearly define the legal boundaries within which the City may utilize Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Technology and other Surveillance Services. The supplemental will ensure that any vendors who are contracted to provide ALPR and Surveillance technology services operate within specific parameters that will safeguard residents’ privacy, civil rights, and Berkeley’s Sanctuary City Ordinance, while maintaining City control of access and usage of data generated from the technology. The supplemental will incorporate “Good of the City” provisions to ensure full transparency, control, and accountability in the deployment and operation of the technology. These provisions will include strict mutuality of contractual obligations, materially increased penalties for any unauthorized data access or disclosure, and a clear private right of action for affected individuals, including statutory damages and injunctive relief.

Consideration of supplemental or revised agenda material is subject to approval by a two-thirds vote of the City Council. (BMC 2.06.070)

A minimum of 42 copies must be submitted to the City Clerk for distribution at the Council meeting. This completed cover page must accompany every copy.

Copies of the supplemental/revised agenda material may be delivered to the City Clerk Department by 12:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Copies that are ready after 12:00 p.m. must be delivered directly to the City Clerk at Council Chambers prior to the start of the meeting.

Supplements or Revisions submitted pursuant to BMC § 2.06.070 may only be revisions of the original report included in the Agenda Packet.

Page 25 of 156 ends

Page 31 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 2 ACTION CALENDAR
March 24, 2026

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett
Subject: Public Safety Technology: Surveillance Technology Ordinance and Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals, Policy Updates, and Contract Authority

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt revisions to the Flock Safety Master Services Agreement (MSA) to strengthen City control, protect data ownership, prohibit unauthorized sharing, remove perpetual licensing rights, enhance privacy safeguards, authorize termination for convenience, require Council approval for key changes, establish enforceable remedies, create a private right of action, include a mutual morality clause, and mandate data deletion upon termination.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Proposed revisions and recommendations should be added to the Flock Safety Master Services Agreement (MSA) before executing the Flock Safety MSA:

1. §2.4 CITY CONTROL OF PLATFORM CHANGES
Replace with:

2.4 Platform Changes. Flock shall not implement, activate, or deploy any modification, enhancement, or new functionality that affects data collection, analysis, sharing, access, or retention without the Customer’s prior written approval, which shall require approval by the Berkeley City Council.

This includes, without limitation, features involving predictive analytics, pattern recognition, vehicle tracking, network sharing, or integration with third-party systems.

All data sharing settings shall be disabled by default. Any deviation must be expressly approved in writing by Customer and publicly disclosed.

2. §4.1 (Customer Data License) REMOVING IRREVOCABLE
Replace with:

4.1 Customer Data. As between Flock and Customer, all right, title, and interest in and to Customer Data shall remain exclusively with Customer. Customer grants to Flock a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-transferable license to use Customer Data solely to provide the Flock Services to Customer during the Term.

Page 26 of 156 ends

Page 32 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 3 This license shall automatically terminate upon expiration or termination of this Agreement. Flock shall have no right to retain, use, or access Customer Data thereafter except as expressly required by law and only for the minimum period required.

3. §4.2 Customer Generated Data CLOSES THE LOOPHOLE
Add at the end:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Customer Generated Data shall not be used, shared, or accessed for any purpose other than providing Services to Customer, and shall not be subject to any broader rights under Section 4.3 or elsewhere in this Agreement.

4. §4.3 REMOVING PERPETUAL RIGHTS
Replace with:

4.3 Anonymized Data. Flock may create Anonymized Data solely for the purpose of providing Services to Customer during the Term.

Flock shall have no right to use Anonymized Data for product development, commercialization, or any purpose unrelated to Services provided to Customer.

All rights granted under this Section shall terminate upon expiration or termination of this Agreement. Flock shall delete all Anonymized Data derived from Customer Data in accordance with Section [Data Deletion].

5. New Section Data Sharing Restrictions
X. Data Access and Sharing Restrictions.
a. Flock shall not disclose, provide access to, or enable access to Customer Data to any third party, including any federal agency, except pursuant to a specific, written authorization issued by Customer for each individual request. b. Access by federal personnel embedded within or assigned to any state or local agency shall be prohibited unless expressly authorized in writing by Customer for each instance of access.
c. Use of any shared lookup, query, or network-based access tool that permits third-party querying of Customer Data is prohibited unless explicitly approved in writing by Customer.
d. Indirect access, including access facilitated through another agency, shall be deemed a violation of this Agreement.

Page 27 of 156 ends

Page 33 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 4 6. ADD: TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE
X Termination for Convenience. Customer may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice. Customer shall not be obligated to pay for any Services not rendered after the effective date of termination.

7. §11.3 (Assignment) COB CONTROLS
Replace the second sentence with:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Flock may not assign this Agreement to any affiliate, successor, or acquirer without the prior written consent of Customer, which shall not be unreasonably withheld and shall require City Council approval.

8. §11.15 Morality Mutual Morality / Misconduct Clause Customer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice if Flock, its officers, or affiliates are indicted, found liable for violations of law, or determined by Customer to have engaged in unauthorized data access, sharing, or misuse.

9. Replace the Amendment “Unauthorized Sharing” section entirely:

Unauthorized Access; Remedies.
a. Any unauthorized access, disclosure, sharing, or use of Customer Data (“Unauthorized Access”) shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. b. For each Unauthorized Access event, Flock shall pay Customer liquidated damages in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per violation, or Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) per affected record, whichever is greater. c. Each individual query, access event, or data retrieval shall constitute a separate violation.
d. The remedies set forth herein are cumulative and shall not be deemed the sole or exclusive remedy. Customer retains all rights at law and in equity, including the right to seek injunctive relief.
e. Flock acknowledges that unauthorized access to surveillance data creates irreparable harm. Customer shall be entitled to immediate injunctive relief without the requirement to post bond.

Page 28 of 156 ends

Page 34 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, Floor 5, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] 5 10. ADD: PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION
Private Right of Action.

Any individual whose data, image, likeness, or identifying information is accessed, disclosed, or used in violation of this Agreement shall have a direct right of action against Flock.

Flock agrees that such individuals may bring claims for statutory damages of not less than $5,000 per violation, actual damages, punitive damages where permitted, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Flock expressly waives any argument that it is not a data controller or that such individuals lack privity under this Agreement.

11. ADD: Mandatory Data Deletion
Data Deletion.

Within thirty (30) days of termination or expiration of this Agreement, Flock shall permanently delete all Customer Data, Customer Generated Data, and any derivatives thereof, including Anonymized Data.

Flock shall certify such deletion in writing, signed by an officer of the company.

No data may be retained for product development, machine learning, or any other purpose.

Page 29 of 156 ends

Page 35 ends

2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
Tel: (510) 981-7100
TDD: (510) 981-6903
[email protected]

REVISED AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental #2
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026
Item Number: 26

Item Description: Public Safety Technology: Surveillance Technology Ordinance and Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals, Policy Updates, and Contract Authority

Submitted by: Mayor Adena Ishii (Co-Author), Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra (Co-Author), and Councilmember Igor Tregub (Co- Sponsor)

This supplemental material aims to balance the value of surveillance technology with Berkeley's commitment to privacy, civil liberties, and Sanctuary City status. Additionally, in response to reported security failures in neighboring jurisdictions, this supplemental clarifies how these technologies work and codifies legislative intent. These recommendations stem from comprehensive community engagement, feedback from the Police Accountability Board (PAB), and extensive conversations with the Office of the Director of Police Accountability and the Berkeley Police Department. In light of these considerations, this item refers the Community Video Stream (CVS) acquisition report and surveillance use policy to the Public Safety Committee for review; recommends limiting the retention period for non-evidentiary footage and strengthening oversight for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS); increase auditing and reporting cadence for Fixed Cameras in Surveillance Use Policy; and explicitly opposes the renewal, approval, or authorization of any contract with Flock Safety.

The original item requests authorization for acquisition, use, and/or contracting of the following technologies: Unmanned Aerial System (UAS), Community Video Stream (CVS), Fixed cameras, Investigative software, and Automatic License Plate Readers.

The following table summarizes this supplemental’s recommendations.

Page 30 of 156 ends

Page 36 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7100 ● [email protected]

Approve/approve with
amendments
Refer back to Staff Reject
Unmanned Aerial
System (UAS)
✔Surveillance Use Policy
✔Military Equipment Use Policy
↩Acquisition Report
↩Military Equipment
Impact Statement
✗Flock Contract
Community Video
Stream (CVS)
— ↩Acquisition Report
↩Surveillance Use Policy

✗Flock Contract
Fixed cameras ✔Surveillance Use Policy — ✗Flock Contract Investigative software — — ✗Flock Contract
Automatic License
Plate Readers (ALPR)
— — ✗Flock Contract

Proposed revisions and recommendations:

Surveillance Technology Ordinance (BMC 2.99)

1. Refer the Community Video Stream Acquisition Report and Surveillance Use Policy to the Public Safety Policy Committee (PSPC) for further review; request that the City Manager work at the committee level to address the PAB’s concerns and clarify operational ambiguity:

This is the first time this item has been presented to the Berkeley City Council.

Given the unknown operational implications, additional clarification and feedback are advantageous for a more robust understanding. During review at the PSPC, staff should address the following Police Accountability Board1 recommendations and authors’ questions:

a. Add an explicit prohibition on surveillance of First Amendment activity, unless there is a clear, articulable, and imminent public safety threat that is actively occurring;
b. Specify concrete data retention periods with the four elements required by BMC 2.99.020.4(g);
c. Conduct a disparate impact analysis addressing whether camera coverage is concentrated in areas with particular demographic characteristics;
d. Supplement Section 11 of the Acquisition Report to disclose adverse findings from comparable jurisdictions;
e. Update immigration-related search reporting to match the 72-hour

1https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-
03/March%2018%2C%202026%20PAB%20Recommendations_Surveillance%20Tech.pdf

Page 31 of 156 ends

Page 37 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7100 ● [email protected]

standard and named recipients in Policy 351 section 351.6 per our Sanctuary City Ordinance;
f. Consider developing a use policy to address combined cross- platform use of all integrated technologies, regardless of vendor used, including ALPR, fixed cameras, community video streams, and drones;
g. Institute semiannual audits of CVS–similar to Council directive on fixed cameras established in July 20252;
h. Analyze the data governance and security risks of community camera integration.

2. Amend the Surveillance Use Policy for the Unmanned Aerial System to include the following provisions:
a. Reduce the non-evidentiary drone footage retention period to five (5) days
Pursuant to the proposed UAS surveillance use policy, uses of the UAS are limited to de-escalation, tactical safety, emergency response, operational efficiency related to calls for services, and investigation. As a result, much of the footage captured by drones is responsive, not passive, and therefore distinct from other surveillance technologies and retention timelines. To balance data security with operational efficiency, we propose a reduced footage retention period of five (5) days, aligning with Oakland’s policy.

b. Amend audit timelines to require a monthly audit and a semiannual audit report
Require monthly audits with a semiannual (twice a year) published audit report. The PAB recommended a monthly audit to ensure potential violations are caught early. The City Council directed staff to change the audit report timeline from biennial (once every two years) to semiannual at their July 2025 meeting.3 These audits should be sent to the PAB.

c. Add supervisory approval for all UAS deployments except for DFR To enhance internal oversight for drone use, supervisory approval for all deployment protocols should be added. DFR protocols may be excluded from these specific service constraints to maintain operational speed.

d. Specify authorized use cases
It is important to reduce ambiguity around when a UAS deployment is permitted. Accordingly, this supplemental material proposes amending the language from “Authorized operators may deploy the UAS in the following circumstances” to: “Authorized operators shall only deploy the UAS in the

2https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city-council-meetings/2025-07- 22%20Annotated%20Agenda%20-%20Council.pdf
3https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city-council-meetings/2025-07- 22%20Annotated%20Agenda%20-%20Council.pd,

Page 32 of 156 ends

Page 38 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7100 ● [email protected]

following circumstances.”

e. Refer to the City Manager to develop defined performance metrics to measure and report on the efficacy of the technology
BPD should develop performance metrics aligned with the goals of the use policy to better evaluate the technology's effectiveness. The performance metrics should relate to the stated goals of the technology and should quantify the program’s success in:
i. Operational efficiency: Reducing officer overtime.
ii. Personnel safety: Enhancing officer protection.
iii. Crime mitigation: Deterring both violent and non-violent offenses. iv. Investigative success: Improving clearance rates and solving crimes.

f. Refer to the City Manager to create a consolidated UAS operations and data governance policy
Consolidate Policies 611 and 1303 to create a single UAS Operations and Data Governance Policy to ensure clear lines of accountability and enhance document and version control.

g. Refer to the City Manager the UAS Surveillance Acquisition Report for research and analysis of alternative surveillance technology vendors capable of meeting the City of Berkeley’s safety and surveillance needs while balancing the need for privacy and civil liberties protections
The UAS Surveillance Acquisition Report references Flock technology. As a result, this supplemental material recommends referring the report to the City Manager to identify alternative vendors. The accompanying Use Policy is recommended for approval with the recommendations enumerated in bullet 2.

Provisions 2f, 2g, and 2h may be taken up after Council approval of the UAS Surveillance Use Policy.

3. Amend the Surveillance Use Policy for Fixed Cameras to include the following provision:
a. Amend audit timelines to require a monthly audit and a semiannual audit report
Require monthly audits with a semiannual (twice a year) published audit report. The PAB recommended a monthly audit to ensure potential violations are caught early. The City Council directed staff to change the audit report timeline from biennial to semiannual at their July 2025 meeting.4 The monthly audit reports should be shared with the PAB.

4https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/city-council-meetings/2025-07- 22%20Annotated%20Agenda%20-%20Council.pd,

Page 33 of 156 ends

Page 39 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7100 ● [email protected]

Police Equipment Ordinance (2.100)

4. Amend the UAS Equipment Use Policy to include the same revisions as the recommendations for the UAS Surveillance Use Policy.
a. Reduce footage retention period to five (5) days
b. Amend audit timelines to require a monthly audit and a semiannual audit report
c. Add supervisory approval for all deployments except for DFR d. Establish a thorough protocol for decertification
e. Specify authorized use cases

5. Refer the following request for information to the City Manager to quantify the need for UAS
Provide Berkeley-specific data to prove "no reasonable alternative" exists. The following should be considered:
a. Frequency of incidents for which aerial perspective has historically been needed by call type
b. Documented historical delays/availability issues when relying on external aerial support
c. Establish baseline officer injury rates and documented officer safety issues relevant to articulated use cases (quantitative, not just qualitative) d. Baseline Call-For-Service (CFS) response time data by call type e. Baseline crime clearance rate data by crime type

Approval of the UAS Equipment Use Policy is not contingent upon completion of 5a-5e.

6. Refer the UAS Military Equipment Impact Statement to the City Manager for research and analysis of alternative surveillance technology vendors capable of meeting the City of Berkeley’s safety and surveillance needs while balancing privacy and civil liberties protections The UAS Military Equipment Impact Statement references Flock technology. As a result, this supplemental material recommends referring the report to the City Manager to identify alternative vendors. (The accompanying but distinct UAS Equipment Use Policy is recommended for approval, subject to incorporation of revisions enumerated in recommendation #4 above.)

Contract Authority

7. Reject any renewal, authorization, approval, or execution of the Flock Safety contract
Flock’s violations are numerous. In recent years, at least 30 jurisdictions have paused or terminated their Flock contracts due to concerns about impermissible data sharing with federal law enforcement agencies, including federal immigration enforcement agencies.5 Within California, at least 7 jurisdictions

5https://www.npr.org/2026/02/17/nx-s1-5612825/flock-contracts-canceled-immigration-survillance- concerns

Page 34 of 156 ends

Page 40 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7100 ● [email protected]

have deactivated their cameras or canceled their contracts with Flock. Most alarmingly, in Ventura, CA, an audit found that “out-of-state agencies accessed the Ventura County Sheriff's Office's data more than 364,000 times between February and March [2025] without the department's approval or knowledge.”6 The Sheriff’s Office in Ventura County confirmed that it had disabled the “National Look Up” feature within the Flock system, in order to comply with California law, but that the feature had been reactivated without any notice or explanation from Flock.7

Several Bay Area cities, including Santa Cruz, Mountain View, and Los Altos Hills, have paused their flock cameras after “discovering that federal agencies could search the camera data, despite the firm’s assurances otherwise.”8 The Mountain View Police Department stated in a January 2026 news release that several federal law enforcement agencies accessed its ALPR system data through the use of the “nationwide” search setting that was turned on by Flock without Mountain View Police Department’s permission or knowledge9. In Los Altos Hills, the City Council voted to “remove its Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras around town, citing concerns about data privacy, cost considerations, and overall effectiveness.”10 In each of these cities, Flock made contractual commitments to its clients and failed to abide by them.

As a Sanctuary City, the repeated violations of Flock contract terms pose a risk to the community, including but not limited to Berkeley’s immigrant residents.

Single-vendor consolidation introduces additional risks. In its March 18, 2026, letter to the City Council, the PAB explains that while there can be operational benefits to a single vendor ecosystem, there are also significant risks in integrating surveillance data and creating dependency on one private company.

Additional Recommendations

8. Refer to the City Manager to amend Ordinance 2.99 to include a violation/termination clause for surveillance technology vendors.

Establish enforceable mechanisms to sanction surveillance technology vendors for misuse, unauthorized access, or data security failures.

9. Refer to the City Manager and City Attorney additional contractual language to require a vendor to inform the City of any request for

6https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/flock-license-plate-readers-shared-data-with-out-of-state- federal-agencies/
7 Ibid.
8 https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/02/11/alameda-county-flock-cameras-privacy-debate/ 9https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/mountain-view-alpr-cameras-use-suspended-automated- license-plate-reader/
10https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/los-altos-hills-to-remove-alpr-cameras/article_59f90aa8-14c1- 4309-9f7f-12d16c649d9e.html

Page 35 of 156 ends

Page 41 ends

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● (510) 981-7100 ● [email protected]

information (including but not limited to subpoenas, discovery requests, or requests under any federal or state statute to the extent permitted by law) it receives related to City-controlled data and safeguard it to the fullest extent allowed by law.

Page 36 of 156 ends

Page 42 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###‑N.S.

APPROVING SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY , AND POLICE EQUIPMENT

ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS , AND , UPDATED USE POLICIES , AND

AUTHORIZING CONTRACTS WITH FLOCK SAFETY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY

TECHNOLOGY
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has adopted BMC 2.99, the Surveillance Technology Ordinance, which requires City Council approval of a Surveillance Acquisition Report and Surveillance Use Policy prior to the acquisition or use of new surveillance technology; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has adopted BMC 2.100, the Police Equipment Ordinance, which requires City Council approval of a Police Equipment Impact Statement and Police Equipment Use Policy for controlled military equipment, consistent with AB 481; and
WHEREAS, the Drone as First Responder (DFR) portion of the Unmanned Aerial Systems program constitutes both a new surveillance technology under BMC 2.99 and controlled military equipment under BMC 2.100, and the Police Department has prepared and published the required Surveillance Acquisition Report, Surveillance Use Policy, Impact Statement, and Police Equipment Use Policy for Council review; and WHEREAS, Community Video Streams constitute a new surveillance technology under BMC 2.99, and the Police Department has prepared and published the required Surveillance Acquisition Report and Surveillance Use Policy for Council review; and WHEREAS, fixed video cameras were previously approved by Council, and updated Surveillance Use Policies reflecting Council-directed revisions are presented for approval; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department held a community information session on January 15, 2026, to present and gather feedback on the full suite of public safety technologies, and the Police Accountability Board has had an opportunity to review and provide input on each technology through multiple public meetings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council accepted the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP) grant award of $1,000,000 on July 29, 2025, which identified investigative software as an eligible expenditure, and Flock Nova falls within that allocation; and WHEREAS, the City’s existing Flock Safety ALPR contract expires in July 2026, and renewal authority is required to maintain continuity of service; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office has negotiated a Master Services Agreement with Flock Safety that includes protections for City data ownership, restrictions on federal access consistent with the City’s sanctuary policies, financial penalties for unauth orized

Page 37 of 156 ends

Page 43 ends

Resolution No. ##,###-N.S. Page 2 of 3
disclosures, security incident notification requirements, and post -termination data protections, and Flock Safety has accepted every revision proposed by the City Attorney’s Office; and
WHEREAS, funding for the technology suite will come from eliminating up to 6 sworn officer positions, as supported by the Berkeley Police Association, resulting in a net savings to the General Fund; funding for fixed cameras is available in the General Fun d allocation designated for surveillance cameras; funding for Flock Nova is available from the BSCC SCIP grant with no General Fund impact; and
WHEREAS, all prices meet or are below those listed for the same products on the Omnia cooperative purchasing consortium, satisfying the City’s competitive procurement requirements; and
WHEREAS, Flock Safety has offered a 10% discount on new product lines if contracts are executed by the end of March 2026, representing over $100,000 in savings.

WHEREAS, the original staff recommendation for Item 26 requested authorization for the acquisition and use of multiple surveillance technologies and the execution of a master services contract with Flock Safety; and
WHEREAS, over the past year, documented security failures and unauthorized data - sharing incidents involving Flock Safety in jurisdictions such as Mountain View and Ventura County have raised significant concerns regarding the vendor’s ability to comply with Berkeley’s stated goals; and
WHEREAS, the original item requests authorization for acquisition, use, and/or contracting of the following technologies: Unmanned Aerial System (UAS), Community Video Stream (CVS), Fixed cameras, Investigative software, and Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRS); and
WHEREAS, the revised material recommends that the City Council approve the amended UAS Surveillance Use Policy, the amended UAS Military Equipment Use Policy, and the amended Fixed Camera Surveillance Use Policy; and
WHEREAS, the revised material recommends that Council refer to staff the UAS Acquisition Report and UAS Military Equipment Impact Statement to identify alternative vendors other than Flock Safety; and
WHEREAS, the revised material recommends that Council refer to staff the CVS Acquisition Report and the CVS Surveillance Use Policy for further review and feedback by the Public Safety Policy Committee; and
WHEREAS, the revised material recommends that Council reject any contract renewal, authorization, approval, or execution with Flock Safety.

Page 38 of 156 ends

Page 44 ends

Resolution No. ##,###-N.S. Page 3 of 3
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Surveillance Technology Ordinance Approvals

1. The City Council hereby accepts the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approves the amended Surveillance Use Policy for the Unmanned Aerial Systems program.

2. The City Council hereby accepts the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approves the Surveillance Use Policy for Community Video Streams.

3. The City Council hereby approves the updated Surveillance Use Policies for fixed video cameras.

Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals

4. The City Council hereby accepts the Police Equipment Impact Statement and approves the Police Equipment Use Policy for unmanned aerial systems.

5. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Council directs the following referrals to the City Manager for action:
a. Refer the Community Video Stream Acquisition Report and Surveillance Use Policy to the Public Safety Policy Committee (PSPC) for further review; request that the City Manager work at the committee level to address the PAB’s concerns and clarify operational ambiguity.

b. Refer the UAS Surveillance Acquisition Report to the City Manager for research and analysis of alternative surveillance technology vendors capable of meeting the City of Berkeley’s safety and surveillance needs while balancing privacy and civil liberties protections.

c. Refer the UAS Military Equipment Impact Statement to the City Manager for research and analysis of alternative surveillance technology vendors capable of meeting the City of Berkeley’s safety and surveillance needs while balancing privacy and civil liberties protections.

a.d. Refer to the City Manager to amend Ordinance 2.99 to include a violation/termination clause for surveillance technology vendors.

Contract Authority
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Council finds it in the public interest to reject any renewal, authorization, approval, or execution of a contract with Flock Safety.

Page 39 of 156 ends

Page 45 ends

Resolution No. ##,###-N.S. Page 4 of 3

4. The City Manager is authorized to amend the existing Contract #32400088 with Flock Group, Inc. (Flock Safety) to add Drone as First Responder hardware, software, and services for an initial three-year term, in an amount not to exceed $750,000.

5. The City Manager is authorized to amend the existing Contract #32400088 with Flock Group, Inc. (Flock Safety) to add fixed surveillance cameras for an initial four -year term, in an amount not to exceed $310,000, with an option to extend for one additional three-year term, for a total amount not to exceed $600,000.

6. The City Manager is authorized to amend the existing Contract #32400088 with Flock Group, Inc. (Flock Safety) to add Nova investigative software for a one -year term, in an amount not to exceed $75,000, funded by the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP) grant.

7. The City Manager is authorized to amend the existing Contract #32400088 with Flock Group, Inc. (Flock Safety) to renew Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) for a two-year term, in an amount not to exceed $330,000, with an option to extend for an additional two-year term, for a total amount not to exceed $660,000.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the total aggregate amount authorized under items 5 through 8 of this Resolution shall not exceed $1,465,000 for the initial contract terms, and shall not exceed $2,085,000 in the event all optional extension terms are exercised, with no individual contract term extending beyond seven years from the date of execution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute any amendments to the above contracts and the Master Services Agreement with Flock Safety, provided that any amendments do not increase the total amounts authorized herein and are consistent with the approved Use Policies and Impact Statements.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the authorized sworn officer strength of the Berkeley Police Department is hereby reduced by 3 full-time equivalent positions, effective July 1, 2026, with the resulting salary and benefit savings to fund the ongoing technology subscription costs authorized herein, the Senior Crime Analyst conversion, and the permanent funding of the Crime Analyst position that is currently grant-funded.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that grant funds received under the SCIP grant and used for the Flock Nova contract shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by this body.

The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Berkeley City Council on March 24, 2026, by the following vote:

Page 40 of 156 ends

Page 46 ends

Resolution No. ##,###-N.S. Page 5 of 3
Ayes: Bartlett, Blackaby, Humbert, Kesarwani, Lunaparra, O’Keefe, Taplin, Tregub, and Ishii.

Noes: None.

Absent: None.
__________________________
Adena Ishii, Mayor

Attest: _____________________________
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Page 41 of 156 ends

Page 47 ends

Law Enforcement Services Manual

Surveillance Use Policy-Unmanned Aerial
System (UAS)
1303.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the use of an unmanned aerial system (UAS) and for the storage, retrieval and dissemination of images and data captured by the UAS. Department personnel shall adhere to requirements for Unmanned Aerial Systems covered in this policy as well as the corresponding Use Policy - 611.

1303.2 AUTHORIZED USE

Authorized operators shall only may deploy the UAS in the following circumstances, subsequent to supervisory approval for all deployments with the sole exception of Drone as First Responder (DFR) deployments:

1. To provide real-time situational awareness during high-risk or critical incidents, such as barricaded suspects, hostage situations, active shooters, the apprehension of armed and dangerous suspects, the pre-planning and service of a warrant allowing officers to create time and distance to formulate de-escalation strategies, facilitate safe tactical planning, and reduce the need for immediate physical engagement.

2. To assist in locating lost, missing, or injured persons during search and rescue operations.

3. To rapidly respond to calls for service to verify the nature of the incident, potentially determining that a law enforcement response is unnecessary for unfounded reports or low-priority incidents, thereby acting as a resource multiplier and keeping patrol officers available for other calls.

4. To locate fleeing suspects to effectively contain perimeters and reduce the need for dangerous ground-based foot pursuits.

5. To track fleeing vehicles from a safe distance, allowing patrol units to de-escalate or terminate dangerous ground pursuits while maintaining visual contact.

6. To clear interior buildings or confined spaces remotely to prevent potentially violent encounters between officers and hidden suspects.

7. To assist the Fire Department with fire mitigation and suppression, hazardous materials releases, or disaster response and recovery.

Policy
1303

Page 42 of 156 ends

Page 48 ends

8. To remotely inspect potential explosive devices or hazardous objects.

9. To document complex crime scenes, accident scenes, or areas where an aerial perspective is critical for the investigation.

10. To respond to active criminal activity at mass gatherings or special events.

11. To mitigate hazards caused by other UAS interfering with emergency operations.

12. For pilot certification training and maintenance of proficiency.

13. To address other unforeseen exigent circumstances where there is an imminent threat to public safety, provided the deployment is consistent with the general privacy and safety principles of this policy.

1303.3 PROHIBITED USE

The UAS shall not be used:

1. To conduct random or arbitrary surveillance activities. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, first amendment assemblies in accordance with Policy 428 First Amendment Assemblies.

2. To target a person based solely on actual or perceived characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, or disability.

3. To harass, intimidate, or discriminate against any individual or group.

Furthermore, the UAS shall not be equipped with:

1. Facial recognition software

2. Biometric analysis capabilities

3. Weapons of any kind, including lethal or non-lethal munitions.

1303.4 DATA COLLECTION

Data collection shall be limited to video (visible and infrared) and associated telemetry (e.g., flight path, altitude) necessary for safe flight operations and situational awareness.

The UAS will capture real-time video to assist pilots in navigating safely and assessing authorized scenes. These recordings shall be utilized solely for legitimate law enforcement purposes, including criminal investigations, administrative reviews, and training, in strict accordance with state laws and Department policy.

1303.5 DATA ACCESS

Page 43 of 156 ends

Page 49 ends

Access to videos shall be limited to authorized personnel with a legitimate law enforcement or administrative need. Any release or access to videos by third parties requires prior authorization and shall be limited to legally authorized agencies or pursuant to a valid court order.

1303.6 DATA PROTECTION

The Department shall implement and maintain comprehensive data security protocols to preserve the integrity, confidentiality, and lawful use of UAS videos. Video recording shall occur only during authorized operations and shall not include continuous or passive surveillance.

1303.7 CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS PROTECTIONS

The Department acknowledges that UAS operations involve inherent privacy considerations, specifically the risk of inadvertently capturing footage of private areas (e.g., backyards or through windows) or uninvolved community members. To address this, the Department prioritizes civil liberties by restricting recording to authorized missions and strictly adhering to the restrictions on random surveillance outlined in Section 611.6 (Prohibited Use).

To safeguard these rights, UAS operations shall adhere to the following restrictions:

1. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to FAA regulations and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., residence, yard, enclosure).

2. Operators and observers shall take reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertently recording or transmitting images of uninvolved community members or areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Cameras shall be diverted away from private spaces when not actively engaged in a permitted use.

3. For DFR operations, cameras shall be programmed to orient toward the horizon (preventing ground recording) while in transit to a call for service and shall only be directed toward the scene upon arrival at the authorized location.

1303.8 DATA RETENTION

UAS footage should be purged by BPD within 5 60 days if it does not contain any data of evidentiary value. If the data has evidentiary value, it should be uploaded into BPD's evidence database and kept pursuant to the established retention guidelines set forth in policy 804-Records Maintenance and Release.

1303.9 PUBLIC ACCESS

Page 44 of 156 ends

Page 50 ends

Unauthorized use, duplication, and/or distribution of UAS camera footage is prohibited.

Personnel shall not make copies of any UAS camera footage for their personal use and are prohibited from using a recording device such as a personal camera or any secondary video camera to capture UAS camera footage.

All UAS camera footage is property of the Berkeley Police Department and shall not be copied, released or disseminated in any form or manner outside the parameters of established policy, procedure, or laws.

The Custodian of Records, or their designee, will be responsible for handling requests for UAS camera footage.

1303.10 THIRD PARTY DATA SHARING

Pursuant to the Records Maintenance and Release policy, data collected from the UAS may only be shared with other law enforcement agencies on a case-by-case basis in connection with an active investigation, or in response to a lawful judicial warrant or court order in compliance with state and local law.

1303.11 TRAINING

The Program Coordinator will coordinate training of PICs and Visual Observers. The training course and materials will be approved through the training staff. An approved department instructor will oversee all training. Each training session will be documented and forwarded to the Policy and Training Bureau Sergeant.

1303.12 AUDITING AND OVERSIGHT

Division Captains or their designee shall ensure compliance with this Surveillance Use Policy.

The Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability shall conduct monthly biennial audits of UAS use. A report of these audits shall be published semiannually and should be sent to the Police Accountability Board.

Intentional violation of this policy may serve as grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to the Policy 1010, Personnel Complaints policy.

1303.13 MAINTENANCE

All UAS maintenance shall be conducted by the owner/operator of the device consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications and as needed based on UAS usage.

Page 45 of 156 ends

Page 51 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations
611 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

611.1 DEFINITIONS

Drone as First Responder (DFR) - A mode of operation where a UAS is deployed immediately in response to a call for service or other emergency. This mode of operation provides real-time aerial situational awareness to dispatchers, analysts and responding officers, assisting in the assessment of incidents, the coordination of resources, and the potential de-escalation or clearance of calls without the need for immediate physical police presence.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – An entity of the federal government that regulates all aspects of civil aviation.

Pilot in Command (PIC) –Trained officer who is the sole person responsible for the operation of the UAS.

Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) - An unmanned aircraft of any type that is capable of sustaining directed flight, whether preprogrammed or remotely controlled (commonly referred to as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)), and all of the supporting or attached systems designed for gathering information through imaging, recording or any other means.

Visual Observer –Trained officer who may act as a spotter for PIC to assist in navigating the UAS and avoidance of hazards.

611.2 POLICY

Unmanned aerial systems may be utilized for the purpose of enhancing the department's mission to safeguard our diverse community by enabling remote visual assessment and real-time situational awareness in the situations specified in this policy.

Any use of a UAS will also be in strict accordance with BMC 13.114 Sanctuary City Ordinance, constitutional and privacy rights, and FAA regulations.

Policy
611

Page 46 of 156 ends

Page 52 ends

All uses of the UAS shall be reported in compliance with the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) 2.99 Surveillance Technology Ordinance, and BMC 2.100 Police Equipment Ordinance.

611.3 PRIVACY

To safeguard these rights, UAS operations shall adhere to the following restrictions:

1) Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to FAA regulations and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., residence, yard, enclosure).

2) Operators and observers shall take reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertently recording or transmitting images of uninvolved community members or areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Cameras shall be diverted away from private spaces when not actively engaged in a permitted use.

3) For DFR operations, cameras shall be programmed to orient toward the horizon (preventing ground recording) while in transit to a call for service and shall only be directed toward the scene upon arrival at the authorized location.

611.4 PROGRAM COORDINATOR

The Police Chief will appoint a program coordinator who will be responsible for the management of the UAS program. The program coordinator will ensure that policies and procedures conform to current laws, regulations, and best practices.

611.5 PERMITTED USE

1) To provide real-time situational awareness during high-risk or critical incidents, such as barricaded suspects, hostage situations, active shooters, the apprehension of armed and dangerous suspects, the pre-planning and service of a warrant allowing officers to create time and distance to formulate de-escalation strategies, facilitate safe tactical planning, and reduce the need for immediate physical engagement.

Page 47 of 156 ends

Page 53 ends

2) To assist in locating lost, missing, or injured persons during search and rescue operations.
3) To rapidly respond to calls for service to verify the nature of the incident, potentially determining that a law enforcement response is unnecessary for unfounded reports or low-priority incidents, thereby acting as a resource multiplier and keeping patrol officers available for other calls.
4) To locate fleeing suspects to effectively contain perimeters and reduce the need for dangerous ground-based foot pursuits.
5) To track fleeing vehicles from a safe distance, allowing patrol units to de-escalate or terminate dangerous ground pursuits while maintaining visual contact. 6) To clear interior buildings or confined spaces remotely to prevent potentially violent encounters between officers and hidden suspects.
7) To assist the Fire Department with fire mitigation and suppression, hazardous materials releases, or disaster response and recovery.
8) To remotely inspect potential explosive devices or hazardous objects. 9) To document complex crime scenes, accident scenes, or areas where an aerial perspective is critical for the investigation.
10) To respond to active criminal activity at mass gatherings or special events. 11) To mitigate hazards caused by other UAS interfering with emergency operations. 12) For pilot certification training and maintenance of proficiency. 13) To address other unforeseen exigent circumstances where there is an imminent threat to public safety, provided the deployment is consistent with the general privacy and safety principles of this policy.
611.6 PROHIBITED USE

1) The UAS shall not be used:

a) To conduct random or arbitrary surveillance activities. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, first amendment assemblies in accordance with Policy 428 First Amendment Assemblies.

b) To target a person based solely on actual or perceived characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, or disability.

c) To harass, intimidate, or discriminate against any individual or group.

2) Furthermore, the UAS shall not be equipped with:

a) Facial recognition software

Page 48 of 156 ends

Page 54 ends

b) Biometric analysis capabilities

c) Weapons of any kind, including lethal or non-lethal munitions.

611.7 TRAINING

611.8 RETENTION REQUIREMENTS

UAS footage should be purged by BPD within 5 60 days if it doesn't contain any data of evidentiary value. If the data has evidentiary value, it should be uploaded into BPD's evidence database and kept pursuant to the established retention guidelines set forth in policy 804-Records Maintenance and Release.

611.9 RELEASE OF RECORDINGS

1) Unauthorized use, duplication, and/or distribution of UAS camera footage is prohibited. Personnel shall not make copies of any UAS camera footage for their personal use and are prohibited from using a recording device such as a personal camera or any secondary video camera to capture UAS camera footage.

2) All UAS camera footage is property of the Berkeley Police Department and shall not be copied, released or disseminated in any form or manner outside the parameters of established policy, procedure, or laws.

3) The Custodian of Records, or their designee, will be responsible for handling requests for UAS camera footage.

Page 49 of 156 ends

Page 55 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras
351.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides guidance for the placement and monitoring of City of Berkeley external fixed video surveillance cameras by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD).

This policy only applies to fixed, overt, marked external video surveillance systems utilized by the BPD. It does not apply to mobile audio/video systems, covert audio/video systems or any other image-capturing devices used by the Department, as authorized by the City Council for use by other City Departments. BPD Personnel shall adhere to the requirements for External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras covered in this policy as well as the corresponding Surveillance Use Policy -1304.

351.2 POLICY
The Berkeley Police Department utilizes a video surveillance system to enhance its anti -crime strategy, to effectively allocate and deploy personnel, and to enhance safety and security in public areas. As specified by this policy, cameras may be placed in strategic locations throughout the City to record, deter, and solve crimes, to help the City safeguard against potential threats to the public, and to help manage emergency response situations during natural and human -made disasters, among other uses specified in Section 351.3.1.

Video surveillance in public areas will be conducted in a legal and ethical manner while recognizing and protecting constitutional standards of privacy.

351.3 OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
Only City Council -approved video surveillance equipment shall be utilized. BPD members authorized to review video surveillance may only record and review public areas and public activities where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists and pursuant to Section 351.3.1. The City Manager shall obtain Council approval of any proposed additional locations for the placement and use of video surveillance technology.
351.3.1 PLACEMENT REVIEW AND MONITORING
Camera placement will only occur in locations approved by the City Council and will be guided by this policy and the underlying purpose or strategy associated with the overall video surveillance plan. As appropriate, the Chief of Police should confer with other affected City departments when evaluating camera placement. Environmental factors, including lighting, location of buildings, presence of vegetation or other obstructions, should also be evaluated when determining placement.

Camera placement includes existing cameras such as those located at San Pablo Park, the Berkeley Marina, and cameras placed in Council identified and approved intersections throughout the City, and potential future camera locations as approved by City Council.

Current City Council approved location
Policy
351

Page 50 of 156 ends

Page 56 ends

• 6th Street at University Avenue
• San Pablo Avenue at University Avenue
• 7th Street at Dwight Way
• San Pablo Avenue at Dwight Way
• 7th Street at Ashby Avenue
• San Pablo Avenue at Ashby Avenue
• Sacramento Street at Ashby Avenue
• College Avenue at Ashby Avenue
• Claremont Avenue at Ashby Avenue
• 62nd Street at King Street
The cameras shall only record video images and not sound. Recorded images pursuant to Section 351.5 may be accessed, reviewed, and used for specific criminal or BPD administrative investigations and video surveillance may be accessed and reviewed by authorized BPD personnel for the following purposes:
(a) To support specific and active criminal investigations. (b) To support serious traffic-related investigations.
(c) To support police misconduct investigations,
(d) To respond to and review critical incidents or natural disasters.

Unauthorized recording, viewing, reproduction, dissemination, or retention of video footage is prohibited.
351.3.2 FIXED CAMERA MARKINGS
All public areas monitored by video surveillance equipment shall be marked in a conspicuous manner with unobstructed signs to inform the public that the area is under police surveillance. 351.3.3 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER TECHNOLOGY
The Department may integrate technologies not otherwise prohibited with the video surveillance system, provided that such use does not conflict with this policy or expand internal or external access beyond what is allowed by policy. For example, integration may occur on a shared access platform where video data and automated license plate reader data are viewable in the same system.
351.4 VIDEO SUPERVISION
Access to video surveillance camera data shall be limited to Berkeley Police Department (BPD) personnel utilizing the camera database for uses authorized above, with technical assistance from Public Works Department and Department of Information Technology personnel. Information may be shared in accordance with Sections 351.6 or 1304.9 below. BPD members seeking access to the camera system shall obtain the approval of the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee.

Page 51 of 156 ends

Page 57 ends

Supervisors should monitor video surveillance access and usage to ensure BPD members are complying with this policy, other applicable department policy, and applicable laws. Supervisors should ensure such use and access is appropriately documented. 351.4.1 VIDEO LOG
No one without authorization will be allowed to login and view the recordings. Those who are authorized and login should automatically trigger the audit trail function to ensure compliance with the guidelines and policy.
351.4.2 PROHIBITED ACTIVITY
Video surveillance systems will not intentionally be used to invade the privacy of individuals or observe areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

Video surveillance systems shall not be used in an unequal or discriminatory manner and shall not target protected individual characteristics including, but not limited to race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

Video surveillance equipment shall not be used to harass, intimidate or discriminate against any individual or group.

Video surveillance systems and recordings are subject to the Berkeley Police Department's Immigration Law Policy, and hence may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials, unless required by federal law.

Recordings of incidents involving use of force by a police officer or involving, detentions, arrests, or recordings relevant to a formal or informal complaint against a sworn police officer shall be retained for a minimum of two years and o ne month. Recordings relating to court cases and complaints against BPD sworn officers that are being adjudicated will be manually deleted at the same time other evidence associated with the case is purged in line with the Department's Evidence Retention policy. Any recordings related to a police misconduct investigation shall be maintained until such matter is fully adjudicated, at which time it shall be deleted in line with the Department's ERvidence Retention policy, and any applicable orders from the court.

Any recordings needed as evidence in a criminal or police misconduct proceeding shall be copied to a suitable medium and booked into evidence in accordance with current evidence procedures. 351.5.1 EVIDENTIARY INTEGRITY
All media downloaded and retained pursuant to this Policy shall be treated in the same manner

as other evidence. Media shall be accessed, maintained, stored and retrieved in a manner that ensures its integrity as evidence, including strict adherence to chain of custody requirements.

Page 52 of 156 ends

Page 58 ends

Electronic trails, including encryption, digital masking of innocent or uninvolved individuals to preserve anonymity, authenticity certificates and date and time stamping, shall be used as appropriate to preserve individual rights and to ensure the authent icity and maintenance of a secure evidentiary chain of custody.
351.6 RELEASE OF VIDEO IMAGES
Data collected and used in a police report shall be made available to the public in accordance with department policy and applicable state or federal law, also referenced in Policy 1304.8.

Requests for recorded video images from the public or the media shall be processed in the same manner as requests for department public records pursuant to Policy 804, Records Maintenance and Release.

Requests for recorded video from other law enforcement agencies shall be referred to the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee for release in accordance with this policy and must be related to a specific active criminal investigation.

Requests for recorded video from the Office of Director of Police Accountability and Police Accountability Board shall be referred to the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee, for release in accordance with Charter Article XVIII, Section 25, Subdivision (20)(a).

Recorded video images that are the subject of a court order or subpoena shall be processed in accordance with the established department subpoena process.

The Chief of Police will report any request from federal immigration authorities, vendor, or any non-local agency to access data for federal immigration enforcement purposes within 10 days of receiving the request.

In the event a Federal Agency is given BPD-owned data stored with Flock, the Berkeley Police Chief or designee will notify the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Council within 72 hours of the discovery of the incident.

351.7 VIDEO SURVEILLANCE AUDIT
The video surveillance software generates a site log each time the system is accessed. The site log is broken down by server, device, user or general access. The site log is kept on the server for two years and is exportable for reporting. System audits wi ll be conducted by the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability (OSPA) on a regular basis, at least monthly biennial. A report of these audits shall be published semiannually, and should be sent to the Police Accountability Board. As part of the audit, OSPA will confirm that BPD doesn’t enter any direct data sharing agreements or give direct access to outside agencies. A log of any instance of when surveillance footage has been shared, including date, time, reasons for search, and any recipient agencies.

BPD will enforce against prohibited uses of the cameras pursuant to Policy 1010, Personnel Complaints, or other applicable law or policy. The City Manager shall enforce against any prohibited use of cameras and/or access to data by other City of Berkeley personnel.

Page 53 of 156 ends

Page 59 ends

documentation shall be published on the City of Berkeley website in an appropriate location, and retained within the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability.

351.8 TRAINING
All department members authorized to operate or access video surveillance systems shall receive appropriate training. Training should include guidance on the use of cameras, associated software, and review of relevant policies and procedures, including this policy, as well as review of relevant City of Berkeley laws and regulations. Training should also address state and federal law related to the use of video surveillance equipment and privacy. All relevant recordings that are utilized will be collected pursuant to Policy 802, Property and Evidence, and retained pursuant to Policy 804, Records and Maintenance.

351.9 MAINTENANCE
It shall be the responsibility of the Public Works Director to facilitate and coordinate any updates and required maintenance, with access limited to that detailed in the City Manager's promulgated policies.

Page 54 of 156 ends

Page 60 ends

Page 62 of 90 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

Surveillance Use Policy -External Fixed
Video Surveillance Cameras
1304.1 PURPOSE
This policy provides guidance for the use of City of Berkeley external fixed video surveillance cameras by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD).

This policy only applies to fixed, overt, marked external video surveillance systems utilized by BPD. It does not apply to mobile audio/video systems, covert audio/video systems or any other image-capturing devices used by the Department. Department person nel shall adhere to the requirements for External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras covered in this policy as well as the corresponding Use Policy-351.

This Surveillance Use Policy is legally-enforceable pursuant to BMC 2.99.

1304.2 AUTHORIZED USE
Only BPD members who receive training on this policy, who are then granted access by an administrator may access the data from the video surveillance cameras. This data may only be accessed to further a legitimate law enforcement purpose, as listed in this Policy. Members must follow the necessary logging mechanisms, such as case number and case type when querying the database.

The cameras shall only record video images and not sound. Recorded images pursuant to Section 351.5 may be accessed, reviewed, and used for specific criminal or BPD administrative investigations and video surveillance may be accessed and reviewed by author ized BPD personnel for the following purposes:
(a) To support specific and active criminal investigations. (b) To support serious traffic-related investigations.
(c) To support police misconduct investigations, and
(d) To respond to and review critical incidents or natural disasters.

Unauthorized recording, viewing, reproduction, dissemination, or retention of video footage is prohibited.

Policy
1304

Page 55 of 156 ends

Page 61 ends

Surveillance Use Policy-External Fixed Surveillance Cameras

(c) Video surveillance systems shall not be used in an unequal or discriminatory manner and shall not target protected individual characteristics including, but not limited to race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation. (d) Video surveillance equipment shall not be used to harass, intimidate or discriminate against any individual or group.
(e) Video surveillance systems and recordings are subject to the Berkeley Police Department's Immigration Law Policy, and hence may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials, unless required by federal law. (f) Video recordings shall not be disclosed to law enforcement agencies from other states if the purpose of the request is to support the enforcement of laws that restrict or criminalize reproductive rights or rights regarding the provision or receipt of gende r- affirming care.

1304.3 DATA COLLECTION
The cameras will film and store video on City of Berkeley encrypted servers. License plate and facial recognition data hardware is not installed on the cameras and may not be installed or used unless approved by the City council. Audio is a standard feature of the camera, but is deactivated by the system administrator and may not be activated or used unless approved by the City Council. Surveillance camera data shall be wholly owned by the City of Berkeley.

1304.4 DATA ACCESS
Access to video surveillance cameras data shall be limited to BPD personnel utilizing the camera database for uses described above and pursuant to Use Policy 351, with technical assistance from Public Works Department and Department of Information Technology personnel. Information may be shared in accordance with 1304.9 below. BPD members seeking access to the video surveillance system shall obtain the approval of the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee.

Supervisors should monitor camera access and usage to ensure BPD members are complying with this policy, other applicable department policy, and applicable laws. Supervisors should ensure such use and access is appropriately documented.

1304.5 DATA PROTECTION
All data transferred from the cameras and the servers shall be encrypted. Access to the data must be obtained through the Public Works Department according to this policy and published regulations that limit access and use of data by Public Works and other City Departments and personnel. All system access including system log-in, access duration, and data access points is accessible and reportable and shall be documented by the Public Works Department's authorized administrator. All relevant recordings that are utilized will be collected pursuant to Policy 802, Property and Evidence, and retained pursuant to Policy 804 Records and Maintenance.

1304.6 CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS PROTECTION
The Berkeley Police Department is dedicated to the most efficient utilization of its resources and services in its public safety endeavors. The Berkeley Police Department recognizes the need to protect its ownership and control over shared information and to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the public, in accordance with federal and state law. Provisions of this policy, including

Page 56 of 156 ends

Page 62 ends

Surveillance Use Policy-External Fixed Surveillance Cameras

1304.4 Data Access, 1304.5 Data Protection, 1304.7 Data Retention, 1304.8 Public Access and 1304.9 Third Party Data Sharing serve to protect against any unauthorized use of video surveillance camera data. License plate and facial recognition data hardware is not installed on the cameras. Audio is a standard feature of the camera, but is deact ivated by the system administrator. These procedures ensure the data is not used in a way that would violate or infringe upon anyone's civil rights and/or liberties, including but not limited to potentially disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups.

1304.7 DATA RETENTION
Video surveillance recordings are not government records pursuant to California Government Code 34090 in and of themselves. Except as otherwise permitted in this section, video surveillance recordings shall be purged within one hundred and eighty (180) day s of recording.

Recordings of incidents involving use of force by a police officer or involving detentions, arrests, or recordings relevant to a formal or informal complaint against a police officer shall be retained for a minimum of two years and one mont h. Recordings relating to court cases and complaints against BPD sworn officers that are being adjudicated will be manually deleted at the same time other evidence associated with the case is purged in line with the Department's evidence retention policy. Any recordings related to BPD administrative proceedings pursuant to this section shall be maintained until such matter is fully adjudicated, at which time it shall be deleted in line with the Department's evidence retention policy, and any applicable orde rs from the court. All data will automatically delete after the aforementioned retention period by the System Administrator from Public Works.

Any recordings needed as evidence in a criminal or police misconduct proceeding shall be copied to a suitable medium and booked into evidence in accordance with current evidence procedures.

This policy reaffirms the City Manager’s authority, which may be delegated to the Berkeley Police Chief, to pause or end the deployment of the subject equipment at any time and for any cause.

The City Council shall be, within 48 hours, notified of any such decision to pause or end its deployment.

1304.8 PUBLIC ACCESS
Data collected and used in a police report shall be made available to the public in accordance with department policy and applicable state or federal law.

Requests for recorded video images from the public or the media shall be processed in the same manner as requests for department public records pursuant to Policy 804.

Recorded video images that are the subject of a court order or subpoena shall be processed in accordance with the established department subpoena process.

1304.9 THIRD-PARTY DATA-SHARING
Requests for recorded video from other law enforcement agencies shall be referred to the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee for release in accordance with this policy, and must be related to a specific active criminal investigation. Data collected from the video surveillance system may be shared with the following:

Page 57 of 156 ends

Page 63 ends

Surveillance Use Policy-External Fixed Surveillance Cameras

(a) The District Attorney's Office for use as evidence to aid in prosecution, in accordance with laws governing evidence;

(b) Other law enforcement personnel as part of an active criminal investigation; (c) Recorded video images that are the subject of a court order or subpoena shall be processed in accordance with the established department subpoena process Requests for recorded video from the Office of Director of Police Accountability and Police Accountability Board shall be referred to the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee, for release in accordance with Charter Article XVIII, Section 125, Subdivision (20)(a). The Chief of Police will report any request from federal immigration authorities, vendor, or any non-local agency to access data for federal immigration enforcement purposes within 10 days of receiving the request.

In the event a Federal Agency is given BPD -owned data stored with Flock, the Berkeley Police Chief or designee will notify the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Council within 72 hours of the discovery of the incident.

1304.10 TRAINING
All BPD members authorized to operate or access video surveillance systems shall receive appropriate training. Training should include guidance on the use of cameras, associated software, and review of relevant policies and procedures, including this polic y as well as review of relevant City of Berkeley laws and regulations.

Training should also address state and federal law related to the use of video surveillance equipment and privacy. All relevant recordings that are utilized will be collected pursuant to Policy 802 Property and Evidence, and retained pursuant to Policy 804 Records Maintenance.

1304.11 AUDITING AND OVERSIGHT
The video surveillance software generates a site log each time the system is accessed. The site log is broken down by server, device, user or general access. The site log is kept on the server for two years and is exportable for reporting. External fixed v ideo surveillance camera system audits will be conducted by the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability (OSPA) on a regular basis, at least monthly biennial. A report of these audits will be published semiannually and sent to the Police Accountability Board. As part of the audit, OSPA will confirm that BPD doesn’t enter any direct data sharing agreements or give direct access to outside agencies. A log of any instance of when surveillance video and/or audio data has been shared, including date, time, reasons for search, and any recipient agencies.

BPD will enforce against prohibited uses of this policy pursuant to Policy 1010, Personnel Complaints or other applicable law or policy. The City Manager shall enforce against any prohibited use of the cameras and/or access to data by other City of Berkeley personnel.

Page 58 of 156 ends

Page 64 ends

Surveillance Use Policy-External Fixed Surveillance Cameras

1304.12 ACCOUNTABILITY
All saved data will be safeguarded and protected by both procedural and technological means.

The Berkeley Police Department will observe the following safeguards regarding access to and use of stored data:
(a) Non-law enforcement requests for access to stored external fixed video surveillance camera data shall be processed according to the Records Maintenance and Release Policy in accordance with applicable law.
(b) All external fixed video surveillance camera data downloaded to any workstation or server shall be accessible only through a login/password -protected system capable of documenting all access of information by name, date and time. (c) Berkeley Police Department members approved to access external fixed video surveillance camera data under these guidelines are permitted to access the data for legitimate California law enforcement purposes only, such as when the data relate to a specific criminal investigation or department-related civil or administrative action. (d) Aggregated external fixed video surveillance camera data not related to specific criminal investigations shall not be released to any local, state or federal agency or entity without the consent of the Chief of Police or City Manager. (e) Measures will be taken to ensure the accuracy of external fixed video surveillance camera information. Errors discovered in external fixed video surveillance camera data collected by external fixed video surveillance camera units shall be marked, corrected or deleted in accordance with the type and severity of the error in question. (f) Such external fixed video surveillance camera data may be released to other authorized and verified law enforcement officials and agencies for legitimate California law enforcement purposes.
(g) Every external fixed video surveillance camera browsing inquiry must be documented by either the associated Berkeley Police case number or incident number, and/or a reason for the inquiry. For security or data breaches, see the Records Release and Maintenance Policy.

1304.13 MAINTENANCE
It shall be the responsibility of the Public Works Department to facilitate and coordinate any updates and required maintenance with access limited to that detailed in the City Manager's promulgated policies.

Page 59 of 156 ends

Page 65 ends

Berkeley City Councilmember
Mark Humbert, District 8
2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
[email protected]
www.MarkHumbert.com
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 [email protected] Tel: 510.981.7180

SUPPLEMENTAL

AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 2

Meeting Date: March 24, 2026
Item Number: 26
Item Description: Public Safety Technology: Surveillance Technology Ordinance and Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals, Policy Updates, and Contract Authority

Submitted by: Councilmember Humbert;
Councilmember O’Keefe;
Councilmember Taplin;
Councilmember Kesarwani

Directs the City Manager and City Attorney to add requirements for the Flock Safety Master Services Agreement (MSA) that accomplish the following: (1) increase the financial penalty for unauthorized data sharing from $75,000 to $150,000 per violation; (2) establish a termination for convenience right under which the City is not refunded for payments already made but is not obligated for the remaining contract value; (3) limit Flock's license to use anonymized data to the term of the Agreement rather than in perpetuity; (4) require Flock to obtain the City's prior written consent before making any changes to the City's data-sharing settings or configurations; (5) make revisions to the Special Terms section to clarify the MSA may not be modified without City Council approval; and (6) remove the Amendment and incorporate provisions on restrictions on data sharing into the MSA and stipulate such provisions shall not be modified by subsequent Flock amendment or attachments without further City Council approval.

Page 60 of 156 ends

Page 66 ends

Berkeley City Councilmember
Mark Humbert, District 8
2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
[email protected]
www.MarkHumbert.com

Page 1 of 3 ends

ACTION CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
To: Members of the Berkeley City Council
From: Councilmember Mark Humbert (Author);
Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe (Co-Author);
Councilmember Terry Taplin (Co-Author);
Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani (Co-Author)
Subject: Item 26. Public Safety Technology: Surveillance Technology Ordinance and Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals, Policy Updates, and Contract Authority

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the following additional requirements for the Flock Safety Master Services Agreement (MSA). The City Manager and City Attorney shall ensure, prior to execution of the MSA, that the Agreement incorporates provisions that accomplish the following:
(1) increase the financial penalty for unauthorized data sharing from $75,000 to $150,000 per violation; (2) establish a termination for convenience right under which the City is not refunded for payments already made but is not obligated for the remaining contract value; (3) limit Flock's license to use anonymized data to the term of the Agreement rather than in perpetuity; (4) require Flock to obtain the City's prior written consent before making any changes to the City's data-sharing settings or configurations; (5) revise the Special Terms section to clarify the MSA may not be modified without City Council approval; and (6) remove the Amendment and incorporate provisions on restrictions on data sharing into the MSA and stipulate such provisions shall not be modified by subsequent Flock amendment or attachments without further City Council approval. (See additional detail below.)

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None. The proposed amendments do not alter the contract price. The termination for convenience provision would limit the City’s financial exposure in the event of early termination by ensuring no further payments are owed beyond those already made.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On March 11, 2026, the Police Accountability Board (PAB) forwarded a letter to the City Council raising concerns about the proposed Flock Safety contract, including the vendor’s data-sharing practices, its relationships with federal agencies, and the adequacy of existing contractual safeguards. On March 18, 2026, Mayor Ishii convened a community meeting at which residents voiced similar concerns regarding data privacy, the scope of Flock’s license to use City data, and the City’s ability to exit the contract if circumstances change.

Page 61 of 156 ends

Page 67 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

In light of the PAB's recommendations and the concerns raised by community members, this supplemental proposes the following six targeted amendments to the MSA to materially strengthen the City's position.

The City Manager should work with the City Attorney and Flock to incorporate language substantially similar to the following into the Agreement:

1. The current draft MSA includes a $75,000 per-violation penalty for unauthorized sharing of Customer Data. Increasing this amount to $150,000 per violation serves as a more meaningful deterrent and better reflects the City’s expectations around data stewardship.

2. Adding a provision allowing the City to terminate the Agreement for convenience upon thirty (30) days’ written notice. Under this provision, fees already paid to Flock would be non-refundable (excepting any penalties), but the City would not be liable for any remaining payments that would otherwise come due under the contract. This structure gives the City a clear exit path if it determines the services are no longer in the City’s interest.

3. The current draft grants Flock a license to use anonymized data derived from Customer Data and Customer Generated Data. This license should be expressly limited to the Term of the Agreement, rather than extending in perpetuity.

Restricting the duration of this license ensures that Flock’s right to use anonymized data ends when the contractual relationship ends, consistent with the City’s interest in maintaining long-term control over information derived from its operations.

4. S pecify that Flock shall not make any hardware/software modifications that change the scope of data access or sharing without obtaining the City’s prior written consent. Routine maintenance, bug fixes, and security patches that do not affect the scope of data access or sharing would not require prior consent.

This safeguard addresses community concerns that platform-level configuration changes could inadvertently expand data access without the City’s knowledge or approval.

5. Revise the Special Terms section to require that any changes to the MSA subsequent to its final execution by City staff will require action by the City Council.

6. Remove the Amendment at the end of the MSA and integrate provisions regarding data access, sharing, and security into the main body of the MSA, and prohibit any subsequent changes to these provisions by way of amendments, addenda, “customer agreements,” or attachments, unless approved by additional Council action. These integrated provisions should ensure that Flock is prohibited from providing any City data in response to a legal request or demand without notifying the City and obtaining the City’s written consent to disclosure. This prohibition shall not apply if and only if Flock is both required by law to produce the data in response to the request or demand and prohibited by law from informing the City about the request or demand.

Page 62 of 156 ends

Page 68 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

BACKGROUND
The six amendments recommended above are responsive to community concerns and are consistent with the City’s obligations under Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 2.99 and the City’s Sanctuary City policies. Staff believes these provisions are achievable and, based on discussions with Flock to date, expects the vendor to accept them.

Adopting these requirements would allow Council to act on the MSA without a return to Council for further approval.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None (relative to original item).

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Mark Humbert — [email protected], 510-981-7180

Page 63 of 156 ends

Page 69 ends

Brent Blackaby
Councilmember District 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7160 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7166 E-Mail: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTAL

AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 2

Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Item Number: #26

Item Description: Public Safety Technology: Surveillance Technology Ordinance and Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals, Policy Updates, and Contract Authority

Submitted by: Councilmember Blackaby

Recommending requirements for the Flock Safety Master Services Agreement (MSA) and a referral to the City Manager for additional BPD reporting during implementation and early months of operation.

Page 64 of 156 ends

Page 70 ends

Brent Blackaby
Councilmember District 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected]

ACTION CALENDAR
March 24, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Blackaby
Subject: Public Safety Technology: Surveillance Technology Ordinance and Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals, Policy Updates, and Contract Authority

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt additional requirements to the Flock Safety Master Services Agreement (MSA) to reduce the risk of unauthorized data sharing, increase accountability of Flock around system performance and data privacy, and maximize contract flexibility for the City.

In addition, make a referral to the City Manager for more frequent BPD Public Safety Technology program reports to maximize oversight during implementation and reduce the chances of long-undetected data breaches.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Before executing the Flock Safety Master Services Agreement (MSA), the following requirements should be added to the MSA:

1. Increase the penalty Flock pays if they cause an unauthorized sharing, from $
75,000 to $150,000 per violation. (FLOCK GROUP INC. AMENDMENT, p.89)

2. Allow the City of Berkeley to terminate the MSA for convenience at any time.

3. Ensure contract is structured for annual payments ins tead of paying in full up-
front for the life of the contract; if City decides to terminate the contract early, no subsequent future payments will be made.

More frequent BPD Public Safety Technology program reports should also take place as off-agenda memos from City Manager to City Council that can be moved to Action Calendar during Council meetings:

1. Quarterly reports until installation is complete, including but not limited to:

Page 65 of 156 ends

Page 71 ends

Public Safety Technology ACTION CALENDAR
March 24, 2026

Page 2 ends

a. Update on installation progress and timeline for each component including Unmanned Aerial Systems, Community Video Streams, fixed cameras, ALPRs, Flock Nova software, and Real-Time Information Center (RTIC) b. Early results for any components that go live before full system is operational
c. Any issues or concerns that arise during installation

2. Monthly reports once the system is in use, for the first six months of operation, including but not limited to:
a. Early results and performance evaluation of each component b. Any issues or concerns observed
c. Proposed solutions or fixes
d. Short case-studies or synopses of major cases supported using the new technology

3. Thereafter, align with existing practices for auditing and reporting on ALPR technology
a. Include audits for all RTIC surveillance components as part of the existing biennial (2x/year) audit process for ALPRs, shared with PAB within 30 days of completion of each audit
b. Include review of all RTIC surveillance components in the Annual Surveillance Technology report.

BACKGROUND
Public Safety Technology plays a critical role in supporting the Berkeley Police Department’s investigations, enhancing officer safety, and strengthening overall public safety. However, Flock’s documented unauthorized sharing of surveillance data underscores the need for more robust safeguards in the Master Services Agreement, as well as enhanced program reporting, to ensure full transparency and informed oversight as we move forward with this contract.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Brent Blackaby Council District 6 510-981-7160

Page 66 of 156 ends

Page 72 ends

Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

ACTION CALENDAR
May 7, 2026
(Continued from March 24, 2026)
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police
Subject: Public Safety Technology: Surveillance Technology Ordinance and Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals, Policy Updates, and Contract Authority

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the following actions:

Surveillance Technology Ordinance (BMC 2.99)

1. Accept the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approve the Surveillance Use Policy for the Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) program.

2. Accept the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approve the Surveillance Use Policy for Community Video Streams.

3. Approve updated Surveillance Use Policies for fixed video cameras, reflecting Council-directed revisions to previously approved technology.

Police Equipment Ordinance (BMC 2.100)

4. Accept the Police Equipment Impact Statement and approve the Police Equipment Use Policy for UAS.

Contract Authority

Page 67 of 156 ends

Page 73 ends

SUMMARY
This item requests City Council approval to advance the Berkeley Police Department’s (BPD) public safety technology program through a consolidated set of actions. Only two of the technologies presented here are new to the City: the Drone as First Responder (DFR) program and a Community Video Streams integration. All other items involve renewals, extensions, or policy updates to technologies previously reviewed and approved by Council.

Consolidating these actions into a single item reflects the operational and fiscal advantages of maintaining the City’s public safety technology within one integrated platform. Flock Safety is the sole vendor capable of delivering these capabilities under a single Master Services Agreement (MSA), which has been extensively negotiated by the City Attorney’s Office and includes contractual protections that exceed the vendor’s standard terms. Flock has offered a 10% discount on new products if the City executes by the end of March 2026, representing over $100,000 in total savings. All prices meet or are below those listed for the same products on the Omnia cooperative purchasing consortium, which is the procurement mechanism used for this acquisition.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The total maximum financial commitment across all contracts is as follows:
 DFR Program: Not to exceed $750,000 over three years.  Fixed Cameras: Not to exceed $310,000 over the initial four-year term ($600,000 if the three-year option is exercised). Funding for the initial term is available in the General Fund allocation previously designated for surveillance cameras and transferred into the Police Department’s current fiscal year’s budget.

Page 68 of 156 ends

Page 74 ends

 Flock Nova: Not to exceed $75,000 for one year. This expenditure is fully funded by the BSCC Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP) grant of $1,000,000 accepted by Council on July 29, 2025. The grant application identified $125,504 for investigative software; this contract falls within that allocation. No General Fund impact.
 ALPR Renewal: Not to exceed $330,000 for two years ($660,000 if the two-year option is exercised).

At launch, the General Fund impact of this technology package is substantially offset by funding already in place. The PTZ camera contracts are funded by General Fund allocations previously designated for surveillance cameras and already transferred into the Police Department's current fiscal year budget. The Flock Nova contract is fully covered by the BSCC Byrne SCIP grant, with no General Fund impact. The City is therefore launching a comprehensive public safety technology upgrade with General Fund savings in the near term.

The ongoing subscription costs for the DFR program and ALPR renewal, the conversion of a Crime Analyst position to a new Senior Crime Analyst classification, and permanent funding of a Crime Analyst position (currently grant-funded through FY 27) will be funded through the permanent reduction of 3 sworn officer positions. At roughly $288,000–$292,000 per position in salary and benefits, 3 FTEs generate approximately $870,000 in savings per year. This exceeds the combined annual subscription costs for both programs, resulting in an average savings of about $160,000 to the General Fund each year even as the City deploys expanded capability. This approach has been reviewed and supported by the Berkeley Police Association.

The contracts are structured as annual subscriptions billed at signing for the first year and annually thereafter. Flock Safety has offered a 10% discount on new product lines (DFR, PTZ cameras, and Nova) if contracts are executed by the end of March 2026, representing over $100,000 in total savings across the combined contract terms. The ALPR renewal is priced at the existing contract rate. All prices meet or are below those listed for the same products on the Omnia cooperative purchasing consortium, which is the procurement mechanism the City is using for this acquisition and which satisfies the City’s competitive procurement requirements.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This consolidated public safety technology package advances the Strategic Plan goal to create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared city.

The Berkeley Police Department currently operates 52 Flock Safety Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras under a contract that expires in July 2026. Council has previously authorized fixed video surveillance cameras on multiple occasions, most recently approving a transition to Flock Safety’s solar-powered Condor PTZ cameras on March 18, 2025, with the Surveillance Acquisition Report formally accepted on July 22,

Page 69 of 156 ends

Page 75 ends

2025. At the November 18, 2025, City Council meeting, the council directed staff to explore a Drone as First Responder program to improve public safety outcomes.

This item brings together the regulatory approvals, policy updates, and contract authority needed to move forward on all items. Rather than presenting each technology as a separate Council item over many months, this consolidated approach reflects the reality that these tools operate within a single platform and that unified procurement delivers significant fiscal, operational, and oversight advantages.

BACKGROUND
Legislative History
The technologies in this item are governed by two local ordinances and state law. BMC

2.99, the Surveillance Technology Ordinance, requires a Surveillance Acquisition Report and Use Policy for any new surveillance technology or material change to an existing one. BMC 2.100, the Police Equipment Ordinance (as amended and in effect as of March 12, 2026), requires an Impact Statement and Use Policy for controlled military equipment consistent with AB 481. The UAS program is subject to both ordinances.

Community Video Streams and fixed cameras are subject to BMC 2.99. The ALPR renewal involves no new technology and no policy changes; it requires only contract authority.

Council action on each technology to date:
 ALPRs: Surveillance Acquisition Report accepted and Use Policy approved July 2023. Contract authority approved October 2023 and executed July 2024, expiring July 2026. No new approvals required beyond contract renewal authority.  Fixed Cameras: Originally authorized December 2021, and again January 2024.

Transition to Flock Safety approved March 2025. Surveillance Acquisition Report for Flock Condor cameras accepted July 2025. Updated Use Policies presented here reflect Council-directed revisions and require Council approval.  Drones: Surveillance Acquisition Report accepted and Use Policy approved June 2023. These policies authorize BPD to request field-deployed UAS from outside agencies through mutual aid for specified circumstances. Council directed staff to explore a department run UAS program, including DFR, in November 2025. This item presents the Surveillance Acquisition Report, updated Use Policy, Impact Statement for BPD to acquire and use both field-deployed and DFR drones, and contract authority for recurring DFR costs.
 Community Video Streams: This technology was discussed at BPD’s January 2026 community meeting. This item presents the Surveillance Acquisition Report and Use Policy to Council for the first time. These materials were submitted to the

Page 70 of 156 ends

Page 76 ends

Police Accountability (PAB) in February 2026, and discussed during their subsequent regular public meetings.
 Flock Nova: Funded by the Byrne SCIP grant accepted by Council on July 2025, which identified investigative software as an eligible expenditure for the City’s Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Program.

Community Engagement
Every technology in this item has been subject to extensive community engagement and civilian oversight. The Police Accountability Board (PAB) has had the opportunity to review, discuss, and provide recommendations on each technology through public meetings, consistent with the deliberative process contemplated by the Surveillance Technology Ordinance and the Police Equipment Ordinance. A timeline of key engagement milestones follows:
 ALPRs: The PAB received the ALPR Surveillance Acquisition Report and Use Policy for review in May 2023. After independent review by the ODPA, the PAB held a special meeting in June 2023 to discuss the proposed policies. The Public Safety Policy Committee held a special meeting later in June 2023 to discuss the ALPR policies and voted to send a qualified positive recommendation to Council on the condition that PAB concerns be addressed. Council approved the Surveillance Acquisition Report and Use Policy in July 2023 and approved the ALPR contract in October 2023. The PAB received a BPD presentation on ALPR operations and data- sharing practices in November 2024.
 Fixed Cameras: The PAB reviewed the proposed surveillance camera policies in March 2023 and provided written recommendations. The Public Safety Policy Committee received updates on camera and drone policies in March 2023. Council discussed the camera use policies in May 2023 and approved the final use policy in June 2023. In January 2024, Council voted to approve additional camera locations.

Council approved revised camera locations and the vendor transition to Flock Safety in March 2025, and the PAB reviewed the revised locations and vendor transition at its March 2025 meeting. In July 2025, Council heard from BPD and Flock Safety about data security and data-sharing before accepting the Surveillance Acquisition Report, with Council members directing additional safeguards including language from the PAB to limit system access and data sharing. Council continued its consideration of the fixed camera program at its September 2025 meeting, during which concerns about federal data access were raised and the vote was continued to allow additional review.
 Drones: The PAB first reviewed proposed UAS policies for borrowing drones through mutual aid in February 2023, after BPD provided draft policies and an acquisition report in January 2023. The earlier UAS policies were included in the June 2023 Council surveillance ordinance item alongside fixed camera policies. The PAB took up the Drone as First Responder issue at its September 2025 meeting and

Page 71 of 156 ends

Page 77 ends

voted to partner with UC Berkeley’s Criminal Law & Justice Center to assess operational, legal, and oversight considerations. The Public Safety Policy Committee reviewed the DFR proposal in October 2025 and voted to send a positive recommendation to Council. At its November 2025 meeting, the PAB discussed data security concerns related to the Flock platform. The Council directed staff to explore a DFR program in November 2025 after a meeting in which Councilmembers posed detailed questions about data practices, recording policies, and privacy safeguards.

The ODPA prepared a preliminary analysis of DFR technology, presented to the PAB at its December 2025 meeting. BPD presented the DFR Impact Statement and Use Policy to the PAB at its February 2026 meeting.
 Community Meeting - January 15, 2026: The Police Department held a well- attended open community information session on January 15, 2026, to discuss the full suite of current and proposed public safety technologies. The session, which received extensive local news coverage, described how fixed cameras, ALPRs, drones, and community video streams work in practice, the data protections in place for existing technology, and the safeguards planned for proposed new tools.

Community members asked questions and provided feedback that informed the policies and contract terms presented here.

Throughout this process, the PAB has served its function as an independent civilian oversight body. While the PAB and BPD have not always agreed- and the Department respects the Board’s independence to reach its own conclusions- the iterative process of presentation, questioning, public comment, and written recommendations has produced stronger policies. The engagement record on these technologies spans more than three years and 23 public meetings across the Police Accountability Board, Public Safety Policy Committee, City Council, and BPD-hosted community meeting.

Why Flock Safety
Staff conducted an extensive evaluation of available vendors for each technology category before recommending Flock Safety as the City’s consolidated platform. The evaluation considered product capability, data security, contract flexibility, pricing, interoperability, and the vendor’s responsiveness to the City’s legal and policy requirements.

Product quality across categories
Flock Safety offers fully featured, field-proven products in every category the City seeks:
license plate readers, fixed video surveillance, drone-as-first-responder, investigative analytics, and community camera integration. No other single vendor can deliver all of these capabilities. Staff evaluated competing products from Axon, Skydio, Brinc, Avigilon and others. Axon came closest to matching Flock’s breadth, but its ALPR and fixed camera software currently offers only search capability and does not support alerts or hotlists, which are features that have added significant public safety value for the

Page 72 of 156 ends

Page 78 ends

City, particularly for real-time response. Other vendors required the City to own and maintain hardware, lacked real-time alerting, or could not provide the level of technical support and product upgrades that Flock delivers as part of its subscription model.

Single ecosystem advantage
Operating all public safety technology on a single platform creates substantial benefits for the City. From an oversight and audit perspective, a unified system means one dashboard, one set of access logs, one audit trail, and one point of accountability. This simplifies compliance with BMC 2.99, BMC 2.100, and AB 481 reporting requirements, and makes it easier to conduct regular audits. Operationally, officers benefit from a single login, consolidated alerts across camera types, and the ability to correlate data from ALPRs, fixed cameras, drones, and community streams in one workflow.

Contract and legal terms
The City Attorney’s Office has negotiated a single Master Services Agreement with Flock Safety that governs all product lines. Every redline proposed by the City Attorney’s Office was accepted by Flock. The MSA includes protections that go well beyond the vendor’s standard terms of service:
• The City owns all of its data, including anonymized derivatives. Flock is prohibited from selling, sharing, or distributing City data without explicit City authorization.
• Flock may disclose data to a government agency only upon a legal request and with the City’s written consent. Consistent with the City’s sanctuary policies, footage cannot be provided to federal immigration authorities in response to an administrative subpoena or similar request without a court order. • Flock has agreed to include contractual financial penalties for data breaches or unauthorized disclosures, mirroring the framework approved by the Oakland City Council in December 2025 for its Flock agreement.
• Flock must promptly notify the City of any security incident or data breach and describe the scope and corrective steps.
• The City’s ownership and control of its data survives contract termination.

These terms would apply uniformly across all product lines under the MSA so there are consistent protections whether the City is using ALPRs, fixed cameras, drones, or analytics software.

Responsiveness to community and City concerns

Page 73 of 156 ends

Page 79 ends

Throughout the negotiation process, Flock Safety has demonstrated a willingness to align its practices with Berkeley’s values. When the City Attorney’s Office flagged concerns about federal access to data, Flock worked with staff to craft contract language that reflects the City’s sanctuary city ordinance and state privacy law. When staff raised questions about data-sharing defaults based on reporting from other jurisdictions, Flock provided transparent answers and made platform changes so that settings are restrictive by default.

Staff independently confirmed with agencies that had experienced publicized issues that all concerns stemmed from default settings that were permissive out of the box, not from vendor overrides or policy violations. Flock has also stopped its federal data- sharing pilot programs nationally and introduced additional permission controls in response to community feedback from jurisdictions across the country. The company’s willingness to accept every legal redline from the City Attorney’s Office, proactively offer a financial penalty clause, and work iteratively with staff over time reflects an alignment of incentives and accountability.

Fiscal advantage
Flock has offered the City a 10% discount on new product lines- DFR, PTZ cameras, and Nova- if contracts are executed by the end of March 2026, representing over $100,000 in total savings. The ALPR renewal is priced at the existing contract rate. All prices across every product line meet or are below those listed for the same products on the Omnia cooperative purchasing consortium, which is the competitively bid procurement vehicle the City is using for this acquisition.

A consolidated procurement also reduces administrative overhead: one MSA, one vendor relationship, one procurement cycle, and one set of invoices, rather than managing separate agreements with multiple vendors. For reference, Alameda County is preparing a similar consolidated Flock procurement package for consideration later this year.

Technology Descriptions
Drone as First Responder (DFR) - New Technology
The DFR program provides BPD with drone dispatch capability integrated into the FlockOS platform. The system includes DJI Matrice 4TD drones with Dock 3 charging stations and Aerodome radar for detect-and-avoid capability. Drones launch from rooftop docking stations and can arrive at the scene of a call for service before ground units, providing real-time aerial video to dispatchers and responding officers. Within two years, the DJI hardware will be replaced with Flock’s American-made, NDAA-compliant Alpha drone. The DFR Impact Statement and Use Policy are attached.

Page 74 of 156 ends

Page 80 ends

Community Video Streams - New Technology
This capability allows BPD to view live or recorded video from private cameras whose owners have voluntarily registered and opted in to share access. The system does not involve the City purchasing or installing any cameras. Instead, it uses Flock Safety’s software to map registered camera locations and, with explicit owner permission, route video feeds to BPD’s FlockOS dashboard. Before any camera is activated, BPD must complete a pre-integration review including an in-person site assessment and public notification signage. All integrated cameras will be published on the City website.

Camera owners retain ownership and can revoke access at any time. Facial recognition is strictly prohibited. All BPD accesses of the streams are logged and auditable, and are restricted to the uses described in the attached use policies. The Surveillance Acquisition Report and Use Policy are attached.

Fixed Video Cameras (Pan-Tilt-Zoom) - Previously Approved, Policy Update Solar-powered PTZ cameras installed and maintained by Flock Safety under a subscription model. The Surveillance Acquisition Report was accepted by Council on July 22, 2025. The updated Use Policies presented here incorporate Council-directed revisions and require Council approval before contract execution.

Nova - Grant-Funded Investigative Software
Nova is a data analysis platform that centralizes records from the department’s computer-aided dispatch (CAD), records management system (RMS), and digital evidence management system. It also provides access to open-source intelligence and shared inter-agency data to support case-linking and firearm case resolution. This tool is funded by the SCIP grant and directly supports the City’s Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Program.

Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - Contract Renewal The City’s existing network of 52 Flock Safety ALPR cameras. The current contract expires in July 2026. This item requests authority to renew for two years with an option for an additional two-year extension. No changes to the previously approved Surveillance Acquisition Report or Use Policy are proposed.

How It All Comes Together: A Real-Time Information Center The technologies described above are not standalone tools. They are components of a single, integrated real-time information center (RTIC) that BPD will build around FlockOS. When a 911 call comes in, analysts can simultaneously dispatch a drone to the scene for aerial video, pull up nearby ALPR and fixed camera feeds, check community-registered cameras for relevant angles, and cross-reference vehicle or suspect information through Nova analytics- all from one dashboard, in real time.

Page 75 of 156 ends

Page 81 ends

To design and operationalize this workflow, BPD will seek to hire a Senior Crime Analyst and permanently fund a Crime Analyst position (currently grant funded) using savings generated by the reduction in sworn officer positions to manage the RTIC on an ongoing basis. In preparation for those roles, BPD is currently developing the operational infrastructure the analyst will rely on: building the operational workflows that connect each data stream, designing standard operating procedures for how dispatchers, analysts, and officers interact with the feeds, and ensuring strict compliance with the City's data policies and access controls. This approach is the core reason the single-platform strategy matters. Fragmented systems from multiple vendors would make real-time correlation impossible without extensive custom integration work.

FlockOS provides it natively, and the analysts are the people turning that capability into a functioning operation.

An RTIC is designed to function as a resource multiplier, which is particularly important given BPD’s ongoing staffing challenges and the City’s constrained budget environment. Rather than requiring additional patrol officers or dispatchers to monitor each data source independently, the platform allows a single analyst to synthesize information across all systems simultaneously and surface actionable information to officers already in the field. This means BPD can extend its operational capacity without a proportional increase in personnel costs. At a time when the city is managing a significant structural deficit and recruiting, hiring, and retaining sworn officers remains difficult and expensive, an RTIC enables the department to do more with its existing workforce by directing resources more precisely, reducing reactive deployment, and improving response times without expanding headcount.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The ALPR and PTZ cameras operate on solar power and battery systems thereby limiting the carbon footprint of public safety operations. The DFR program may also reduce vehicle emissions by decreasing the number of patrol car dispatches to calls that can be assessed aerially.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Approving this item allows the City to move forward on a comprehensive, integrated public safety technology program that has been years in development. Each component has either been previously reviewed and approved by Council or is presented here for the first time with full documentation under the applicable ordinances.

The consolidation into a single vendor platform is not merely a matter of administrative convenience. It is a deliberate choice to maximize oversight, simplify compliance, and ensure that every piece of technology the Police Department operates is governed by the same contractual protections, the same audit infrastructure, and the same accountability mechanisms. A single MSA, negotiated to the City’s specifications by the City Attorney’s Office and accepted in full by Flock, provides a durable legal framework

Page 76 of 156 ends

Page 82 ends

that protects the City’s data, upholds its sanctuary policies, and holds the vendor to financial consequences for violations.

The proposed technology suite, funded by permanently eliminating 3 officer positions, will result in a net savings of about $160,000 per year to the General Fund after accounting for all technology subscription costs and the Crime Analyst positions, while providing response capabilities that multiply the effectiveness of public safety resources.

That coupled with the 10% discount offered by Flock for execution by March 2026 provides a compelling fiscal incentive to act now, and the vendor’s track record of responsiveness to this City’s legal, policy, and community concerns gives staff confidence that this partnership will serve Berkeley well.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff assessed and considered procuring each technology category from a different vendor. This approach was rejected because it would fragment oversight across multiple platforms, require separate MSAs with varying levels of data protection, increase administrative burden, and forgo the ecosystem discount. Staff also evaluated specific competing products, most notably from Axon, whose ALPR and fixed camera products currently lack the alerting and hotlist capabilities that are central to BPD’s real- time response model. Maintaining the status quo- renewing the ALPR contract alone and deferring all other technologies- was considered but would leave Council-directed initiatives unfulfilled and forfeit the consolidated pricing advantage.

CONTACT PERSON
Jennifer Louis, Chief of Police, (510) 981-5700

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Surveillance Acquisition Report: Unmanned Aerial Systems

3. Surveillance Use Policy (Policy 1303): Unmanned Aerial Systems

4. Police Equipment Impact Statement (Policy 709): Unmanned Aerial Systems

5. Police Equipment Use Policy (Policy 611): Unmanned Aerial Systems

6. Surveillance Acquisition Report: Community Video Streams

7. Surveillance Use Policies (Policies 355 and 1306): Community Video Streams

8. Updated Surveillance Use Policies (Policies 351 and 1304): Fixed Video Cameras

9. Master Services Agreement

10. Financial Penalties Amendment

Page 77 of 156 ends

Page 83 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###‑N.S.

APPROVING SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND POLICE EQUIPMENT

ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, UPDATED USE POLICIES, AND AUTHORIZING

CONTRACTS WITH FLOCK SAFETY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOLOGY WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has adopted BMC 2.99, the Surveillance Technology Ordinance, which requires City Council approval of a Surveillance Acquisition Report and Surveillance Use Policy prior to the acquisition or use of new surveillance technology; and
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley has adopted BMC 2.100, the Police Equipment Ordinance, which requires City Council approval of a Police Equipment Impact Statement and Police Equipment Use Policy for controlled military equipment, consistent with AB 481; and
WHEREAS, the Drone as First Responder (DFR) portion of the Unmanned Aerial Systems program constitutes both a new surveillance technology under BMC 2.99 and controlled military equipment under BMC 2.100, and the Police Department has prepared and published the required Surveillance Acquisition Report, Surveillance Use Policy, Impact Statement, and Police Equipment Use Policy for Council review; and WHEREAS, Community Video Streams constitute a new surveillance technology under BMC 2.99, and the Police Department has prepared and published the required Surveillance Acquisition Report and Surveillance Use Policy for Council review; and WHEREAS, fixed video cameras were previously approved by Council, and updated Surveillance Use Policies reflecting Council-directed revisions are presented for approval; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department held a community information session on January 15, 2026, to present and gather feedback on the full suite of public safety technologies, and the Police Accountability Board has had an opportunity to review and provide input on each technology through multiple public meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council accepted the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP) grant award of $1,000,000 on July 29, 2025, which identified investigative software as an eligible expenditure, and Flock Nova falls within that allocation; and WHEREAS, the City’s existing Flock Safety ALPR contract expires in July 2026, and renewal authority is required to maintain continuity of service; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office has negotiated a Master Services Agreement with Flock Safety that includes protections for City data ownership, restrictions on federal access consistent with the City’s sanctuary policies, financial penalties for unauthorized disclosures, security incident notification requirements, and post-termination data

Page 78 of 156 ends

Page 84 ends

protections, and Flock Safety has accepted every revision proposed by the City Attorney’s Office; and
WHEREAS, funding for the technology suite will come from eliminating up to 6 sworn officer positions, as supported by the Berkeley Police Association, resulting in a net savings to the General Fund; funding for fixed cameras is available in the General Fund allocation designated for surveillance cameras; funding for Flock Nova is available from the BSCC SCIP grant with no General Fund impact; and
WHEREAS, all prices meet or are below those listed for the same products on the Omnia cooperative purchasing consortium, satisfying the City’s competitive procurement requirements; and
WHEREAS, Flock Safety has offered a 10% discount on new product lines if contracts are executed by the end of March 2026, representing over $100,000 in savings.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Surveillance Technology Ordinance Approvals

1. The City Council hereby accepts the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approves the Surveillance Use Policy for the Unmanned Aerial Systems program.

2. The City Council hereby accepts the Surveillance Acquisition Report and approves the Surveillance Use Policy for Community Video Streams.

3. The City Council hereby approves the updated Surveillance Use Policies for fixed video cameras.

Police Equipment Ordinance Approvals

4. The City Council hereby accepts the Police Equipment Impact Statement and approves the Police Equipment Use Policy for unmanned aerial systems.

Contract Authority

5. The City Manager is authorized to amend the existing Contract #32400088 with Flock Group, Inc. (Flock Safety) to add Drone as First Responder hardware, software, and services for an initial three-year term, in an amount not to exceed $750,000.

6. The City Manager is authorized to amend the existing Contract #32400088 with Flock Group, Inc. (Flock Safety) to add fixed surveillance cameras for an initial four-

Page 79 of 156 ends

Page 85 ends

year term, in an amount not to exceed $310,000, with an option to extend for one additional three-year term, for a total amount not to exceed $600,000.

7. The City Manager is authorized to amend the existing Contract #32400088 with Flock Group, Inc. (Flock Safety) to add Nova investigative software for a one-year term, in an amount not to exceed $75,000, funded by the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP) grant.

8. The City Manager is authorized to amend the existing Contract #32400088 with Flock Group, Inc. (Flock Safety) to renew Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) for a two-year term, in an amount not to exceed $330,000, with an option to extend for an additional two-year term, for a total amount not to exceed $660,000.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that grant funds received under the SCIP grant and used for the Flock Nova contract shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by this body.

Page 80 of 156 ends

Page 86 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM

1 Background
The Berkeley Police Department (BPD) seeks to acquire a comprehensive Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) program to enhance public safety operations and improve incident response times. This acquisition includes three distinct capabilities: interior-capable drones for searching confined spaces, field-deployed drones carried in patrol vehicles for immediate on-scene situational awareness, and a "Drone as a First Responder" (DFR) system capable of launching from a rooftop docking station. While UAS technology offers broad applications across various City departments such as for wildfire monitoring and disaster response, this Acquisition Report specifically addresses the use of this equipment by the Police Department for law enforcement purposes.

This document satisfies the requirements of BMC 2.99 for “publicly-released written report produced prior to acquisition... that includes...” sections covering description, purpose, location, impact, mitigation, data types and sources, data security, fiscal cost, third party dependence and access, alternatives, and experience of other entities of the equipment.

1. Description
Information describing the Surveillance Technology and how it works, including product descriptions from manufacturers
The following are descriptions of drone models that are representative of a broader range of drones used for the same purposes.

Description:

The Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) described in this appendix consists of four different types of aircraft, including attached cameras, and internal components to support the safe and effective operation of the systems. Two of them are traditional UAS and two of them would allow the implementation of a “Drone as a First Responder” (DFR) system. The UAS are the following models:
• Avata 2: This UAS would be used for tactical operations and searches within interior confined spaces such as a warehouse, commercial building or residence. • DJI Matrice 4T: This UAS would be used for patrol operations to rapidly respond to the scene of an incident and provide real-time video and situational awareness to officers responding to the scene. These systems would include the UAS, batteries, and software integration with our current CAD and Flock systems.

Page 81 of 156 ends

Page 87 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM

2 • DJI Matrice 4TD / Flock Alpha: This UAS would be dedicated to DFR response to rapidly respond to the scene of an incident and provide real-time video and situational awareness to officers responding to the scene. It would also include the installation of two charging and telecommunications docks on the roof of the Public Safety Building. Within two years, this UAS would be replaced with Flock Alpha UAS and a battery swapping dock.

How it Works:

Remote controllers would be used to operate each type of UAS. They provide a live video feed and ensure the safe and effective operations of the UAS. Digital media cards would be installed in the UAS and would store the video footage from the flights. The DFR system includes the installation of two charging and telecommunications docks.

Manufacturers’ Descriptions:
"DJI Avata 2 is a compact and portable FPV camera drone equipped with built-in propeller guards. The aircraft uses both GNSS and a Vision System, allowing for stable hovering and smooth aerobatic maneuvers while flying both indoors and out." "The DJI Matrice 4 Thermal drone introduces a compact, intelligent drone for professional use. Equipped with a thermal camera, enhanced sensing, and a laser range finder, this drone offers safer and more reliable operations. The Matrice 4T is ideal for industries including electricity, emergency response, public safety, and forestry conservation.” "The DJI Matrice 4TD is a professional-grade thermal drone designed for rapid, accurate intelligence across utility inspections, solar and wind maintenance, industrial monitoring, public safety, and search-and-rescue missions. Combining high-resolution thermal imaging with a visual camera, this dual-spectrum platform reveals details invisible to conventional sensors, allowing teams to detect overheating equipment, identify hotspots in solar arrays, monitor turbine performance, and locate heat signatures during emergency operations. Rugged, IP-rated construction and extended flight endurance ensure reliable performance in challenging environments, making the M4TD a mission-ready solution for demanding field conditions."
"Flock Alpha sets a new standard for rapid response in public safety. American-made and NDAA-compliant, Flock Alpha is purpose-built for DFR, enhancing speed, coverage area, and camera power in a fully integrated solution."

Page 82 of 156 ends

Page 88 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM

3 2. Purpose
Information on the proposed purpose(s) for the Surveillance Technology The primary objective of the UAS program is to leverage technology to preserve life and enhance safety.
• By providing an aerial vantage point, the UAS allows officers to create time and distance from a threat. This provides opportunities for negotiation and de- escalation that are not possible when officers are forced to make split-second decisions face-to-face with a suspect.
• The UAS allows for the remote assessment of hazardous scenes (e.g., suspicious devices, armed individuals), reducing the physical risk to officers and bystanders. • UAS can rapidly clear calls for service (such as unfounded reports), allowing patrol officers to remain available for genuine emergencies and reducing police presence where it is not needed.

3. Location
The general location(s) it may be deployed and reasons for deployment Officers may use UAS anywhere officers have jurisdiction to operate as sworn peace officers. All deployments are strictly governed by the authorized use cases and privacy protections established in Policy 611 (UAS Operations) and Surveillance Use Policy 1303.

4. Impact
An assessment identifying potential impacts on civil liberties and civil rights including but not limited to potential disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups The Department acknowledges that UAS operations involve inherent privacy considerations, including the risk of inadvertently capturing footage of private areas (e.g., backyards or through windows) or uninvolved community members. To address this, the Department has established strict prohibitions against random surveillance or targeting individuals based on protected characteristics. While the aerial vantage point provides critical safety data, the Department’s policies prioritize civil liberties by restricting recording to authorized missions and mandating that cameras be diverted away from private spaces when not actively engaged in a call for service, as detailed in the "Mitigations" section below.

Page 83 of 156 ends

Page 89 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM

4 5. Mitigations
Information regarding technical and procedural measures that can be implemented to appropriately safeguard the public from any impacts identified To safeguard the public’s welfare and civil liberties, the Department will implement the following affirmative technical and procedural measures:
• All DFR cameras will be programmed to orient toward the horizon (preventing ground recording) while in transit to a call for service. The camera will only point down upon arrival at the authorized scene.
• All UAS flights are logged, and flight data is auditable. Video data is stored on secure, encrypted servers (Evidence.com) with strict chain-of-custody controls. • The UAS will not be equipped with facial recognition software or weapons of any kind.
• As required by BMC 2.99 and BMC 2.100, the Department will publish data regarding deployments on an annual basis.
• Information including flight logs and incident type will be published on a publicly accessible transparency portal shortly after the conclusion of a flight, typically within 1 hour after docking.
• The program is subject to review by the Police Accountability Board and approval by the City Council via the Annual Military Equipment Report and the Annual Surveillance Technology Report.

6. Data Types and Sources
A list of the sources of data proposed to be collected, analyzed, or processed by the Surveillance Technology, including "open source" data
Data collection is limited to video (visible and infrared) and associated telemetry (e.g., flight path, altitude) necessary for safe flight operations and situational awareness. The UAS will capture real-time video to assist pilots in navigating safely and assessing authorized scenes. These recordings are utilized solely for legitimate law enforcement purposes, including criminal investigations, administrative reviews, and training, in strict accordance with state laws and Department policy.

Page 84 of 156 ends

Page 90 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM

5 7. Data Security
Information about the steps that can be taken to ensure adequate security measures to safeguard the data collected or generated from unauthorized access or disclosure The Department will implement and maintain comprehensive data security protocols to preserve the integrity, confidentiality, and lawful use of UAS videos. Video recording will occur only during authorized operations and will not include continuous or passive surveillance. All recorded data will be stored securely on an internal hard drive and/or SD cards prior to upload to BPD’s evidence database. Access to videos will be limited to authorized personnel with a legitimate law enforcement or administrative need. Any release or access to videos by third parties requires prior authorization and will be limited to legally authorized agencies or pursuant to a valid court order.

8. Fiscal Cost
The fiscal cost of each type of Controlled Equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment, the costs of each proposed use, the costs of potential adverse impacts, and the annual, ongoing costs of the equipment, including operating, training, transportation, storage, maintenance, and upgrade costs.

The costs below represent estimates. Costs are subject to change at the time of purchase.

Initial Cost:
• Purchase of field-based UAS (Avata 2 & Matrice 4T): Total $44,500. • Lease of PSB-based DFR (Year 1): $100,000.
• Radar (Year 1): included.
• Dock Installation: $15,000.

Cost of Use:
• Each individual use of the UAS incurs a negligible financial cost, limited primarily to the electricity required to recharge the aircraft batteries. The operational cost is absorbed within the existing salary of the trained Pilot in Command (PIC) and does not require additional overtime or specialized funding. For the DFR program, the annual lease covers unlimited flights, meaning there is no incremental cost for high- frequency usage.

Costs of Potential Adverse Impacts:

Page 85 of 156 ends

Page 91 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM

6 • Costs of adverse impacts could include property damage caused by a malfunctioning drone, but the experience of other agencies with drones and similar programs indicates that such incidents are extremely rare. Furthermore, strict adherence to FAA maintenance schedules, pre-flight inspections, and pilot training requirements serves to minimize the risk of malfunction or operator error. Any costs associated with accidental damage or liability claims would be addressed through the City’s existing claims process.

Annual and Ongoing Costs:
• DFR Lease: $125,000 per year (includes upgrade to Flock Alpha). • Radar: $150,000 per year.
• Parts/Maintenance (for purchased units): $2,000 per year.

Training Costs:
• Training (4 primary pilots): $24,000.
• Training (8 additional pilots): $48,000.

Maintenance and Storage Costs:
• Parts/maintenance for purchased units: $2,000 per year. • Parts/maintenance for leased units: included.

Upgrade Costs:
• DFR upgrades are included in the lease. Within two years, this UAS would be replaced with Flock Alpha UAS and a battery swapping dock.

9. Third Party Dependence and Access
Whether use or maintenance of the technology will require data gathered by the technology to be handled or stored by a third-party vendor on an ongoing basis, and whether a third party may have access to such data or may have the right to sell or otherwise share the data in aggregated, disaggregated, raw or any other formats
All UAS data will be uploaded and stored on Axon’s Evidence.com platform in line with existing departmental protocol for evidence collection. Axon complies with the EU-U.S.

Page 86 of 156 ends

Page 92 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM

7 (collectively, “Privacy Shield”). Axon has certified to the U.S. Department of Commerce that it adheres to the Privacy Shield Principles.

BPD will only share UAS data with other law enforcement agencies on a case-by-case basis in connection with an active investigation, or in response to a lawful judicial warrant or court order in compliance with state and local law.

10. Alternatives
A summary and general assessment of potentially viable alternative methods (whether involving the use of a new technology or not), if any, considered before deciding to propose acquiring the Surveillance Technology
In the absence of a UAS program, the department would be limited to less effective and more costly alternatives. If we were to gain the same level of operational support, we could attempt to increase the amount of officers to match the coverage and responsiveness of aerial support. However that is not feasible at this time due to well established challenges in hiring and training suitable candidates. It would also not address underlying efficiency issues in that ground-based units lack the elevated perspective needed for efficient searches, crowd monitoring, and scene management, and offer reduced capacity to maintain time and distance for de-escalation. This can heighten the potential for confrontational encounters and diminish effectiveness in pursuits or rapidly evolving incidents.

Additionally, taking no action would leave existing operational challenges unaddressed.

The department would continue to rely on outside agencies for aerial support, risking delays in critical moments. Without its own UAS capability, the department would forgo enhancements in officer safety and public protection, while falling behind regional peers who have already adopted this widely accepted and increasingly standard public safety tool.

11. Experience of Other Entities
To the extent such information is available, a summary of the experience of comparable government entities with the proposed technology, including any unanticipated financial or community costs and benefits, experienced by such other entities The Alameda County Sheriff's Office has operated its UAS program since 2015 and only reports a single community complaint, which was ultimately deemed unrelated to drone activity. The agency implemented a public transparency portal and documented multiple

Page 87 of 156 ends

Page 93 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM

8 operational successes, including enhanced officer safety, improved suspect apprehension, efficient crime scene documentation, and the successful location of missing persons.

The Hayward Police Department launched its UAS program in March 2022. Since then, the department has conducted 75 deployments without any citizen complaints or unexpected financial impacts. The program has been integral in reducing risk during critical incidents.

The Fremont Police Department began using UAS technology in 2017 and now maintains a fleet of 16 drones operated by 25 trained personnel. The department reports no community complaints, maintains regular updates to its transparency portal, and is currently developing its Drone as First Responder (DFR) capability. Fremont Police report that the program delivers significant operational advantages and has become an integrated part of its modern policing strategy.

These examples illustrate the increasing regional adoption and effectiveness of UAS programs across local police departments and reinforce their role as a valuable and accepted tool in contemporary law enforcement.

Page 88 of 156 ends

Page 94 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Surveillance Use Policy- Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)

Law Enforcement Services Manual

Surveillance Use Policy-Unmanned Aerial
System (UAS)
1303.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the use of an unmanned aerial system (UAS) and for the storage, retrieval and dissemination of images and data captured by the UAS. Department personnel shall adhere to requirements for Unmanned Aerial Systems covered in this policy as well as the corresponding Use Policy - 611.
1303.2 AUTHORIZED USE
Authorized operators may deploy the UAS in the following circumstances:

2. To assist in locating lost, missing, or injured persons during search and rescue operations.

4. To locate fleeing suspects to effectively contain perimeters and reduce the need for dangerous ground-based foot pursuits.

5. To track fleeing vehicles from a safe distance, allowing patrol units to de-escalate or terminate dangerous ground pursuits while maintaining visual contact.

6. To clear interior buildings or confined spaces remotely to prevent potentially violent encounters between officers and hidden suspects.

Policy
1303

Page 89 of 156 ends

Page 95 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Surveillance Use Policy- Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)

7. To assist the Fire Department with fire mitigation and suppression, hazardous materials releases, or disaster response and recovery.

8. To remotely inspect potential explosive devices or hazardous objects.

9. To document complex crime scenes, accident scenes, or areas where an aerial perspective is critical for the investigation.

10. To respond to active criminal activity at mass gatherings or special events.

11. To mitigate hazards caused by other UAS interfering with emergency operations.

12. For pilot certification training and maintenance of proficiency.

1303.3 PROHIBITED USE
The UAS shall not be used:

1. To conduct random or arbitrary surveillance activities. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, first amendment assemblies in accordance with Policy 428 First Amendment Assemblies.

3. To harass, intimidate, or discriminate against any individual or group.

Furthermore, the UAS shall not be equipped with:

1. Facial recognition software

2. Biometric analysis capabilities

3. Weapons of any kind, including lethal or non-lethal munitions.

1303.4 DATA COLLECTION
Data collection shall be limited to video (visible and infrared) and associated telemetry

Page 90 of 156 ends

Page 96 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Surveillance Use Policy- Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)

(e.g., flight path, altitude) necessary for safe flight operations and situational awareness.

1303.5 DATA ACCESS
Access to videos shall be limited to authorized personnel with a legitimate law enforcement or administrative need. Any release or access to videos by third parties requires prior authorization and shall be limited to legally authorized agencies or pursuant to a valid court order.
1303.6 DATA PROTECTION
The Department shall implement and maintain comprehensive data security protocols to preserve the integrity, confidentiality, and lawful use of UAS videos. Video recording shall occur only during authorized operations and shall not include continuous or passive surveillance.

1303.7 CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS PROTECTIONS
The Department acknowledges that UAS operations involve inherent privacy considerations, specifically the risk of inadvertently capturing footage of private areas (e.g., backyards or through windows) or uninvolved community members. To address this, the Department prioritizes civil liberties by restricting recording to authorized missions and strictly adhering to the restrictions on random surveillance outlined in Section 611.6 (Prohibited Use).

To safeguard these rights, UAS operations shall adhere to the following restrictions:

Page 91 of 156 ends

Page 97 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Surveillance Use Policy- Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)

1303.8 DATA RETENTION
UAS footage should be purged by BPD within 60 days if it does not contain any data of evidentiary value. If the data has evidentiary value, it should be uploaded into BPD's evidence database and kept pursuant to the established retention guidelines set forth in policy 804-Records Maintenance and Release.

1303.9 PUBLIC ACCESS
Unauthorized use, duplication, and/or distribution of UAS camera footage is prohibited.

The Custodian of Records, or their designee, will be responsible for handling requests for UAS camera footage.

1303.10 THIRD PARTY DATA SHARING
Pursuant to the Records Maintenance and Release policy, data collected from the UAS may only be shared with other law enforcement agencies on a case-by-case basis in connection with an active investigation, or in response to a lawful judicial warrant or court order in compliance with state and local law.

1303.11 TRAINING
The Program Coordinator will coordinate training of PICs and Visual Observers. The training course and materials will be approved through the training staff. An approved department instructor will oversee all training. Each training session will be documented and forwarded to the Policy and Training Bureau Sergeant.

1303.12 AUDITING AND OVERSIGHT
Division Captains or their designee shall ensure compliance with this Surveillance Use Policy.

Page 92 of 156 ends

Page 98 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Surveillance Use Policy- Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)

The Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability shall conduct biennial audits of UAS use.

Intentional violation of this policy may serve as grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to the Policy 1010, Personnel Complaints policy.

1303.13 MAINTENANCE
All UAS maintenance shall be conducted by the owner/operator of the device consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications and as needed based on UAS usage.

Page 93 of 156 ends

Page 99 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED

AERIAL SYSTEM

1 Background
The Berkeley Police Department (BPD) seeks to acquire a comprehensive Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) program to enhance public safety operations and improve incident response times. This acquisition includes three distinct capabilities: interior-capable drones for searching confined spaces, field-deployed drones carried in patrol vehicles for immediate on-scene situational awareness, and a "Drone as a First Responder" (DFR) system capable of launching from a rooftop docking station. While UAS technology offers broad applications across various City departments such as for wildfire monitoring and disaster response, this Impact Statement specifically addresses the use of this equipment by the Police Department for law enforcement purposes.

This document satisfies the requirements of AB 481 for “approval of the governing body, by an ordinance adopting military equipment use policy” for a specific type of military equipment: “unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial... vehicle” (AB 481). It also satisfies the requirements of BMC 2.100 for “a publicly released, written document that includes...” sections covering description, purpose, fiscal cost, impact, mitigations, alternatives, and third-party dependence of the equipment.

1. Description
A description of each type of Controlled Equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, intended uses and effects, and how it works, including product descriptions from the manufacturer of the Controlled Equipment.

The following are descriptions of drone models that are representative of a broader range of drones used for the same purposes.

Description:

Page 94 of 156 ends

Page 100 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED

AERIAL SYSTEM

2 • DJI Matrice 4T: This UAS would be used for patrol operations to rapidly respond to the scene of an incident and provide real-time video and situational awareness to officers responding to the scene. These systems would include the UAS, batteries, and software integration with our current CAD and Flock systems. • DJI Matrice 4TD / Flock Alpha: This UAS would be dedicated to DFR response to rapidly respond to the scene of an incident and provide real-time video and situational awareness to officers responding to the scene. It would also include the installation of two charging and telecommunications docks on the roof of the Public Safety Building. Within two years, this UAS would be replaced with Flock Alpha UAS and a battery swapping dock.

Quantity:

Our initial purchase recommendation for drones is:
• DJI Avata 2: 4 units
• DJI Matrice 4T: 4 units
• DJI Matrice 4TD: 2 units
• Flock Alpha: 1 unit to replace the 2 Matrice 4TDs within 2 years Ongoing inventory counts will be updated in the Annual Police Equipment Report as required by BMC 2.100.

Capabilities:
• The Avata 2 is a compact system designed for operation in confined interior spaces.

It allows officers to remotely search buildings during high-risk alarms or warrant services, minimizing the need for officers to physically enter potentially hazardous environments without prior visual assessment.
• The Matrice 4T is a field-deployed unit carried by patrol officers for immediate operational support. It features high-resolution thermal and zoom sensors ideal for locating missing persons in complex terrain or tracking fleeing suspects to prevent dangerous ground pursuits.
• The Matrice 4TD and Flock Alpha serve as the core of the Drone as First Responder (DFR) program. These systems are capable of autonomous dispatch to calls for service, often arriving before ground units. This capability allows for the rapid verification of incidents, potentially allowing officers to downgrade their response or clear unfounded calls without physical police presence. They provide real-time

Page 95 of 156 ends

Page 101 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED

AERIAL SYSTEM

3 situational awareness to responding officers and facilitate safer approaches and de-escalation strategies.

Lifespan:

The expected lifespan of the above UAS models is approximately 3 years.

Uses and Effects:

Authorized operators may deploy the UAS in accordance with Unmanned Aerial Systems Use Policy 611.5 Permitted Use and 611.6 Prohibited Use.

How it Works:

Page 96 of 156 ends

Page 102 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED

AERIAL SYSTEM

4 "Flock Alpha sets a new standard for rapid response in public safety. American-made and NDAA-compliant, Flock Alpha is purpose-built for DFR, enhancing speed, coverage area, and camera power in a fully integrated solution."

2. Purpose
The specific purpose or purposes that each type of Controlled Equipment is intended to achieve.

The primary objective of the UAS program is to leverage technology to preserve life and enhance safety.
• By providing an aerial vantage point, the UAS allows officers to create time and distance from a threat. This provides opportunities for negotiation and de- escalation that are not possible when officers are forced to make split-second decisions face-to-face with a suspect.
• The UAS allows for the remote assessment of hazardous scenes (e.g., suspicious devices, armed individuals), reducing the physical risk to officers and bystanders. • UAS can rapidly clear calls for service (such as unfounded reports), allowing patrol officers to remain available for genuine emergencies and reducing police presence where it is not needed.

3. Fiscal Cost
The fiscal cost of each type of Controlled Equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment, the costs of each proposed use, the costs of potential adverse impacts, and the annual, ongoing costs of the equipment, including operating, training, transportation, storage, maintenance, and upgrade costs.

The costs below represent estimates. Costs are subject to change at the time of purchase.

Initial Cost:
• Purchase of field-based UAS (Avata 2 & Matrice 4T): Total $44,500. • Lease of PSB-based DFR (Year 1): $100,000.
• Radar (Year 1): included.
• Dock Installation: $15,000.

Cost of Use:

Page 97 of 156 ends

Page 103 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED

AERIAL SYSTEM

5 • Each individual use of the UAS incurs a negligible financial cost, limited primarily to the electricity required to recharge the aircraft batteries. The operational cost is absorbed within the existing salary of the trained Pilot in Command (PIC) and does not require additional overtime or specialized funding. For the DFR program, the annual lease covers unlimited flights, meaning there is no incremental cost for high- frequency usage.

Costs of Potential Adverse Impacts:
• Costs of adverse impacts could include property damage caused by a malfunctioning drone, but the experience of other agencies with drones and similar programs indicates that such incidents are extremely rare. Furthermore, strict adherence to FAA maintenance schedules, pre-flight inspections, and pilot training requirements serves to minimize the risk of malfunction or operator error. Any costs associated with accidental damage or liability claims would be addressed through the City’s existing claims process.

Annual and Ongoing Costs:
• DFR Lease: $125,000 per year (includes upgrade to Flock Alpha). • Radar: $150,000 per year.
• Parts/Maintenance (for purchased units): $2,000 per year.

Training Costs:
• Training (4 primary pilots): $24,000.
• Training (8 additional pilots): $48,000.

Maintenance and Storage Costs:
• Parts/maintenance for purchased units: $2,000 per year. • Parts/maintenance for leased units: included.

Upgrade Costs:
• DFR upgrades are included in the lease. Within two years, this UAS would be replaced with Flock Alpha UAS and a battery swapping dock.

Page 98 of 156 ends

Page 104 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED

AERIAL SYSTEM

6 4. Impact
An assessment specifically identifying any potential impacts that the use of Controlled Equipment might have on the welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties of the public.

Welfare and Safety
The use of UAS technology will provide the Berkeley Police Department with an industry- standard tool that significantly enhances operational safety and efficiency. The UAS will improve response times to critical emergencies and calls for service, particularly those hampered by traffic congestion or geographic barriers. By providing rapid, aerial situational awareness, the UAS allows officers to assess threats and locate suspects before physical engagement. This capability allows officers to use time and distance to formulate de- escalation strategies, thereby reducing the likelihood of dangerous encounters for both officers and the community.

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
The Department acknowledges that UAS operations involve inherent privacy considerations, including the risk of inadvertently capturing footage of private areas (e.g., backyards or through windows) or uninvolved community members. To address this, the Department has established strict prohibitions against random surveillance or targeting individuals based on protected characteristics. While the aerial vantage point provides critical safety data, the Department’s policies prioritize civil liberties by restricting recording to authorized missions and mandating that cameras be diverted away from private spaces when not actively engaged in a call for service, as detailed in the "Mitigations" section below.

5. Mitigations
Specific, affirmative technical and procedural measures that will be implemented to safeguard the public from such impacts.

To safeguard the public’s welfare and civil liberties, the Department will implement the following affirmative technical and procedural measures:
• All DFR cameras will be programmed to orient toward the horizon (preventing ground recording) while in transit to a call for service. The camera will only point down upon arrival at the authorized scene.

Page 99 of 156 ends

Page 105 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED

AERIAL SYSTEM

7 • All UAS flights are logged, and flight data is auditable. Video data is stored on secure, encrypted servers (Evidence.com) with strict chain-of-custody controls. • The UAS will not be equipped with facial recognition software or weapons of any kind.
• As required by BMC 2.99 and BMC 2.100, the Department will publish data regarding deployments on an annual basis.
• Information including flight logs and incident type will be published on a publicly accessible transparency portal shortly after the conclusion of a flight, typically within 1 hour after docking.
• The program is subject to review by the Police Accountability Board and approval by the City Council via the Annual Military Equipment Report and the Annual Surveillance Technology Report.

6. Alternatives
Alternative method or methods by which the Police Department can accomplish the purposes for which the Controlled Equipment is proposed to be used, and rationale for selection over alternative methods.

In the absence of a UAS program, the department would be limited to less effective and more costly alternatives. If we were to gain the same level of operational support, we could attempt to increase the amount of officers to match the coverage and responsiveness of aerial support. However that is not feasible at this time due to well established challenges in hiring and training suitable candidates. It would also not address underlying efficiency issues in that ground-based units lack the elevated perspective needed for efficient searches, crowd monitoring, and scene management, and offer reduced capacity to maintain time and distance for de-escalation. This can heighten the potential for confrontational encounters and diminish effectiveness in pursuits or rapidly evolving incidents.

Additionally, taking no action would leave existing operational challenges unaddressed.

Page 100 of 156 ends

Page 106 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.100 IMPACT STATEMENT AND POLICY 709 UPDATE – UNMANNED

AERIAL SYSTEM

8 7. Third Party Dependence
Whether use or maintenance of the Controlled Equipment will require the engagement of third party service providers.

All UAS data will be uploaded and stored on Axon’s Evidence.com platform in line with existing departmental protocol for evidence collection. Axon complies with the EU-U.S.

Privacy Shield Framework and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework as set forth by the U.S. Department of Commerce regarding the collection, use, and retention of personal information transferred from the European Union and Switzerland to the United States (collectively, “Privacy Shield”). Axon has certified to the U.S. Department of Commerce that it adheres to the Privacy Shield Principles.

8. Legal and Procedural Rules
Authorized use must comply with state, federal laws, and Policy 611 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations.

9. Training
The UAS Supervisor/Program Coordinator will coordinate training of Pilots in Command and Visual Observers. The training course and materials will be approved through the training staff. An approved department instructor will oversee all training. Each training session will be documented and forwarded to the Policy and Training Bureau Sergeant.

Page 101 of 156 ends

Page 107 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations - 1 Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations
611 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the use of an unmanned aerial system (UAS) and for the storage, retrieval and dissemination of images and data captured by the UAS. Department personnel shall adhere to requirements for Unmanned Aerial Systems covered in this policy as well as the corresponding Surveillance Use Policy 1303.
611.1 DEFINITIONS
Drone as First Responder (DFR) - A mode of operation where a UAS is deployed immediately in response to a call for service or other emergency. This mode of operation provides real-time aerial situational awareness to dispatchers, analysts and responding officers, assisting in the assessment of incidents, the coordination of resources, and the potential de-escalation or clearance of calls without the need for immediate physical police presence.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – An entity of the federal government that regulates all aspects of civil aviation.

Pilot in Command (PIC) –Trained officer who is the sole person responsible for the operation of the UAS.

Visual Observer –Trained officer who may act as a spotter for PIC to assist in navigating the UAS and avoidance of hazards.
611.2 POLICY
Unmanned aerial systems may be utilized for the purpose of enhancing the department's mission to safeguard our diverse community by enabling remote visual Policy
611

Page 102 of 156 ends

Page 108 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations - 2 assessment and real-time situational awareness in the situations specified in this policy.

Any use of a UAS will also be in strict accordance with BMC 13.114 Sanctuary City Ordinance, constitutional and privacy rights, and FAA regulations.

All uses of the UAS shall be reported in compliance with the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) 2.99 Surveillance Technology Ordinance, and BMC 2.100 Police Equipment Ordinance.

Additionally, the Department shall publish data regarding specific requests, flight paths, and deployments on the Department's transparency portal. Flight logs and incident types for DFR operations should be published as soon as practicable, typically within one hour of docking.
611.3 PRIVACY
The Department acknowledges that UAS operations involve inherent privacy considerations, specifically the risk of inadvertently capturing footage of private areas (e.g., backyards or through windows) or uninvolved community members. To address this, the Department prioritizes civil liberties by restricting recording to authorized missions and strictly adhering to the restrictions on random surveillance outlined in Section 611.6 (Prohibited Use).

To safeguard these rights, UAS operations shall adhere to the following restrictions:
1) Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to FAA regulations and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., residence, yard, enclosure).
2) Operators and observers shall take reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertently recording or transmitting images of uninvolved community members or areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Cameras shall be diverted away from private spaces when not actively engaged in a permitted use. 3) For DFR operations, cameras shall be programmed to orient toward the horizon (preventing ground recording) while in transit to a call for service and shall only be directed toward the scene upon arrival at the authorized location. 611.4 PROGRAM COORDINATOR
The Police Chief will appoint a program coordinator who will be responsible for the management of the UAS program. The program coordinator will ensure that policies and procedures conform to current laws, regulations, and best practices. 611.5 PERMITTED USE

Page 103 of 156 ends

Page 109 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations - 3 Authorized operators may deploy the UAS in the following circumstances:
1) To provide real-time situational awareness during high-risk or critical incidents, such as barricaded suspects, hostage situations, active shooters, the apprehension of armed and dangerous suspects, the pre-planning and service of a warrant allowing officers to create time and distance to formulate de-escalation strategies, facilitate safe tactical planning, and reduce the need for immediate physical engagement. 2) To assist in locating lost, missing, or injured persons during search and rescue operations.
3) To rapidly respond to calls for service to verify the nature of the incident, potentially determining that a law enforcement response is unnecessary for unfounded reports or low-priority incidents, thereby acting as a resource multiplier and keeping patrol officers available for other calls.
4) To locate fleeing suspects to effectively contain perimeters and reduce the need for dangerous ground-based foot pursuits.
5) To track fleeing vehicles from a safe distance, allowing patrol units to de-escalate or terminate dangerous ground pursuits while maintaining visual contact. 6) To clear interior buildings or confined spaces remotely to prevent potentially violent encounters between officers and hidden suspects.
7) To assist the Fire Department with fire mitigation and suppression, hazardous materials releases, or disaster response and recovery.
8) To remotely inspect potential explosive devices or hazardous objects. 9) To document complex crime scenes, accident scenes, or areas where an aerial perspective is critical for the investigation.
10) To respond to active criminal activity at mass gatherings or special events. 11) To mitigate hazards caused by other UAS interfering with emergency operations. 12) For pilot certification training and maintenance of proficiency. 13) To address other unforeseen exigent circumstances where there is an imminent threat to public safety, provided the deployment is consistent with the general privacy and safety principles of this policy.
611.6 PROHIBITED USE
1) The UAS shall not be used:
a) To conduct random or arbitrary surveillance activities. This prohibition includes,

Page 104 of 156 ends

Page 110 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department ***DRAFT*** Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations - 4 but is not limited to, first amendment assemblies in accordance with Policy 428 First Amendment Assemblies.
b) To target a person based solely on actual or perceived characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, or disability. c) To harass, intimidate, or discriminate against any individual or group. 2) Furthermore, the UAS shall not be equipped with:
a) Facial recognition software
b) Biometric analysis capabilities
c) Weapons of any kind, including lethal or non-lethal munitions. 611.7 TRAINING
The Program Coordinator will coordinate training of PICs and Visual Observers. The training course and materials will be approved through the training staff. An approved department instructor will oversee all training. Each training session will be documented and forwarded to the Policy and Training Bureau Sergeant. 611.8 RETENTION REQUIREMENTS
UAS footage should be purged by BPD within 60 days if it doesn't contain any data of evidentiary value. If the data has evidentiary value, it should be uploaded into BPD's evidence database and kept pursuant to the established retention guidelines set forth in policy 804-Records Maintenance and Release.
611.9 RELEASE OF RECORDINGS
1) Unauthorized use, duplication, and/or distribution of UAS camera footage is prohibited. Personnel shall not make copies of any UAS camera footage for their personal use and are prohibited from using a recording device such as a personal camera or any secondary video camera to capture UAS camera footage. 2) All UAS camera footage is property of the Berkeley Police Department and shall not be copied, released or disseminated in any form or manner outside the parameters of established policy, procedure, or laws.
3) The Custodian of Records, or their designee, will be responsible for handling requests for UAS camera footage.

Page 105 of 156 ends

Page 111 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS

1 Background
Pursuant to BMC 2.99 Surveillance Technology Ordinance, this report and the associated surveillance use policy must be approved by City Council before “[e]ntering into an agreement with a non-City entity to acquire, share or otherwise use Surveillance Technology or the information it provides” (BMC2.99.030(1)(d). The Berkeley Police Department (BPD) seeks to implement a community safety video integration capability to enhance real-time public safety operations and improve investigative efficiency. This initiative leverages software integration to access video footage from cameras voluntarily registered and shared by non-City entities.

This acquisition report is not for physical hardware but for the software capability to view community video streams. This approach acts as a resource multiplier, allowing authorized staff to virtually canvass areas for evidence and gain real-time situational awareness during critical incidents without the cost of installing new City poles and cameras.

1. Description
Information describing the Surveillance Technology and how it works, including product descriptions from manufacturers
Description:

The technology does not involve the City purchasing new cameras. Instead, it leverages software integrations to allow authorized BPD personnel to view live or recorded video streams from private cameras, only where the owner has explicitly granted permission to share data.

This system aggregates disparate video feeds into a centralized dashboard accessible to authorized BPD personnel, acting as a resource multiplier for investigations without requiring the City to install infrastructure.

How it Works:

The system functions through a cloud-based platform. Community members create an account and register their cameras. This places a pin on the BPD map indicating a camera exists at that location. For compatible systems that opt-in, the video feed is routed via secure API to the BPD dashboard. Access is permission-based. Camera owners retain ownership and can revoke access at any time. BPD personnel access the system via

Page 106 of 156 ends

Page 112 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS

2 secure login. Live viewing is restricted to active incidents, while historical access is used for gathering evidence.

Manufacturers’ Descriptions:

The following descriptions are provided by Flock Safety, which is one vendor capable of delivering this integration.
"Flock Safety Wing® allows customers to easily integrate video cameras into FlockOS® for a seamless workflow. [It] integrates live stream traffic cameras, publicly or privately owned livestream security cameras into one cloud-based situational awareness dashboard to increase response time in mission-critical incidents."
"Registering your camera lets law enforcement know you have footage that could help during a criminal investigation. Places a pin on your local law enforcement's camera map... Integrating your business cameras gives law enforcement secure, live access to video streams and the ability to download footage when it's needed as evidence, or for a real-time crisis response."

2. Purpose
Information on the proposed purpose(s) for the Surveillance Technology The proposed purpose of accessing community video streams is to provide real-time awareness and investigative capacity in following use cases:
• To support specific and active criminal investigations. • To support serious traffic-related investigations.
• To support police misconduct investigations, and
• To respond to and review critical incidents or natural disasters.

3. Location
The general location(s) it may be deployed and reasons for deployment Deployment of the Community Video Stream integration is a voluntary software integration with the Police Department. The Department will focus integration efforts on cameras located in the following high-priority areas:
• Integration will be prioritized for cameras owned by businesses and non-residential commercial property owners in major thoroughfares and districts, such as the Elmwood, Solano, Telegraph, Fourth Street, and Downtown business districts.

Page 107 of 156 ends

Page 113 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS

3 • To facilitate rapid response to active shooter events, mass casualty incidents, or other critical public safety threats, the Department may enter into agreements with facilities or campuses where immediate video access could be vital for saving lives.

4. Impact
An assessment identifying potential impacts on civil liberties and civil rights including but not limited to potential disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups The Department acknowledges that community video streams involve privacy considerations. The use policy strictly prohibits accessing cameras in areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists without a warrant. Access would be driven by specific criminal incidents or calls for service, not constant monitoring. The policy, local ordinances, and state law all would prohibit sharing this information for immigration enforcement purposes.

To further mitigate impacts, every camera must pass a Pre-Integration Review- including an in-person site assessment to confirm the camera is not positioned to capture areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists- before it is connected to the Department’s system.

5. Mitigations
Information regarding technical and procedural measures that can be implemented to appropriately safeguard the public from any impacts identified To safeguard the public’s welfare and civil liberties, the Department will implement the following affirmative technical and procedural measures:
• Access is strictly permission-based. Camera owners must actively "opt-in" and can revoke access at any time.
• The use of facial recognition technology on any stream is strictly prohibited. • All system access is logged. The audit trail records the user, date, time, and specific camera accessed as well as the case number and/or reason. • Data is stored on CJIS-compliant servers.

Pre-Integration Review: In addition to the above, before any community video stream is integrated into the Department’s system, the following review process shall be completed:

Page 108 of 156 ends

Page 114 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS

4 • A designated Department member shall conduct an in-person visit to each camera location to: (i) confirm the camera’s physical location and field of view; and (ii) verify the camera is not positioned to capture areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, including but not limited to the interior of residences, private yards, restrooms, changing areas, or medical facilities.
• Prior to integration, signage shall be posted near each location with integrated cameras informing the public that the area is monitored by a camera integrated with the Berkeley Police Department. Signage shall be maintained for the duration of the integration.
• The Department shall publish and maintain on the City of Berkeley website a current list and map of all community cameras that have been integrated with the Department’s system.
• The Investigations Division Captain, or their designee, shall review and approve the site assessment before integration is finalized. Integration shall not proceed if the site assessment identifies unresolved privacy concerns.

6. Data Types and Sources
A list of the sources of data proposed to be collected, analyzed, or processed by the Surveillance Technology, including "open source" data
Data collection is limited to camera footage and associated metadata voluntarily provided by community members. The system would integrate data from third-party hardware owned by non-City entities. BPD would not own the cameras nor any non-evidentiary data.

Footage found to contain evidentiary value would be downloaded and stored according to existing evidence retention policies and protocols.

7. Data Security
Information about the steps that can be taken to ensure adequate security measures to safeguard the data collected or generated from unauthorized access or disclosure This program would utilize a multi-layered security architecture to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of the data:
• Access requires secure login credentials with Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA). • Access is restricted to authorized personnel and audited for compliance. • The storage environment complies with CJIS standards. • Evidentiary data downloaded for investigations is stored in the Department’s digital evidence system (Evidence.com) and retained according to state law. Non- evidentiary data remains under the control of the camera owner.

Page 109 of 156 ends

Page 115 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS

5 8. Fiscal Cost
The fiscal cost of each type of Controlled Equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment, the costs of each proposed use, the costs of potential adverse impacts, and the annual, ongoing costs of the equipment, including operating, training, transportation, storage, maintenance, and upgrade costs.

The costs below represent estimates. Hardware costs and integration costs are paid by the private camera owners.

Initial Cost:
• Hardware: $0 (Cameras are owned by private entities). • Software Integration: Estimated $30 per stream per year paid by camera owners. • For the first four years of integration, operating costs are covered through the department’s existing agreement with Flock for the FlockOS platform. Thereafter, the annual subscription cost is estimated to be $65,000.

Cost of Use:
• The operational cost is absorbed within the existing salary of the investigating officers and this increased efficiency will likely result in time savings.

Costs of Potential Adverse Impacts:
• Potential costs could arise from data breach litigation or claims of privacy violation.

However, the reliance on voluntary consent to access cameras that already are in place as well as strict audit logs minimizes this risk. Strict adherence to the Use Policy will further mitigate liability.

Annual and Ongoing Costs:
• No ongoing costs are incurred by the Department.

Training Costs:
• Training is included in the software subscription and absorbed into regular in- service training hours.

Maintenance and Storage Costs:
• Maintenance of the software platform is included in the subscription. Maintenance of physical cameras is the responsibility of the private owners.

Upgrade Costs:

Page 110 of 156 ends

Page 116 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS

6 • Software upgrades are included in the annual subscription model.

9. Third Party Dependence and Access
Whether use or maintenance of the technology will require data gathered by the technology to be handled or stored by a third-party vendor on an ongoing basis, and whether a third party may have access to such data or may have the right to sell or otherwise share the data in aggregated, disaggregated, raw or any other formats
All evidentiary video will be uploaded and stored on the Department’s digital evidence platform (Evidence.com) in line with existing departmental protocol for evidence collection. The evidence platform vendor complies with applicable data protection frameworks regarding the collection, use, and retention of personal information.

Live and recorded video streams that have not been downloaded as evidence remain on the third-party camera systems and under the control of the camera owners. The Department does not own, store, or have ongoing custody of this data.

10. Alternatives
A summary and general assessment of potentially viable alternative methods (whether involving the use of a new technology or not), if any, considered before deciding to propose acquiring the Surveillance Technology
In the absence of a community video streams program, the primary alternative is the traditional method of physical canvassing. This process requires officers to physically walk neighborhoods after a crime, locate cameras, identify owners, and request footage manually. This method is time and resource-consuming and often relies on the owner being present, having the appropriate login and being technically capable of exporting the footage. It delays investigations and pulls officers away from other duties. In contrast, remote access makes the process more efficient for both the department and the community member.

The Department considered significantly expanding the network of City-owned and operated fixed cameras to match the coverage provided by community streams. This alternative was deemed fiscally unfeasible. The cost to purchase additional City-owned cameras would be prohibitively expensive.

Another alternative is to rely on physical surveillance by officers to deter crime and capture evidence. While physical surveillance is a valid tactic, it is limited by the cost and availability of resources. It does not provide the persistent, resource-multiplying capability of a camera network, nor does it allow for the retrospective review of evidence crucial for prosecution.

Page 111 of 156 ends

Page 117 ends

BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT BMC 2.99 ACQUISITION REPORT – COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS

7 A final alternative would be not acquiring access to community video streams. Without this technology, the Department would forgo enhancements in investigative efficiency and would continue to rely on slower, manual methods that may result in the loss of critical evidence or loss of available personnel power.

11. Experience of Other Entities
To the extent such information is available, a summary of the experience of comparable government entities with the proposed technology, including any unanticipated financial or community costs and benefits, experienced by such other entities In December 2025, the City of Oakland City Council voted 7-1 to approve a similar program under their "Community Safety Camera Systems" policy. OPD has established strict governance that explicitly prohibits the use of the technology for facial recognition, harassment, or immigration enforcement.

Regional jurisdictions like Alameda County, Vacaville, and Elk Grove also utilize fixed surveillance cameras and video integration as tools for public safety and crime deterrence which reflects a regional standard for the use of such technology in modern policing. San Francisco has publicized substantial public safety benefits associated with this technology used in concert with drones as a first responder and automated license plate readers.

Page 112 of 156 ends

Page 118 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

Community Video Streams
355.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides guidance for the use of the community video stream integration by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD). The purpose of accessing community video streams is to provide real-time awareness and investigative capacity in the following use cases:

• To support specific and active criminal investigations. • To support serious traffic-related investigations.
• To support police misconduct investigations.
• To respond to and review critical incidents or natural disasters.

This initiative leverages software integration to access camera footage from cameras voluntarily registered and shared with BPD. This approach acts as a resource multiplier, allowing authorized staff to virtually canvass areas for evidence and gain real-time situational awareness during critical incidents without the cost or intrusiveness of installing new City poles and cameras. 355.2 POLICY
The Berkeley Police Department utilizes a community video streams system to enhance its anti- crime strategy, to effectively allocate and deploy personnel, support investigations, and to enhance safety and security in public areas. As specified by this policy, cameras owned by community partners in strategic locations throughout the City may be shared with the Police Department in order to record, deter, and solve crimes, to help the City safeguard against potential threats to the public, and to help manage emergency response situations during natural and human-made disasters, among other uses specified in Section 355.3.1.

Community video streams in public areas will be used in a legal and ethical manner while recognizing and protecting constitutional standards of privacy.
355.3 OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
BPD members authorized to review community video streams may only access and review video from public areas and public activities where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists, and only for the purposes authorized by this policy.
355.3.1 PLACEMENT REVIEW AND MONITORING
Deployment of the Community Video Stream integration is a voluntary software integration with the Police Department. However, the Department will focus its integration efforts on cameras located in the following high-priority areas:
• Integration will be prioritized for cameras owned by businesses and non-residential commercial property owners in major thoroughfares and districts, such as the Elmwood, Solano, Telegraph, Fourth Street, and Downtown business improvement districts. • To facilitate rapid response to active shooter events, mass casualty incidents, or other critical public safety threats, the Department may enter into agreements with facilities or Policy
355

Page 113 of 156 ends

Page 119 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

campuses where immediate video access could be vital for saving lives.

Actual locations are determined entirely by the entities that voluntarily agree to register or integrate their cameras and meet the requirements for integration. All locations will be within the City of Berkeley.
355.3.2 COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAM CAMERA MARKINGS
All public areas monitored by integrated community video streams shall be marked in a conspicuous manner with unobstructed signs to inform the public that the area is under police surveillance, as required by the Pre-Integration Review process below. Signage shall be maintained for the duration of the integration.
355.3.3 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER TECHNOLOGY
The Department may integrate technologies not otherwise prohibited with the community video streams system, provided that such use does not conflict with this policy or expand internal or external access beyond what is allowed by City law or Department policy. For example, integration may occur on a shared access platform where video data and automated license plate reader data are viewable in the same system.
355.3.4 PRE-INTEGRATION REVIEW
Before any community video stream is integrated into the Department’s system, the following review process shall be completed:
• A designated Department member shall conduct an in-person visit to each camera location to:
o Confirm the camera’s physical location and field of view. o Verify the camera is not positioned to capture areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, including but not limited to the interior of residences, private yards, restrooms, changing areas, or medical facilities. • Prior to integration, signage shall be posted in a conspicuous location near each integrated camera informing the public that the area is monitored by a camera integrated with the Berkeley Police Department. Signage shall be maintained for the duration of the integration.
• The Department shall publish and maintain on the City of Berkeley website a current list and map of all community cameras that have been integrated with the Department’s system.
• The Investigations Division Captain, or their designee, shall review and approve the site assessment before integration is finalized. Integration shall not proceed if the site assessment identifies unresolved privacy concerns.
355.4 VIDEO SUPERVISION

Page 114 of 156 ends

Page 120 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

Access to community video streams camera data shall be limited to Berkeley Police Department (BPD) personnel utilizing the camera database for uses authorized above, with technical assistance from Public Works Department and Department of Information Technology personnel. Information may be shared in accordance with Sections 355.6 or 1304.9 below. BPD members seeking access to the camera system shall obtain the approval of the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee.

Supervisors should monitor community video streams access and usage to ensure BPD members are complying with this policy, other applicable department policy, and applicable laws.

Supervisors should ensure such use and access is appropriately documented. 355.4.1 VIDEO LOG
No one without authorization will be allowed to login and view the recordings. Those who are authorized and login should automatically trigger the audit trail function to ensure compliance with the guidelines and policy.
355.4.2 PROHIBITED ACTIVITY
Community video streams systems will not intentionally be used to invade the privacy of individuals or observe areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

Community video streams systems shall not be used in an unequal or discriminatory manner and shall not target protected individual characteristics including, but not limited to race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

Community video streams equipment shall not be used to harass, intimidate or discriminate against any individual or group.

Community video streams systems and recordings are subject to the Berkeley Police Department's Immigration Law Policy, and hence may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials, unless required by federal law.

Video recordings shall not be disclosed to law enforcement agencies from other states if the purpose of the request is to support the enforcement of laws that restrict or criminalize reproductive rights or rights regarding the provision or receipt of gender-affirming care. 355.5 STORAGE AND RETENTION OF MEDIA
The Department acknowledges that the Community Video Stream integration relies on cameras and storage systems owned and operated by non-City entities. Consequently, video footage and associated metadata that is not downloaded or captured by the Department remains under the sole control and retention schedule of the camera owner.

Evidentiary data downloaded for investigations is stored in the Department’s digital evidence system. Once downloaded, data is retained in accordance with state law and existing Departmental evidence retention protocols.

Any recordings needed as evidence in a criminal or police misconduct proceeding shall be copied to a suitable medium and booked into evidence in accordance with current evidence procedures

Page 115 of 156 ends

Page 121 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

355.5.1 EVIDENTIARY INTEGRITY
All media downloaded and retained pursuant to this Policy shall be treated in the same manner as other evidence. Media shall be accessed, maintained, stored and retrieved in a manner that ensures its integrity as evidence, including strict adherence to chain of custody requirements.

Electronic trails, including encryption, digital masking of innocent or uninvolved individuals to preserve anonymity, authenticity certificates and date and time stamping, shall be used as appropriate to preserve individual rights and to ensure the authenticity and maintenance of a secure evidentiary chain of custody.
355.6 RELEASE OF VIDEO IMAGES
Data collected and used in a police report shall be made available to the public in accordance with department policy and applicable state or federal law, also referenced in Policy 1304.8.

Recorded video images that are the subject of a court order or subpoena shall be processed in accordance with the established department subpoena process.

The Department does not own, control, or have the right to share the live video streams or raw data stored on the third-party camera systems involved in this integration. Release and data- sharing provisions in this policy and in Surveillance Use Policy 1306 apply only to evidentiary data the Department has actually downloaded and retained.
355.7 COMMUNITY VIDEO STREAMS AUDIT
The community video streams software generates a site log each time the system is accessed.

The site log is broken down by server, device, user or general access. The site log is kept on the server for two years and is exportable for reporting. System audits will be conducted by the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability (OSPA) on a regular basis, at least biennial. As part of the audit, OSPA will confirm that BPD does not enter any direct data sharing agreements or give direct access to outside agencies. A log of any instance of when surveillance footage has been shared, including date, time, reasons for search, and any recipient agencies.

BPD will enforce against prohibited uses of the cameras pursuant to Policy 1010, Personnel Complaints, or other applicable law or policy. The City Manager shall enforce against any

Page 116 of 156 ends

Page 122 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

prohibited use of cameras and/or access to data by other City of Berkeley personnel.

The audit shall be documented in the form of an internal department memorandum to the Chief of Police. The memorandum shall include any data errors found so that such errors can be corrected. After review by the Chief of Police, the memorandum and any associated documentation shall be published on the City of Berkeley website in an appropriate location, and retained within the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability. 355.8 TRAINING
All BPD members authorized to access community video streams systems shall receive appropriate training. Training should include guidance on the use of cameras, associated software, and review of relevant policies and procedures, including this policy as well as review of relevant City of Berkeley laws and regulations. Training should also address state and federal law related to the use of video surveillance equipment and privacy. All relevant recordings that are utilized will be collected pursuant to Policy 802 Property and Evidence, and retained pursuant to Policy 804 Records and Maintenance.
355.9 MAINTENANCE
It shall be the responsibility of the private owners of the cameras to facilitate and coordinate any updates and required maintenance.

Page 117 of 156 ends

Page 123 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

Surveillance Use Policy - Community Video
Streams
1306.1 PURPOSE
This policy provides guidance for the use of the Community Video Stream integration by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD). The purpose of accessing community video streams is to provide real-time awareness and investigative capacity.

This initiative leverages software integration to access video footage from cameras voluntarily registered and shared with the Police Department. This approach acts as a resource multiplier, allowing authorized staff to virtually canvass areas for evidence and gain real-time situational awareness during critical incidents without the cost or intrusiveness of installing new City poles and cameras.

1306.2 AUTHORIZED USE
Only BPD members who receive training on this policy, who are then granted access by an administrator may access the data from the community video streams. This data may only be accessed to further a legitimate law enforcement purpose, as listed in this Policy. Members must follow the necessary logging mechanisms, such as case number and case type when querying the database.

Community video streams may be accessed and reviewed by authorized BPD personnel for the following purposes:
(a) To support specific and active criminal investigations. (b) To support serious traffic-related investigations.
(c) To support police misconduct investigations, and
(d) To respond to and review critical incidents or natural disasters.

Unauthorized recording, viewing, reproduction, dissemination, or retention of video footage is prohibited.

The following are prohibited uses of the video surveillance system:
(a) Unauthorized recording, viewing, reproduction, dissemination, or retention of video footage is prohibited.
(b) Community video streams shall not intentionally be used to invade the privacy of individuals or observe areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. (c) Community video streams shall not be used in an unequal or discriminatory manner and shall not target protected individual characteristics including, but not limited to race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

Policy
1306

Page 118 of 156 ends

Page 124 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

(d) Video surveillance equipment shall not be used to harass, intimidate or discriminate against any individual or group.
(e) Community video streams and recordings that are retained by Berkeley Police Department as evidence are subject to the Berkeley Police Department's Immigration Law Policy, and hence may not be shared with federal immigration enforcement officials, unless required by federal law.
(f) Community video streams and recordings that are retained by Berkeley Police Department as evidence shall not be disclosed to law enforcement agencies from other states if the purpose of the request is to support the enforcement of laws that restrict or criminalize reproductive rights or rights regarding the provision or receipt of gender-affirming care.

1306.3 DATA COLLECTION
Data collection is limited to camera footage and associated metadata voluntarily provided by community members. Community members create an account and register their cameras. This places a pin on the BPD map indicating a camera exists at that location. For compatible systems that opt-in, the video feed is routed via secure API to the BPD dashboard. The system integrates data from third-party hardware owned by non-City entities. BPD does not own the cameras. Camera owners retain ownership and either party can revoke access at any time.

1306.4 DATA ACCESS
Access to community video streams data shall be limited to BPD personnel utilizing the camera database for uses described above and pursuant to the Community Video Streams Policy. BPD members seeking access to the video surveillance system shall obtain the approval of the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee.

1306.5 DATA PROTECTION
This program shall utilize a multi-layered security architecture to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of the data:
• Access shall require secure login credentials with Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA). • Access shall be restricted to authorized personnel and audited for compliance. • The storage environment shall comply with CJIS standards. • Evidentiary data downloaded for investigations shall be stored in the Department’s digital evidence system and retained according to state law. Non-evidentiary data remains under the control of the camera owner.

1306.6 CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS PROTECTION
The Berkeley Police Department is dedicated to the most efficient utilization of its resources and services in its public safety endeavors. The Berkeley Police Department recognizes the need to

Page 119 of 156 ends

Page 125 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

protect its ownership and control over shared information and to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the public, in accordance with federal and state law. Provisions of this policy, including 1306.4 Data Access, 1306.5 Data Protection, 1306.7 Data Retention, 1306.8 Public Access, 1306.9 Third Party Data Sharing, and 1306.13 Pre-Integration Review serve to protect against any unauthorized use of community video streams. The use of facial recognition technology on any community video stream is prohibited. These procedures ensure the data is not used in a way that would violate or infringe upon anyone’s civil rights and/or liberties, including but not limited to potentially disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups.

1306.7 DATA RETENTION
The Department acknowledges that the Community Video Stream integration relies on cameras and storage systems owned and operated by non-City entities. Consequently, video footage and associated metadata that is not downloaded or captured by the Department remains under the sole control and retention schedule of the camera owner.

Any recordings needed as evidence in a criminal or police misconduct proceeding shall be copied to a suitable medium and booked into evidence in accordance with current evidence procedures.

This policy reaffirms the City Manager’s authority, which may be delegated to the Berkeley Police Chief, to pause or end the deployment of the subject equipment at any time and for any cause. The City Council shall be, within 48 hours, notified of any such decision to pause or end its deployment.

1306.8 PUBLIC ACCESS
Data collected and used in a police report shall be made available to the public in accordance with department policy and applicable state or federal law.

Requests for recorded video images from the public or the media shall be processed in the same manner as requests for department public records pursuant to Policy 804.

Recorded video images that are the subject of a court order or subpoena shall be processed in accordance with the established department subpoena process.

1306.9 THIRD-PARTY DATA-SHARING
The Department does not own, control, or have the right to share the live video streams or raw data stored on the third-party camera systems involved in this integration. Consequently, the Department cannot and shall not grant third-party access to the camera registry or the live video feeds themselves.

Requests for evidentiary footage retained by BPD from other law enforcement agencies shall be referred to the Investigations Division Captain, or their designee for release in accordance with this policy and must be related to a specific active criminal investigation.

Page 120 of 156 ends

Page 126 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

1306.10 TRAINING
All BPD members authorized to access community video streams systems shall receive appropriate training. Training should include guidance on the use of cameras, associated software, and review of relevant policies and procedures, including this policy as well as review of relevant City of Berkeley laws and regulations.

1306.11 AUDITING AND OVERSIGHT
The community video streams software generates a site log each time the system is accessed.

The video surveillance software generates a site log each time the system is accessed. The site log is broken down by server, device, user or general access. The site log is kept on the server for two years and is exportable for reporting. Community video stream audits will be conducted on a regular basis, at least biennial. As part of the audit, OSPA will confirm that BPD does not enter any direct data sharing agreements or give direct access to outside agencies. A log of any instance of when surveillance footage has been shared, including date, time, reasons for search, and any recipient agencies.

The Berkeley Police Department will observe the following safeguards regarding access to and use of stored data:
(a) Non-law enforcement requests for access to stored community video streams data shall be processed according to the Records Maintenance and Release Policy in accordance with applicable law.
(b) All community video streams data downloaded to any workstation or server shall be accessible only through a login/password-protected system capable of documenting all access of information by name, date and time.
(c) Berkeley Police Department members approved to access community video streams data under these guidelines are permitted to access the data for legitimate California law enforcement purposes only, such as when the data relate to a specific criminal

Page 121 of 156 ends

Page 127 ends

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

investigation or department-related civil or administrative action. (d) Aggregated community video streams data not related to specific criminal investigations shall not be released to any local, state or federal agency or entity without the consent of the Chief of Police or City Manager.
(e) Measures will be taken to ensure the accuracy of community video streams information. Errors discovered in community video streams data collected by community video streams units shall be marked, corrected or deleted in accordance with the type and severity of the error in question.
(f) Such community video streams data may be released to other authorized and verified law enforcement officials and agencies for legitimate California law enforcement purposes.
(g) Every community video streams browsing inquiry must be documented by either the associated Berkeley Police case number or incident number, and/or a reason for the inquiry. For security or data breaches, see the Records Release and Maintenance Policy.

1306.12 MAINTENANCE
It shall be the responsibility of the private owners of the cameras to facilitate and coordinate any updates and required maintenance.
1306.13 PRE-INTEGRATION REVIEW
Before any community video stream is integrated into the Department’s system, the following review process shall be completed:

1. A designated Department member shall conduct an in-person visit to each camera location to:
a. Confirm the camera’s physical location and field of view. b. Verify the camera is not positioned to capture areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, including but not limited to the interior of residences, private yards, restrooms, changing areas, or medical facilities.

2. All public areas monitored by integrated community video streams shall be marked in a conspicuous manner with unobstructed signs to inform the public that the area is under police surveillance. Signage shall be maintained for the duration of the integration.

3. The Department shall publish and maintain on the City of Berkeley website a current list and map of all community cameras that have been integrated with the Department’s system.

4. The Investigations Division Captain, or their designee, shall review and approve the site assessment before integration is finalized. Integration shall not proceed if the site assessment identifies unresolved privacy concerns.

Page 122 of 156 ends

Page 128 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras - 1
Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

351.2 POLICY
The Berkeley Police Department utilizes a video surveillance system to enhance its anti -crime strategy, to effectively allocate and deploy personnel, and to enhance safety and security in public areas. As specified by this policy, cameras may be placed in strategic locations throughout the City to record, deter, and solve crimes, to help the City safeguard against potential threats to the public, and to help manage emergency response situations during natural and human-made disasters, among other uses specified in Section 351.3.1.

Video surveillance in public areas will be conducted in a legal and ethical manner while recognizing and protecting constitutional standards of privacy.

351.3 OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES
Only City Council- approved video surveillance equipment shall be utilized. BPD members authorized to review video surveillance may only record and review public areas and public activities where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists and pursuant to Section 351.3.1. The City Manager shall obtain Council approval of any proposed additional locations for the placement and use of video surveillance technology.
351.3.1 PLACEMENT REVIEW AND MONITORING
Camera placement will only occur in locations approved by the City Council and will be guided by this policy and the underlying purpose or strategy associated with the overall video surveillance plan. As appropriate, the Chief of Police should confer with other affected City departments when evaluating camera placement. Environmental factors, including lighting, location of buildings, presence of vegetation or other obstructions, should also be evaluated when determining placement.

Current City Council approved locations:

Policy
351

Page 123 of 156 ends

Page 129 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras - 2

Page 124 of 156 ends

Page 130 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras - 3

Video surveillance equipment shall not be used to harass, intimidate or discriminate against any individual or group.

351.5 STORAGE AND RETENTION OF MEDIA
Video surveillance recordings are not government records pursuant to California Government Code 34090 in and of themselves. Except as otherwise permitted in this section, video surveillance recordings shall be purged within one hundred and eighty (180) days of recording. Recordings of incidents involving use of force by a police officer or involving, detentions, arrests, or recordings relevant to a formal or informal complaint against a sworn police officer shall be retained for a minimum of two years and one month. Recordings relating to court cases and complaints against BPD sworn officers that are being adjudicated will be manually deleted at the same time other evidence associated with the case is purged in line with the Department's Evidence Retention policy. Any recordings related to a police misconduct investigation shall be maintained until such matter is fully adjudicated, at which time it shall be deleted in line with the Department's Rvidence Retention policy, and any applicable orders from the court.

Page 125 of 156 ends

Page 131 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras - 4

as other evidence. Media shall be accessed, maintained, stored and retrieved in a manner that ensures its integrity as evidence, including strict adherence to chain of custody requirements.

Electronic trails, including encryption, digital masking of innocent or uninvolved individuals to preserve anonymity, authenticity certificates and date and time stamping, shall be used as appropriate to preserve individual rights and to ensure the authenticity and maintenance of a secure evidentiary chain of custody.
351.6 RELEASE OF VIDEO IMAGES
Data collected and used in a police report shall be made available to the public in accordance with department policy and applicable state or federal law, also referenced in Policy 1304.8.

Recorded video images that are the subject of a court order or subpoena shall be processed in accordance with the established department subpoena process.

351.7 VIDEO SURVEILLANCE AUDIT
The video surveillance software generates a site log each time the system is accessed. The site log is broken down by server, device, user or general access. The site log is kept on the server for two years and is exportable for reporting. System audits will be conducted by the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability (OSPA) on a regular basis, at least biennial. As part of the audit, OSPA will confirm that BPD doesn’t enter any direct data sharing agreements or give direct access to outside agencies. A log of any instance of when surveillance footage has been shared, including date, time, reasons for search, and any recipient agencies.

Page 126 of 156 ends

Page 132 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras - 5

documentation shall be published on the City of Berkeley website in an appropriate location, and retained within the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability.

will be collected pursuant to Policy 802, Property and Evidence, and retained pursuant to Policy 804, Records and Maintenance.

Page 127 of 156 ends

Page 133 ends

Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department

Berkeley Police Department
Law Enforcement Services Manual

Surveillance Use Policy-External Fixed Video
Surveillance Cameras
1304.1 PURPOSE
This policy provides guidance for the use of City of Berkeley external fixed video surveillance cameras by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD).

This policy only applies to fixed, overt, marked external video surveillance systems utilized by BPD. It does not apply to mobile audio/video systems, covert audio/video systems or any other image-capturing devices used by the Department. Department personnel shall adhere to the requirements for External Fixed Video Surveillance Cameras covered in this policy as well as the corresponding Use Policy-351.

This Surveillance Use Policy is legally-enforceable pursuant to BMC 2.99.

The cameras shall only record video images and not sound. Recorded images pursuant to Section 351.5 may be accessed, reviewed, and used for specific criminal or BPD administrative investigations and video surveillance may be accessed and reviewed by authorized BPD personnel for the following purposes:
(a) To support specific and active criminal investigations. (b) To support serious traffic-related investigations.
(c) To support police misconduct investigations, and
(d) To respond to and review critical incidents or natural disasters.

Unauthorized recording, viewing, reproduction, dissemination, or retention of video footage is prohibited.

The following are prohibited uses of the video surveillance system:
(a) Unauthorized recording, viewing, reproduction, dissemination, or retention of video footage is prohibited.
(b) Video surveillance systems will not intentionally be used to invade the privacy of individuals or observe areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. (c) Video surveillance systems shall not be used in an unequal or discriminatory manner and shall not target protected individual characteristics including, but not limited to race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

Policy
1304

Page 128 of 156 ends

Berkeley City CouncilMay 7, 2026

Berkeley City Council
May 7, 2026