Quick Take
Watsonville officials are defending their city’s immigration sanctuary reputation amid an outcry from residents over a plan to nearly double the use of Flock Safety's license plate surveillance cameras.
Watsonville city officials say they are standing firm in their commitment to supporting the immigrant community, despite the decision to expand the use of controversial license plate reader cameras that several residents argue undermine Watsonville’s status as a sanctuary city.
“We’re working to balance community safety, along with the responsibility of ensuring that our residents, especially our immigrant families, do not feel targeted or fearful in the current political climate,” Mayor Maria Orozco told Lookout.
The city council’s decision to renew its contract with surveillance technology company Flock Safety earlier this month will also expand the number of cameras throughout Watsonville from 20 to 37, costing the city nearly $251,000. The additional 17 cameras will be placed at city entrance and exit points, along with other areas currently not covered.
Community members have expressed concerns about the surveillance technology to elected officials, often citing reports of law enforcement agencies in California — not in Santa Cruz County — sharing data collected by the cameras with federal immigration agencies. Outside of the state, Flock has received criticism for sharing information directly with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The cameras automatically log license plates and other identifying details about every car that passes through their field of view. The data collected is saved for 30 days, and can be accessed by other law enforcement agencies before being automatically deleted.
Watsonville residents like Lourdes Barraza, a member of Get the Flock Out (GTFO), a local citizens group pushing to remove these cameras from local streets, told Lookout following the council’s decision that the contract renewal undermines the city’s sanctuary status and sends a message that elected officials do not care about the people they serve.
Orozco and Councilmember Vanessa Quiroz-Carter were the two members of council who voted against the plan to renew and expand the Flock contract. Earlier this month, Orozco pulled the contract renewal from the council’s consent agenda — which would have let the contract go directly to a vote without any discussion — to allow public comment and discussion on the issue.
Orozco, who was not a member of the city council when the cameras were first approved in 2023, told Lookout she felt it was not the right time to request an expansion of the program beyond the existing cameras, citing the political climate.
But she said the council’s decision has not altered the city’s commitment to being a safe community for immigrants: “Our sanctuary status has not changed.”
Orozco said the city council has consistently shown its commitment to immigrant families.
She cited council’s moves to reaffirm its sanctuary city status in January, issue formal proclamations condemning the use of military force against protestors in Southern California and join lawsuits against the Trump administration as ways Watsonville has demonstrated its sanctuary status.
“I really feel like these decisions and actions that we’ve taken reflect our values and ongoing commitment,” she said. Orozco added that the city remains committed to both safety and trust, which includes ensuring any type of technology — including Flock — is used responsibly and with transparency.
However, Raymon Cancino, CEO of nonprofit Community Bridges, says residents are spot-on with their concerns. “When you make policy choices like this, regardless of what your reasoning and justification is, it erodes the public trust,” he said.
Cancino said he understands the city’s argument of using a tech-based solution to address crime in Watsonville, but at the same time elected officials have to weigh the other reality that it will hurt their relationship with the community. “It’s going to result in people not feeling safe,” he said.
He said he believes that more cameras will discourage more residents from wanting to leave their homes due to immigration fears, which will also affect local businesses, Cancino said. Businesses in Watsonville have struggled since President Donald Trump took office in January, some even reporting sales dropping by as much as 50% because many of their customers would rather stay home than risk being deported.
Councilmember Casey Clark told Lookout that voting to renew the contract and expand the use of Flock cameras is helping protect the community, including the immigrant population. He doesn’t discount the concerns of community members, but for Clark, the good things about Flock outweigh the negatives.
“We have not had those terrible situations happen in Watsonville, and God forbid, if we ever do, right?” he said, referencing large-scale immigration raids in Southern California. “And so, I have to look at the good and the bad, and I have to weigh that.”
Clark said he ultimately ended up voting to renew the contract because he trusted the information provided by the city’s police department, citing the fact that all the information gathered by the Flock cameras is owned by the police department and no one else has access to it.
Watsonville’s interim police chief, David Rodriguez, told city officials earlier this month that his department does not share any information gathered by the cameras for immigration purposes. Only the department can decide whom it shares its Flock data with, according to Rodriguez.
Under its contract with the City of Watsonville, Flock Safety is not allowed to share information, since the data is solely owned by the police department. If Flock violates the contract, the city has the right to cancel the agreement with a 30 day-notice period. It also has the right to sue the company.
The surveillance technology does not identify the driver of a vehicle to law enforcement officials, said Rodriguez. “When a vehicle crosses a Flock camera, it doesn’t tell us who’s driving the car, where that car belongs or an address or place of work,” he told Lookout.
What it does tell officers is the date and time the car crossed a camera’s field of view, he said. There’s still a lot of investigative work that needs to be done on the back end, beyond the information provided by the Flock system.
Rodriguez added that in the first two years of having Flock cameras in Watsonville, there haven’t been any violations of using the data to date, such as unauthorized searches. It’s important for the department to continue using the database for the right reasons, he said.
At a Sept. 9 meeting, Rodriguez told the city council that Flock has rolled out a new feature for California customers that blocks users from making impermissible searches, including those related to immigration. Rodriguez told Lookout if users try to search the database using certain keywords, like “ICE” or “immigration,” Flock will flag and block the search from continuing.
Since January, the Watsonville Police Department has conducted six audits of its Flock database, which exceeds the number of average audits per year for the surveillance technology, said Rodriguez. The audits help ensure the system is being used properly.
Clark added that he trusts what Rodriguez presented to the city council, and if there is some sort of violation of the contract, he’d be one of the first to point it out. Orozco said the city council will be keeping a close eye on how the technology is being used by police to ensure none of the information is being shared with immigration enforcement.
Residents had also expressed concern over the number of cameras Watsonville will now have in comparison to other jurisdictions in the county. Santa Cruz has only eight Flock cameras, while Capitola has 10. Scotts Valley does not use the Flock system or other stationary readers.
Throughout the first two years of having the cameras, Watsonville police have been strategizing about where to add more cameras and determined they needed more of them at the city’s exits and entrances, Rodriguez said. He added that the department wanted to increase the number of cameras to 40, but chose to add only 17 because of budget constraints.
Rodriguez said it’s difficult to compare the uses of the cameras in other jurisdictions to Watsonville, and its need to have 37 in the city. Other jurisdictions are having their own strategy discussions with Flock that ultimately differ from the ones his department is having with the company, he said.
The main focus for Watsonville is on officers’ ability to solve crime faster and at a higher rate, and this is a tool that will help with that, Rodriguez said. He added that the cameras are meant to supplement officers patrolling throughout the city.
“I think anytime technology, especially newer technology, is utilized in the community, we all have concerns about it being used properly,” he said. Rodriguez said he appreciates residents coming to the city council and addressing their concerns about the cameras, and reemphasized his department’s commitment to using the technology the right way.
He added that the department is open to public feedback on its use of Flock cameras. “This has always been a public-facing project,” Rodriguez said. There are plans to bring the issue back to community forums and provide updates to the chief’s advisory board — which is made up of residents — to allow more discussion on community concerns.
Orozco said she hopes to have quarterly updates from the police department so that information can be shared with the public. She also added that the city is currently having conversations with local nonprofits on ways to better support Watsonville’s immigrant community.
Orozco joined the effort to get families signed up for child safety plans, which allow undocumented parents to designate a caretaker for their children in the event they are deported.
“There’s only so much that we can do right when it comes to immigration enforcement operations that’s at the federal level,” Orozco said. “But, again, we take safety very seriously, and if it comes to that, then I’m sure we wouldn’t hesitate to end the contract if we see that information is being utilized for that purpose.”
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.