I urge the Mountlake Terrace City Council and our community to reject the proposed installation of Flock Safety license plate recognition (LPR) cameras, scheduled for a vote on June 5. While presented as a tool for public safety, Flock’s system would introduce a real-time surveillance network that raises serious concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and the inclusive values that define Mountlake Terrace.

These cameras automatically scan, log and store data on every vehicle that passes — regardless of whether a crime has occurred. They record license plates, locations, timestamps and vehicle characteristics, creating a detailed record of people’s movements. This creates a searchable log of people’s routines and patterns — data that could be accessed by agencies far beyond our city’s control. That data is not only searchable by local police, but can be shared with hundreds of other agencies across the country through Flock’s network, with few meaningful legal protections or public oversight.

To be clear, I support our current city leadership and police department. They serve with professionalism and equity in mind. But police chiefs and councils change, and technology, once installed, is difficult to contain. It’s our duty to protect all residents and visitors — not just under today’s leadership, but in the years and administrations to come.

Mountlake Terrace is home to many immigrant families, including undocumented residents who contribute deeply to our community. We’ve already seen how federal data-sharing — such as the IRS giving access to ICE — has been used to tear families apart. Adding a 24/7 surveillance system that tracks everyone’s movements only expands that risk.

This concern is far from hypothetical. According to the Guardian, ICE accessed license plate data in Westchester County, New York, despite local sanctuary laws. Millions of vehicle scans were quietly shared with federal agencies, placing immigrant residents at risk (The Guardian, March 2025). As one privacy advocate put it: “Westchester can be a sanctuary county or a surveillance state. It can’t be both.” The same holds true for Mountlake Terrace.

And this isn’t isolated to one state.

A similar concern has emerged in California. Despite guidance from the state Attorney General prohibiting the sharing of license plate reader (LPR) data with federal and out-of-state agencies, numerous law enforcement departments have continued this practice. An investigation by the Sacramento Bee revealed that over 20 agencies allowed non-California departments to access LPR data collected by a major security firm, potentially violating state law (GovTech, July 2024) . This widespread sharing underscores the risk that, once surveillance infrastructure is in place, it can be utilized far beyond its original purpose—often without public knowledge or consent.

Further compounding the concern, Flock Safety refuses to allow independent researchers or watchdog groups to evaluate its technologies. As the ACLU recently highlighted, Flock has blocked outside audits that could assess whether its claims about crime prevention or data safeguards actually hold up (ACLU, March 2024). This lack of transparency should be a red flag. If a company’s product is being widely adopted by law enforcement but cannot be scrutinized by the public, we should question whether it deserves our trust.

At the May 15 City Council meeting, councilmembers raised these issues directly. Councilmember Erin Murray expressed concerns about constitutional risks and data being accessed outside our community (MLTnews, May 2025). Councilmember Laura Sonmore cited the danger of human error and voted no to protect resident privacy. Councilmember William Paige Jr. referenced a case in which a journalist used LPR data to reconstruct a person’s entire driving history—an example that proves these systems can be misused, even unintentionally (ACLU, April 2018). Their remarks reflected the community’s deeper concern: not just whether Flock is trustworthy today, but what happens when tomorrow’s context or leadership changes.

Mercer Island’s council recently pressed Flock representatives on whether the cameras reduce crime, and the company failed to present evidence (The Urbanist, Nov. 2023). In Medina, the system has generated millions of records in a matter of weeks, including time, location and vehicle characteristics—all accessible via public records requests. The ACLU, EFF and University of Washington researchers have all warned how such tools can be used to target immigrants, protestors and people seeking reproductive care. These risks are real — and they don’t belong in Mountlake Terrace.

Flock cameras are not targeted public safety tools — they are always-on, indiscriminate surveillance devices. Unlike narrowly focused technologies that serve specific safety goals with clear accountability, Flock’s system casts a wide net, collecting data on everyone regardless of suspicion. Its risks — to privacy, civil liberties and vulnerable members of our community — far outweigh its unproven benefits. I urge the City Council to vote no and instead pursue public safety strategies that are transparent, accountable and aligned with the inclusive values of Mountlake Terrace. Now is the time to draw a clear line—and protect the integrity of our public spaces and democratic values.