From: Maia Kobabe
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I oppose the use of Flock cameras in Santa Rosa Date: Thursday, October 8, 2026 9:37:29 PM
Hello Santa Rosa City Council,
I am a life-long Sonoma County resident who has lived in Santa Rosa for the past 10 years. I deeply oppose the use of Flock cameras in our city. In this political climate, adding cameras which feed data into a nationally searchable database is aiding in building a surveillance state which will infringe on the privacy rights of citizens of California.
On October 1st, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled that a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a woman accused of meth trafficking when he searched her license plate in Flock’s automated license plate reader system simply because her license plate was from California, then used her travel history as part of the reason to search her car. The judge’s opinion found Flock searches to be unconstitutional, and suggested that Flock’s network is “a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance.” The judge found that use of the ALPR Systems was an Unconstitutional Warrantless Search. You can read more about the story here:
https://www.404media.co/federal-judge-rules-a-flock-search-was-indiscriminate-mass-surveillance-andunconstitutional/ The full case report is here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.oknd.76981/gov.uscourts.oknd.76981.62.0.pdf I am hopeful that we will soon see more judges finding Flock searches unconstitutional, and violating the right to not be searched without a warrant. I don't think we should be introducing these cameras or these search tools into Santa Rosa in the first place.
Best, Maia Kobabe
Maia Kobabe
pronouns: e, em, eir
nonbinary & queer, comics & illustration
portfolio, instagram, tumblr, patreon
From: Finn Beazlie
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment cc meeting 10/13
Date: Friday, October 9, 2026 6:14:04 PM
I am writing this public comment to the Santa Rosa City Council in order to oppose in the strongest possible terms my opposition to the use of Flock cameras in my city. I oppose the use of Flock, or any other public survailance system whatsoever as unconstitutional and a violation of the rights and privacy of myself and my fellow citizens. Do not think that the authority temporarily given to you by the citizens of this city allows surveillance in any form.
I will be voting against any council members who support flock and surveillance in the next city council race.
-Finnian Beazlie,
Santa Rosa Resident
From: Carole Murphy
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] cameras
Date: Friday, October 9, 2026 6:41:51 PM
I strongly opposed the use of flock cameras and other such similar mass surveillance systems and their use in Santa Rosa or Sonoma county for that matter. At a minimum this should be put before voters BEFORE THEY ARE USED. Well seems we skipped a vital step here.
Shame on you who ever decided this was a good idea.
Carole Murphy
Santa Rosa Resident
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
From: Marilyn
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL]
Date: Friday, October 9, 2026 6:49:35 PM
FLOCK PROJECT
PLEASE CONSIDER NOT CONTRACTING WITH FLOCK PROJECT INSTALLERS
BECAUSE IT IS CLEAR THAT DATA IN THOSE COMPUTERS IS SOMETIMES
ERRONEOUS JUST AS IS THE CASE WITH RE-EXAM POLICE PROGRAM WHICH CAN cause injury or death for innocent citizens. Marilyn Bryant Santa Rosa resident.
From: Sabrina Krauss
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] In opposition to FLOCK
Date: Friday, October 9, 2026 7:56:51 PM
Dear city council,
I am apposed to the city investing in Flock camera systems due to the wide spread dangerous errors and surveillance issues they pose. While cameras can be helpful to catch some criminals, the Flock brand has gone way too far, including people who have access committing illegal surveillance and crimes against the unsuspecting, and more access to information about people’s private lives then is necessary when a license plate is read.
Flock goes far too deep digging up and making available private information about individuals that have committed no crime, and making that info available to more than just law enforcement, creating an easy pathway to cyber hacking crimes. And then there have been examples of some law enforcement using it to their own personal use to spot on Ex’s., as well as there have been errors where innocents have been violently arrested based on incorrect Flock info.
We can have a closed loop type camera systems that take the info keeping it in our jurisdiction and can be requested and released if needed rather than automatically being available to all. Other competitive brands offer such service that can keep the info closed loop.
Thank you for your attention in this matter, and for taking a listen to my voice.
Sabrina Krauss
629 Wheeler Street
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
707-843-9236
Sent from my iPhone
From: Lynn Bowers
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Flock
Date: Saturday, October 10, 2026 8:53:45 AM
Hello City of Santa Rosa,
I know I do not need to go into all the reasons why I don’t want Flock installed.
I have no doubt you have every reason possible given to you already.
I want you to know- I don’t want them. Big NO on Flock.
Thank you and all the best,
Lynn Bowers
Sent from my iPhone
From: Dinna Withrich
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Flock Cameras
Date: Saturday, October 10, 2026 6:41:59 PM
Santa Rosa City Council Members,
I am opposed to Flock cameras because they create a system of mass surveillance that tracks everyday people who haven’t done anything wrong.
Public safety should never come at the expense of our fundamental civil liberties. We should not have to choose between feeling safe in our neighborhoods and maintaining our right to privacy.
Flock cameras create a permanent risk of abuse by turning everyday movements into searchable data. We have seen officers use these systems to stalk former partners, and we have seen improper access to sensitive data across jurisdictions.
The question is not whether these cameras can ever help solve a crime. The question is whether the benefits justify building a surveillance network that can track innocent people, expose sensitive information, and be misused by those entrusted to protect us.
In August 2026, The Washington Post reported that at least 69 law enforcement officials had been accused, charged, or convicted of misusing Flock or other license plate reader systems.
Documented abuses included officers tracking former partners, spouses, and personal acquaintances.
This isn’t just about catching criminals. It’s about giving law enforcement access to a powerful surveillance tool that can be abused to stalk people, invade privacy, and track people’s movements across jurisdictions. Once this data is collected and shared, the risks extend far beyond our own neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Dinna Withrich
2440 Orleans St
Santa Rosa, CA. 95403
From: Steve Saxe
To: City Council Public Comments; Fleming, Victoria
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Flock cameras
Date: Sunday, October 11, 2026 12:26:14 PM
Unless and until the use of these cameras can be strictly controlled, scrupulously monitored, and fully accounted to the public, I oppose their use and believe they should be removed and/or decisively disabled.
Steve
Steve Saxe
1104 Hyland Dr.
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
From: Cherry Nicks
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment For Meeting 10/13/26 Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 11:11:40 AM
Good Morning,
I would like the City Council to put Flock cameras on the agenda now, not in January when they are due for renewal. We all want to be heard. I do not feel that flock cameras help keep us safe and violate our rights as citizens. We do not want to be surveilled. We don't want this system abused and hacked as it has been already.
Thank you,
Cherry Nicks
From: rebecca reidelbach
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL]
Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 11:14:56 AM
Mass surveillance is any system of indiscriminate data capture by which the general populace is automatically tracked without cause or suspicion. Such systems include automated license plate readers (ALPRs), video surveillance cameras (including data assimilated from privately owned cameras), and drones.
No amount of regulatory or technical ambition can protect this type of data once it has been collected, especially if that data is managed by a third party provider. Mass surveillance makes all citizens, and especially marginalized groups, more vulnerable to abuse of power.
Mass surveillance neither prevents crime nor addresses the underlying causes of crime.
I urge the city not to approve, renew, expand, or otherwise allow any mass surveillance system in Santa Rosa, and to work to remove the existing network of Flock ALPRs.
From: Seaney
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Flock cameras
Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 11:47:29 AM
I am strongly apposed to flock cameras in Santa Rosa. I am as it stands a single issue voter, and work to organize folks and attempt to vote out anyone who lets flock in to our city.
From: Jeanie White
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL]
Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 12:47:32 PM
Please do not allow flock cameras or other surveillance tools in Sonoma county.
They have caused many negative outcomes especially misidentifying someone and putting them in jail when they are innocent
We are supposedly free but we are losing freedom everyday in increments too small for many to notice.
Also,, please do not allow data centers .
We need our water &
power for we the people.
Thank you
Jeanie White
.
From: Patricia Mara-Smith
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Mass surveillance threat and implications Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 1:30:40 PM
Dear Councilmembers,
Mass surveillance is incompatible with a free society and antithetical to the founding principles of this great nation. The negligible value of improvement in crime prevention/abolition does not justify the immeasurable loss of a public's autonomy and freedom.
Multiple case of abuse of the data collected from these surveillance cameras across the U.S. prove that law enforcement cannot be trusted with this level of authority and highly sensitive information. Additionally, the vendors providing these systems have failed to sufficiently prove their own trustworthiness with our collected data. This is just another egregious example of the tech industry forcing their underdeveloped, oppressive systems upon an already surveillance-fatigued public.
Santa Rosa's residents deserved a MUCH more transparent and collaborative approach to the implementations of these systems long before over 200 FLOCK cameras were installed in and around our beautiful community. Simply adhering to the minimal legal requirements of a city council process, and/or police procurement policy, was woefully insufficient given the magnitude of impact and potential abuses of mass surveillance upon a citizenry.
We appreciate your listening to, and truly hearing, the concerns of your constituents and look forward to working together to remove these oppressive surveillance cameras from our city.
Regards,
Patricia Mara-Smith
From: Ellen Obstler
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] General public comment for 10/13 City Council meeting Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 1:55:31 PM
Mayor and council members,
I urge you to put on your agenda a vote to cancel the City's contract with Flock Safety before the current contract expires in January. As you are aware, the community has many civil liberty concerns about mass surveillance technology. Seems not a day goes by without reading about a data leak or a jurisdiction cancelling its contract. Recently the state of Texas halted state funding for the cameras and the Florida Dept of Transportation revoked permits for cameras on all state roads. And just last week, a federal court in Oklahoma ruled that a deputy’s warrantless use of Flock camera data violated the 4th Amendment.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ellen Obstler
From: Alyn Wolves
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment on non-agenda items
Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 2:32:21 PM
Hello,
My name is Alyn Wolves, and I am a Santa Rosa resident. It recently came to my attention that the mayor wants to put removal of the Flock cameras on a future agenda item, but has not set a date, and has indicated that this would be AFTER they renew the contract with Flock.
This is absolutely unacceptable. Flock is a dangerous invasion into our civil liberties, and a danger to our immigrant community. We have definitely learned that everything Flock says about the safety and security of their system are outright lies - from the recent cases in Marin where out of state agencies conducted 250,000 illegal searches of Flock data, to the fact that they tell us time and time again that Flock cameras don't track people, except we found out that A) the Flock ALPR cameras DO track people as discovered by the fantastic 404 Media reporting who took apart the cameras and discovered that they DO track people, and B) Santa Rosa has 28 Condor PTZ cameras which by Flock's own admission tracks people.
These must be removed IMMEDIATELY.
Thank you.
From: Emma Todhunter
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Flock
Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 3:13:15 PM
Hello,
I am writing in lieu of attending the Santa Rosa city council meeting, just to add that I and many others are extremely opposed to warrantless surveillance in the city of Santa Rosa. I believe it is an extreme violation of privacy and a dangerous step into a fascist control over the public.
Thank you,
Emma Todhunter
From: Kansas Albright
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposing City Wide Flock Surveillance Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 3:18:13 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of Santa Rosa writing to oppose surveillance by Flock and any other big tech surveillance.
Thank you for your time.
From: Baylee Russell-Willis
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment 10/12
Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 3:48:12 PM
Dear Santa Rosa City Council,
I am writing to you as someone who has lived in Santa Rosa for most of my life. It has been disheartening to see the amount of Flock cameras in Santa Rosa. I urge you to end your contract just like other cities have done. In addition, I urge you to adopt a strong ordinance that protects the public from unnecessary mass surveillance technologies. I also urgently request you to end all cooperation with ICE including data collection. - Baylee Russell-Willis
From: Bailie Molsberry
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment Regarding Mass Surveillance for City Council Meeting 10/13 Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 3:52:57 PM
My name is Bailie Molsberry and I am writing today to let Santa Rosa City Council know that I oppose warrantless mass surveillance in our community; specifically, but not limited to, Flock Safety. I urge Council to end the contract with Flock Safety, remove all flock cameras, and pass a strong anti-surveillance ordinance. As a born-and-raised member of the Santa Rosa community, and Teamster 856 union member as a current City of Santa Rosa employee, I believe everyone in Santa Rosa has a right to live and move about this beautiful city without the fear of warrantless mass surveillance looming overhead.
Flock surveillance technology allows law enforcement to circumvent our Fourth amendment rights by allowing police to search for and track a vehicle without a warrant. Via Flock, police are also able to ignore Penal Code 1534, which requires the person being tracked to be notified of their tracking no longer than 10 days post the warrant’s end. With no warrant required to track someone, no notification is required. This hardly seems right. New technology should work within current laws, not weasel around them.
I care deeply about the wellbeing and safety of this community and city. I want everyone who lives here to feel safe. In the face of this new technology, I ask that Council consider their role in maintaining the privacy rights and safety of citizens in Santa Rosa, and end the contract with Flock Safety immediately. Consider instead investing City time and resources into preventive care for the community to prevent crime, rather than escalating law enforcement response capabilities.
Thank you.
From: Andrew Leonard
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment on Flock Safety Cameras Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 3:53:20 PM
Dear Santa Rosa City Council,
I’m withholding my yes vote on Measure L this November. I’ve supported measures like this before, and I expect I will again. But I can’t in good conscience give the city more generalfund revenue while it operates a warrantless mass surveillance network on its own residents.
If the city ends its Flock Safety contract before November, I’ll reconsider. At that point I’d have some assurance that new general funds won’t flow toward staffing records requests, maintaining infrastructure, or any of the other hidden costs that come with the Flock contract.
If Flock gets replaced with something functionally identical, I’ll protest that system, too.
End mass surveillance.
Andrew Leonard
[email protected]
(510) 316-1839
From: Sophia Maloney Norton
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 14: Public Comment on Non-Agendized Matters Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 4:22:13 PM
Dear Mayor Stapp and Members of the City Council,
I am a leader with the Civil Liberties Taskforce of NBOP and am proud to raise my voice along with my fellow community members to say unequivocally, we reject Flock, and it's fascist tools of unwarrented mass surveillance. I am here to demand that you, our elected officials really take heed of this moment we are in, both locally and nationally. Many of our constitutional rights are under attack, and you have a duty to do everything in your power to protect your constituent's 4th amendment right to privacy. We need comprehensive oversight and regulation of surveillance technology used within our community. As the local chapter of the NAACP recently stated, technology should never move faster than accountability. That has been the case this far.. And to what cost?
Every day there is a new story on the news, a headline describing the miriad of ways that surveillance technology such as Flock's ALPR's, have been used nefariously. The sharing of data with out-of-state and federal entities, inadequate safeguards, the use of ALPR's to intimidate and stalk victims of domestic violence, protesters, and those seeking reproductive healthcare. The list goes on and on. The ACLU reports that 1-in-10 license plates scanned by Flock misread the plate and less than 1% of all cars scanned by ALPRs are connected to any crime or wrongdoing. Locally, through the many public records requests made by my fellow taskforce leaders, we have discovered countless discrepancies on what Chief Cregan is saying, and what the data is showing. We are deeply concerned with the information we have collected, and for the sake of transparency and accountability, would appreciate an explanation from our Chief of Police on these inconsistencies.
Please listen to the many, critical concerns of your constituents, and do NOT renew your contract with this deceptive and problematic company. A deeply surveilled community does not equal a safer community. This invasive technology does not prevent crime or tackle the root causes of crime. We want a community rooted in safety and wellbeing for ALL of its residents. Investing in community, especially economically disadvantaged and underserved areas, is truly preventative care. Passing an Non-Collaboration with ICE ordinance is community care. We can do better.
Thank you for your time.
Sophie Norton
From: Noa Lewin
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 14 - non-agendized public comment Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 4:42:39 PM
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to express my concerns over the use of Flock cameras in Santa Rosa.
Although Flock systems used by the police department have been argued to improve public safety, there have been times where Flock data has been used in ways that it was previously alluded to not be, and other times where data has been leaked online for anyone to access. I urge you to do more research on the ways in which people’s security has been put at risk due to the use of Flock.
Although Flock is purported to be a company with secure data storage practices, a 404 Media investigation found at least 60 of their security cameras have been leaked on the internet for anyone to access. According to SFist, a San Francisco-based news company, these leaked livestreams even included footage of playgrounds with children playing. Flocksafety.com claims that Flock does not share data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but it does note that the amount of data Flock can share with ICE or any third party depends on the contract it has with the company or governing body using its products. So much of Sonoma County has prospered thanks to immigrant communities and families looking for a better life – do you really want to put them at risk? Flock has also identified people who have traveled to receive abortion services. This past year, Flock cameras used in Washington were accessed by a Texas-based police department to track someone who traveled for abortion care. Clearly, there are not enough measures in place to not only protect the privacy of children playing on a playground, but also people looking for safety, a better life, and those who are exercising their right to receive appropriate healthcare.
There is not enough evidence that Flock technology will promote the safety of the people of Rosa– in fact, due to the very questionable data sharing and security practices of Flock, passing this agenda item may endanger the safety of the people living here. I urge the council to investigate further into the third party contractors involved with Flock and consider the dangerous impact Flock has had on other communities.
Thank You,
Noa Lewin, District 5
From: [email protected]
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Parker Kristine 10.13.26 Agenda Item 14 Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 4:50:18 PM
Hello,
I would like to submit a public comment for the non-agendized items under item 14:
My name is Parker Kristine and I am a constituent of Caroline Bañuelos in District 5. I am writing to submit my concerns regarding the mass surveillance rising in our city. I personally am not okay with the Flock cameras that have been put up here, let alone over 100 of them. I do not feel safer with AI-powered ALPRs let alone under an untrustworthy corporation. I feel that these ALPRs are a violation of our 4th amendment right to privacy since they are warrantless surveillance. If the cops need a warrant to use tracking devices or to go into our phones then they should have the same need for a warrant to be able to look up a car's tracked pattern across the city with ALPRs. I urge the city council to not renew the Flock contract when it reaches its end in January. We need to find other regenerative, community-oriented public safety options than to rely on outsourced technology. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from my council members on this matter in the near future.
Sincerley,
Parker Kristine
From: Cameron Miller
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 14
Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 4:54:32 PM
Hello,
I’m very concerned about how FLOCK cameras, and AI surveillance is used in this current administration, and the creation of a surveillance state. That’s not the world I want to live in, and think it’s a disgrace that the city council has allowed these cameras to exist here, without any input from the community first.
I ask that you please consider the implications of
These systems more critically.
Thank you!
From: Sara Lokken
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sara Lokken 10/13/2026 Agenda Item 14 Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 4:54:52 PM
Good evening,
I would like to submit a public comment for the non-agendized items under item 14 as a constituent of Santa Rosa’s District 5.
I reflect many of my community’s concerns regarding Santa Rosa’s utilization of Flock’s AI powered cameras. I am uncomfortable with the police’s use of this technology as a tool, and fear the abuses that may occur due to the use of Flock (or any AI based mass surveillance, for that matter). The chief of police has assured us that Flock’s usage is not a violation of the fourth amendment, but I am sure the warrantless searches and storage of our whereabouts and data is indeed a violation. ALPRs are consistently watching and tracking my whereabouts, allowing anyone with access to this technology to my patterns of lifestyle, and Condors have integrated facial recognition, which the police are capable of enabling whenever they decide it is acceptable to do so.
The police has faced backlash both online and in person for their dedication to using AI powered surveillance, and have assured the city that they intend to do what is right for their community. As a constituent, I am telling you that what is right is to deny the renewal of Flock’s contract in Santa Rosa, and to rid the city of ALPRS, Condors, and any other AI utilizing cameras.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sara Lokken
From: Maya D
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment for city council meeting 10/13 Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 4:59:40 PM
Hello,
Writing in to say I am a Santa Rosa resident who opposes mass and warrantless surveillance, whether Flock or any other kind. In a time of much distrust and uncertainty because of institutional systems, is a violation of our civil rights to have these surveillance systems in place without a public say/vote.
Thank you,
Maya Danek (she/they)