|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Amid a wave of scrutiny over automated license plate readers across the Bay Area, the Menlo Park Police Department is tightening controls on its camera data after finding that outside agencies improperly searched the system for the second time in roughly a year.
The issues have included improper searches involving federal agencies discovered in June and previous access by two out-of-state police departments, in violation of city and state regulations, according to the department.
The department revoked all existing data-sharing agreements on July 9 and is requiring outside agencies seeking renewed access to Menlo Park’s automated license plate reader (ALPR) data to sign new agreements and commit to periodic audits.
The changes follow a department audit in June that found the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC) conducted searches of Menlo Park’s camera data that violated city policy. The intelligence center, a regional law enforcement collaboration, had access to Menlo Park’s network of 35 cameras.
Menlo Park officials claimed in May 2026 that all 2025 searches had been reviewed and no misuse was found but conducted an additional review after the San Francisco Police Department’s announced that NCRIC had conducted improper searches of its ALPR data.
Automated license plate readers are cameras that photograph passing vehicles and use software to identify and record their license plates, along with information such as the time and location of the detection. Menlo Park and many neighboring cities contract with Flock Safety, a private technology company that operates ALPR cameras and a database that allows information captured by the cameras to be shared with other departments.
For the June NCRIC audit, Menlo Park police examined 214,147 searches that the center conducted of the city’s data since it got access in February 2025. About 0.33%, or roughly 700 searches, did not comply with department policy based on the stated reason for the search.
The noncompliant searches involved federal agencies investigating violent crimes, criminal fugitives, human trafficking and crimes against children, Menlo Park police spokesperson Nicole Acker said. California law prohibits local police departments from sharing ALPR data with federal or out-of-state law enforcement agencies. Acker said the audit found no searches related to immigration enforcement or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
This is not the first time Menlo Park has allowed access to its ALPR data in violation of city and state law. In August 2025, The Almanac reported that the department had mistakenly granted access to police departments in Houston, Texas, and a small town in Illinois.
Menlo Park police later said in a September report to the City Council that the mistake occurred because the department had approved the agencies’ requests to share ALPR data before Menlo Park had cameras of its own and then failed to revoke that access after its system went online.
Growing opposition to Flock
The latest revelation comes amid growing scrutiny of Flock and law enforcement agencies’ use of ALPR technology. Across the country, at least 56 law enforcement agencies have canceled their contracts with Flock amid privacy concerns and instances of misuse. Locally, following inquiries by The Almanac’s sister publication, the Mountain View Voice, the Mountain View City Council canceled its contract with Flock after discovering that access had been granted to out-of-state agencies.
At the Aug. 25 Menlo Park City Council meeting, several speakers implored elected officials to consider ending its contract with Flock.
“I’ve heard over and over again that the license plate readers are making residents in all of our cities feel unsafe, and there’s a particularly acute concern about federal agencies using this data in violation of California law to go after our immigrant community members,” Clara Jaeckel, a Redwood City resident and member of its police advisory committee, told the Menlo Park City Council.
At a police advisory committee meeting earlier this month, Redwood City Police Chief Kristina Bell announced for the first time that improper settings had allowed at least 99 searches by other agencies and Flock employees of the city’s network.
Palo Alto’s Flock network was also searched by thousands of out-of-state agencies after the city unknowingly opted-in to a nationwide sharing database. Its City Council is hiring an external firm to conduct an audit of the city’s system as activists are calling for the contract to be canceled.
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recently released a report examining the technology and recommending changes to ALPR policies in Menlo Park and other cities. Menlo Park police officials said the department is reviewing the report.
Prior to this latest audit, Menlo Park Police Chief Dave Norris told the council that ALPRs have been a vital tool for the department. He said that in 2025 the technology helped police recover eight stolen vehicles, find six wanted individuals and resolve three weapons-related incidents, among other benefits.
New requirements
Since Menlo Park rolled out its additional requirements in July, outside agencies have been slow to agree to them. So far, only five law enforcement agencies — the police departments of East Palo Alto, San Mateo and South San Francisco plus the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office and San Diego County District Attorney Office — have been granted access. The department previously shared its ALPR data with 242 California agencies.
Agencies seeking access to Menlo Park’s ALPR data sign a city-specific agreement affirming that they will comply with California law and local regulations, as well as conduct periodic internal audits of their ALPR use. While city policy already required the department to retain all approved requests, Acker said that the previous practice did not maintain a formal document for its records.
“This is not a question of ‘old vs. new,’” Acker said. “The manner of sharing within the existing Flock database environment also requires that agencies comply with law and policy.”
Menlo Park’s rules do not dictate how frequently partner agencies must conduct audits or what those reviews must entail.
The department said it will revoke an agency’s access if it learns that the agency is not complying with the requirements. It did not say whether NCRIC would be granted access again.
In addition to reviewing searches by its own officers, Menlo Park has started conducting quarterly audits of external searches. Its first quarterly audit, covering April through June, reviewed 122,450 searches by external agencies and found they were all compliant.
Menlo Park also reviewed 377 searches conducted by its own officers and found no indicators of noncompliance, according to the department’s Aug. 11 report.
Most Popular
Simiz Kai Lelei brings Tongan and Samoan flavors to East Palo Alto and beyondAugust 26, 2026 11:18 am
