Chief 's Claim that data is not shared with Federal agencies

• National Lookup toggle switch feature allows any agency on the national Flock network to run searches. They could have no sharing agreement does not mean agencies still don 't have access.

Bend Oregeon PD had 279 searches into their data. https://www.bendsource.com/news/localnews/federal-immigration-officials-made-279-queries-into-bends-flock-safety-data-in-its-first-three-weeks/

• A policy on paper isn't the same as an enforced audit practice
• CA does have an ALPR Privacy Act that restricts sharing with out of state and federal agencies.
• There needs to be regular audit- How often does this happen? What have you found?
• LAPD Office of Inspector General audit, released July 10, 2026, covering an Aug 1Sept 30, 2025 review period,161 of 498 hotlist alerts were false positives, a 32.3% error rate. LAPD let its Flock contract expire. https://www.404media.co/lapd-regularly-pulled-over-innocent-people-because-license-plate-readers-flagged-their-cars-as-stolen/

Questions for PD:

• Is National Lookup enabled or disabled for FPD's Flock system? Who verified this and when?
• What categories of "search reason" or "offense type" are prohibited, and has FPD ever audited actual search logs against that policy, not just written the policy?
• Does FPD's Flock Transparency Portal disclose which outside agencies it shares data with, and has that list been reviewed in the last 12 months?
• What is FPD's data retention period, and has it adopted Flock's new 7-day recommended default or a longer, locally approved window?
• Has FPD activated Flock's "Audit Assistance" misuse-detection feature (required for all customers by end of 2026)?
• Where are the cameras located? Why those locations?
• What is the annual cost for FPD?
• On retention: Flock changed its recommended default from 30 days to 7 days on August 13, 2026, but let existing customers keep their current policy unless they opt in, which is likely why FPD's 30-day figure hasn't changed. Has FPD looked at adopting the new 7-day default? It comes with a free feature, Evidence Mode, which lets investigators preserve specific footage for active cases past the deletion date.
• Same August update added offense-based sharing filters that let an agency block searches tied to immigration enforcement specifically, while still allowing stolen-vehicle or missing-person searches from partner agencies. Has FPD activated that filter? This is a direct, checkable yes-or-no question, separate from the broader "do you share with feds" claim.

Questions as we organize

• Instead of focusing solely on sharing data with ICE: How is this system governed by the community it watches and is supposed to protect?
• If it 's being framed as public safety - It's not that safety doesn 't matter, it 's who 's safety, defined how and decided by whom.
• $200,000 cost annually?

Effectiveness:

• How many arrests, recovery of stolen items, or located people (missing or suspects) can be directly attributed to Flock, that are verified against actual case outcomes? Not just alerts. Alerts are not the same as solved cases. LAPD found through their own audits that 32.3% were false alerts? Article Ask: Has FPD ever done the same effectiveness audit? If so, how often?

• Out of those outcomes, how many could have happened through other investigative means? (This separated when Flock helped and when Flock was necessary.

• What are the costs and have you put that cost next to outcomes, to do a cost benefit analysis?

• Has an independent audit, not FP, ever reviewed the effectiveness numbers?

What 's being searched and by whom

• How many total searches has FPD 's system logged over the last 12 months, and how many of those were FPD 's own officers versus searches from other organizations?
• What are the most common stated search reasons?
• Which outside agencies have searched Fullerton 's data in the past 12 months, and does that list match what 's currently published on FPD 's transparency page?

Narratives:

Pre-Crime Framing:

• The very nature of FLOCK is that it is designed to investigate everyone all the time:

• Every Flock camera scans and reads every plate that passes it, continuously, regardless of whether that car is connected to anything. It 's not a matter of running the car; Flock just brings up everything from that car because it is always tracking every car.
• This is where false positives come from and the 32.3% of the LAPD's false alerts.

• Flock misreads a character. (If you have ever scanned a document and then tried to convert it to a Word or Google Doc you see this happen all the time.)
• If a hotlist item isn 't removed, it will continue to flag the entry. (Stale data)
• This all means that an officer can get an automated stolen vehicle or wanted alert and pull someone over based on a system match that turns out to be a misread or stale data, which is what the LAPD audit found.

• This is not just rhetoric; it 's verifiable.

Security

• Data is stored in Flock, not with Fullerton, so someone else is responsible for our data. Have we audited Flock (independently) and its use of Fullerton 's data?

Lack of Trust with City

• Non-mayoral rotation
• Budget - loss of $10 million
• If the city has lost trust in their local institutions, what evidence is there to support trusting how they use data they are collecting on citizens?

Faith Narrative

"In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered" (Luke 2:1)

• Luke deliberately opens the nativity with data collection. Rome 's census existed to make every person in its territory countable, taxable, and locatable.

• Like Flock, you don 't have to be suspected of anything, you just have to exist within the system.
• This is about control, not citizens flourishing.
• Rome did not account for the whole person; they are merely a ledger point a means of taxation and use in the empire. They missed what was actually true of a person. The same is true with Flock. A system can achieve perfect surveillance and still be blind to what is actually true about a person. They are a suspect first, that is what the system does: it collects data on everyone as a suspect.

• Herod in Matthew 2 uses the information from the census, and because of a threat to his power, he seeks out all the male children under 2 to be killed. Forcing the young family, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus, to flee to Egypt. Herod treated an entire population as suspects. The killing of innocents is what watch everyone just in case can lead to.
• The empire tried to know everyone by counting them, and it missed God standing right in the middle of its own census. Every system that claims to see everyone should make us ask, What is missing? The system itself does not invite belonging but othering instead.