Watsonville to cut Flock surveillance cameras from 37 to 20, tighten data rules

➤ Para leer el artículo en español, haga clic aquí.

Watsonville will dramatically scale back the way its police department uses Flock Safety surveillance cameras, following an often-tense, nearly five-hour discussion Tuesday evening. 

The city council voted 5-2 in favor of changes that will include reducing the city’s number of cameras from 37 to 20.

Other big changes include shortening the number of days the police department holds onto unused data collected by the cameras from 30 days to seven before that data is permanently deleted. The city will also stop sharing its data with any jurisdiction and require an independent quarterly audit of the police department’s usage of the technology and its data. 

Flock cameras are automated license-plate readers designed to help law enforcement and neighborhoods track vehicles and solve crimes.

Councilmember Maria Orozco, who proposed the changes, told Lookout on Wednesday morning that the council was able to reach a compromise and address community concerns that were raised.

Joining Orozco in voting for the changes were Casey Clark, Vanessa Quiroz-Carter, Ari Parker and Jimmy Dutra. Watsonville Mayor Kristal Salcido and Councilmember Eduardo Montesino voted against them. 

City staff will also conduct surveys on Flock cameras within each city council district to understand how residents feel about the technology, while also researching alternatives. 

Staff will also schedule a town hall meeting within the next year with Watsonville Police Chief Brian Shab and representatives for Flock Safety, so community members have the opportunity to ask more questions. 

“The data that’s gathered through the town hall, the district-specific survey, [city staff is] also going to be coming back with options for approval,” Orozco said. “That is going to include neighborhood watch programs. Are they effective? Should we bring them back? … They’ll be looking at an alternative camera network. Is there something else out there that the community trusts more?” 

Orozco added that all of that information gathered over the next year will inform the city council on whether to keep the remaining Flock cameras or remove them altogether. The city’s two-year agreement with Flock Safety expires next September. 

Shab told Lookout via email that his department understands the questions and concerns from community members, and “are listening.” He added that the department believes the city council’s decision helps “balance public safety with privacy and security.”

“Our department is working to promptly implement that direction and ensure the department’s use of this tool remains consistent with the requirements and expectations established by the city,” he said.

Last year, the city council approved renewing its contract with the Atlanta-based company and added 17 cameras. The city spends $124,650 annually on its Flock contract, according to Shab. 

Even with the reduction of cameras, Watsonville will still have the largest number of cameras of any jurisdiction in Santa Cruz County; Capitola, the only other jurisdiction in the county with Flock cameras, has 10. Santa Cruz voted in January to remove all of its Flock cameras.

During Tuesday’s tense discussion, Shab told city councilmembers that “Flock is a powerful law enforcement tool.” He also addressed concerns such as privacy, misuse and the department’s data-sharing policies. 

“The responsibility of the police department is to use this technology lawfully, narrowly, transparently, and with meaningful oversight and serious consequences for misuse,” he said. 

Shab said that in the past year, from September 2025 to September 2026, Watsonville police conducted 7,818 searches of its Flock data, which helped 894 cases. He added that while the technology doesn’t necessarily solve cases outright, it can provide officers with a “critical investigative lead.” 

He also faced criticism for using case examples that Montesino said tapped into emotions rather than “sticking to the facts.” Montesino told Shab that he did not like the embellishment of the presentation, including using pictures of victims. 

Parker also grilled Shab with questions regarding potential misuse of the Flock cameras and any strategies that can be implemented to prevent that from happening. Some of the councilmembers’ concerns going into Tuesday’s meeting focused on the potential human error behind the misuse of the cameras and their data. 

Many of the nearly 70 community members in the council chambers didn’t seem too convinced that keeping the cameras was a good idea for Watsonville, primarily due to distrust in Flock.

Quiroz-Carter, the only councilmember to publicly share that she’d rather get rid of the cameras altogether, echoed those sentiments. 

“I understand everybody wants to make some adjustments. Nobody wants to get rid of it, but at this point where we are in time, if we do not get rid of this, it’s going to be really, really bad,” she said. “I’ll be completely honest. I don’t want to see it. I don’t want to have it. I don’t think it’s safe. I don’t like it. But if the best that I can do is we can make some changes, I’m willing to do that with my colleagues.” 

Lourdes Barraza, an organizer with Get the Flock Out’s Watsonville chapter, told Lookout that the city council’s decision doesn’t really change anything, nor does she see it as a compromise.  

“Having 20 cameras versus 37, we’re still being surveilled,” Barraza said. “Our information is still being collected. Our information is still being shared, so it doesn’t really solve anything.” 

Barraza said that the district surveys will be a waste of time if residents aren’t informed enough on Flock cameras. She added that she hopes a future town hall will include all the perspectives on the issue, not just from Shab and Flock representatives. 

“You need to present both sides. So once both sides are presented and they give a survey, then I would feel that would be more helpful,” Barraza said. 

Following the council’s decision, GTFO will continue to educate community members about Flock cameras and their issues, Barraza said. While she didn’t view this week’s decision as a helpful compromise, the reduction of cameras signals to her that councilmembers are beginning to understand the dangers of Flock, she said. 

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.