Oakley
Oakley Police has run automated license plate readers since at least 2018 — first through Vigilant Solutions, later adding Flock Safety cameras. The documented record here isn’t about a contested contract vote; it’s about Oakley being one of the state’s most persistent holdouts against California’s 2016 ban on sharing plate-reader data with out-of-state and federal agencies, told directly by the state Attorney General to stop, and then — after a Council vote and a 2024 “compliance” audit — still doing it two years later.
-
Vigilant Solutions ALPR already running years before Flock
Before Flock, Oakley PD ran ALPR through Vigilant Solutions’ LEARN data-sharing platform. A February 2021 public-records request for Oakley’s ALPR sharing data and “hit”/detection counts covering 2018–2020 was fulfilled by the department, confirming the Vigilant system was already active and generating multi-year data by that point. We don’t yet have the original purchase/contract date.
-
Flock Safety cameras added alongside the existing Vigilant system
A separate public-records request (filed by EFF’s Dave Maass) confirms that by November 2022, Oakley PD was running both Vigilant and Flock Safety ALPR systems side by side, with a dedicated Flock Safety transparency portal for the department and aggregate “detection” and “hit” data available for 2021 and 2022. The department’s stated purpose: “stolen, felony vehicles, missing persons, etc.”
-
Attorney General Bonta threatens Oakley PD with a lawsuit over illegal data sharing
California’s 2016 ALPR law, SB 34, bars sharing plate-reader data with out-of-state or federal agencies. The Attorney General’s Office had already reminded every California law enforcement agency of that rule in an October 2023 bulletin — and separately told Oakley PD Lieutenant Robert Roberts directly, in a November 16, 2023 email, that the practice was prohibited. Oakley kept doing it anyway: in March 2024, Roberts told the San Francisco Chronicle, “We are still sharing data with agencies outside of California,” saying his department disagreed with the Attorney General’s legal interpretation. After that story ran, Chief Deputy Attorney General Venus Johnson, writing for Rob Bonta, sent Police Chief Paul Beard a formal letter warning that the Attorney General stands ready to obtain a court order enjoining the sharing of ALPR information in violation of state law if the department didn’t come into compliance.
-
Council votes 5-0 to make Oakley stop sharing ALPR data out of state
Meeting in special session, the Council went into closed session over “anticipated litigation” tied directly to the Bonta letter above. City Attorney Derek Cole then reported out in open session: on a motion by Councilmember Aaron Meadows, seconded by Shannon Shaw, the Council voted unanimously (5-0) to direct Oakley PD to stop sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies. Oakley had been one of the state’s last holdouts on this — the department argued the data helps with human trafficking, stolen vehicles, wanted suspects, and Amber Alerts, particularly in a border community where suspects cross state lines, but the vote settled the legal question the department had been resisting for eight months.
-
Two years later: still sharing with Border Patrol, tagged as if it were a California agency
Mike Katz-Lacabe, research director for Oakland Privacy, told the Council during public comment that a new public-records request showed Oakley PD was still illegally sharing ALPR data with federal agencies. Oakley’s own FOIA’d Vigilant network-sharing report backs this up directly: it lists “San Diego Sector Border Patrol” among the agencies with access to Oakley’s data — labeled with a “(CA)” tag as if it were an in-state agency, alongside the United States Marshals Service. Katz-Lacabe: “Sharing license plate reader data with federal and out of state agencies became illegal in 2016 when SB 34 was signed into law. However, so many law enforcement agencies were failing to comply with the law that the California Department of Justice issued [a bulletin] in October 2023 reminding law enforcement agencies that SB 34 does not permit law enforcement agencies to share ALPR information with private entities, out of state or federal agencies.”
-
The city's explanation: a naming trick fooled the 2024 audit
Assistant City Manager Danielle Navarro confirmed Katz-Lacabe’s finding was accurate and said Oakley PD audited its Flock and Vigilant data that morning, finding it was sharing with the San Diego Sector Border Patrol and one other federal agency. “We removed both agencies’ access this morning,” Navarro said. “We conducted an audit in 2024, and at the time, thought we had removed all out of state agencies to be in full compliance; we missed these due[] to the names of the agencies including ‘CA’ at the end making them look like agencies within California. Since we have not added any agencies since 2024, we had not conducted another audit until this morning.” Navarro said the city couldn’t confirm how much data, if any, had actually been shared with the two agencies since neither had joint investigations with Oakley, and committed to a regular auditing schedule going forward.
Sources & documents (1)
Know something we don't?
If you live in or near Oakley and have an update, a correction, or context worth adding — a FOIA response, council document, email, public statement, or just something you noticed or heard about that isn't reflected here — send it to contact@nosurveillancepledge.com with dates and a link or scan where you can, and we'll add it with a source.