Quick Take
The debate over Flock and license plate recognition often pits privacy against public safety, but that framing misses those who might benefit most, writes retired engineer and local landlord Darius Mohsenin. For lower-income, immigrant and other vulnerable communities, a stolen car or unresolved burglary can threaten a family’s livelihood, not just its property, he writes. With strict privacy safeguards, transparent oversight and limits on data use, LPR technology can provide a more precise, equitable tool for solving crimes and finding missing people. The question isn’t whether this technology is perfect; it’s whether we can improve and govern it responsibly rather than deny communities a potentially powerful layer of protection.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
The local and nationwide debate over Flock Safety license plate recognition (LPR) and expanded surveillance technology often centers on a tension between privacy and security. That skepticism of “Big Brother” is a healthy part of our local DNA – as is concern over misuse of the system and targeting the most vulnerable, including immigrants.
Yet, the conversation frequently overlooks a crucial perspective: how these tools can actually serve as a shield for lower-income and immigrant communities — groups that are statistically more likely to be victims of crime and less likely to have the resources to recover from it.
Yes, the use of automated license plate reader (ALPR) networks like Flock Safety has brought documented incidents of law enforcement misuse — including officers running unauthorized queries to track romantic partners or conduct off-duty personal surveillance — but these abuses are being systematically addressed through both punitive action and technical safeguards. And there is concern about local agencies sharing data with federal immigration officers.
FLOCK SAFETY: Read more Lookout news and Community Voices opinion coverage here
The system generates immutable, time-stamped audit logs tied to individual credentials, which means illicit queries can be flagged and traced to the offending users. This is already leading to administrative investigations, disciplinary terminations and criminal charges.
We now have stricter technical guardrails including mandatory incident case codes for every search, proactive lockout algorithms that flag suspicious search patterns in real time, shortened default data retention windows and required supervisory audit reviews to prevent unauthorized access from recurring.
Flock Safety has also updated platforms with ways to let local police block outside immigration-related queries.
That is why I think it is a good idea for Santa Cruz to rethink using the technology, as Watsonville and Capitola do. The technology is evolving, and here locally, it would not just be about catching “bad guys”; it’s also about equitable protection.
For a wealthy resident, a stolen vehicle is an expensive headache covered by premium insurance. However, for a service-industry worker in Santa Cruz or a farmworker commuting from the outskirts of Watsonville, a stolen car is a catastrophic life event that can lead to immediate job loss.
Because people with lower income are less likely to have comprehensive insurance or low deductibles, the speed of recovery is everything. LPR cameras provide real-time alerts that allow law enforcement to recover vehicles within hours rather than weeks, often before the car is stripped for parts or used in further crimes, effectively leveling the playing field in property recovery.
One of the most significant benefits of Flock technology is that it focuses on objective data – license plates and vehicle descriptions – rather than human descriptions, which can be subject to implicit bias. By shifting toward data-driven stops, law enforcement can focus on a specific vehicle known to be involved in a crime instead of conducting broad neighborhood sweeps or relying on subjective “suspicious person” profiles. This precision narrows the search and reduces the number of unnecessary investigatory stops of innocent community members, a practice that has historically and disproportionately affected people of color and immigrants.
Furthermore, immigrant communities are often targeted by criminals who believe victims will be too afraid of their documentation status to contact the police. This creates a silent crime wave of burglaries and robberies in specific neighborhoods. The presence of LPR systems can act as a digital fence; when criminals know that entering a neighborhood means their vehicle is being logged, they will be less likely to target those areas.
Additionally, this technology allows the police to build a case and track suspects using external data, which reduces the pressure on vulnerable victims to serve as the sole source of evidence in high-risk environments.
Beyond property crime, LPR technology is a crucial tool for Amber Alerts and Silver Alerts. In densely populated rental areas where children play near busy streets, the ability to instantly track a suspect vehicle’s exit route from the county is a life-saving necessity. For families facing language barriers when communicating with dispatchers, the automated nature of plate reading ensures that the search begins accurately and immediately without information being lost in translation.
Like any emerging tech, LPR systems are still in their formative stages. Much like our smartphones, which have evolved through constant iterations to reach the sophistication of version 26 of iOS, surveillance software requires ongoing “bug fixes” to refine accuracy and address technical and privacy glitches.
However, we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater simply because the first versions aren’t perfect. We didn’t go back to our BlackBerrys when our iPhones required an operating system update; instead, we patch the vulnerabilities and improve the user experience.
The same logic should apply to public safety tools that have the potential to save lives.
As we look toward the upcoming November mayoral election in Santa Cruz, voters have a choice between Ryan Coonerty, who remains open to the use of LPRs depending on improved privacy fixes, and Ami Chen Mills, who led the campaign against them.
I would also like to see candidates for the city council and members of the county board of supervisors take clear stands on Flock technology.
We need leaders who recognize that modernizing our safety infrastructure is a matter of social equity, not just logistics and isolated glitches some bad actors have exploited in this evolving technology. Voters deserve to know which candidates are willing to champion innovative solutions that protect our most vulnerable residents rather than retreating into ideological hesitation.
Advocating for this technology does not mean advocating for an unregulated surveillance state.
Santa Cruz County’s law enforcement ecosystem can implement these tools with strict guardrails, such as deleting non-hit data within 30 days, prohibiting facial recognition to ensure the focus remains on the vehicle and maintaining public transparency portals.
Safety should not be a luxury item reserved for those in gated communities. By embracing Flock and LPR technology, Santa Cruz County — especially South County — can provide a higher standard of security to the neighborhoods that need it most, ensuring that justice is informed by facts rather than ZIP codes.
Darius Mohsenin spent his career as an engineer supporting the U.S. intelligence community, where he saw firsthand how strict guardrails govern surveillance. He supports ALPR technology as an accountable force multiplier for law enforcement, and as a staunch advocate for the safety and rights of all immigrants, documented and undocumented. He rejects the misguided paternalism of privileged commentators who speak over the very communities seeking safe, protected neighborhoods.
