Thousands of out-of-state agencies improperly queried Ventura’s license plate camera data, police revealed Tuesday, expanding the known scope of a previously disclosed data-sharing breach.
“When there is a breach, it is not a trickle,” Ventura resident Michelle Rosenblum told the City Council. “It is a storm.”
Rosenblum, who obtained more than a year of Flock audit logs through public records requests, brought a large stack of those records to Tuesday’s meeting as the council heard a presentation from the Ventura Police Department on their use of automated license plate readers, or ALPRs.
Ventura’s debate comes amid growing scrutiny of Flocks’ sprawling license plate reader network over privacy and data-sharing concerns. More than 50 jurisdictions nationwide have ended their contracts, including Santa Barbara, which is now reconsidering its use of ALPR technology altogether.
The department had previously revealed that out-of-state law enforcement agencies were able to query Ventura’s system in 2025, despite its system being set to restrict access to California agencies.
But according to Police Chief David Dickey, the department’s previous audit did not capture the full scope of the issue.
“In those two months, 3,000 out-of-state agencies queried Ventura’s camera data,” Dickey said. “Because each unauthorized agency queried multiple times over those two months, the volume resulted in tens of thousands of unauthorized queries.”
Those agencies included the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives offices, U.S. Air Force bases, U.S. Park Police and out-of-state drug task forces, according to Dickey.
The department’s previous 12-month audit had identified just two out-of-state agencies that queried the system.
“Thousands is a lot different than two,” Rosenblum said in an interview before the meeting. “Even though that was in the past, that’s important because it shows that when these systems fail, they fail in a really big way.”
Dickey said that Ventura never authorized or knowingly permitted any of the outside searches and attributed the problem to a nationwide query done by Flock. He said VPD learned only recently that its earlier audit had fallen short.
Ventura continues to share access to its ALPR data with 343 California policing agencies, generating roughly 500,000 queries of Ventura’s system each month. Commander Tim Ferrill emphasized that a query only asks whether a particular vehicle appears in Ventura’s database and does not necessarily return a match.
“This isn’t about whether or not we trust Ventura Police Department,” Rosenblum told the council. “Out-of-city searches are happening into our city big time.”
Rosenblum was amongst several speakers who urged the city to discontinue the technology, with other residents bringing forward concerns about surveillance, immigration enforcement and the ability of agencies outside of Ventura to search locally compiled data.
Kristian Nunez told the city council that residents should be able to go about their lives “without the community wondering who is collecting information on a daily basis.”
“We need to recognize that this surveillance does not create the same fear or concern for everyone equally,” Nunez said. “For our mixed status families and immigrant communities, questions about where information goes and which agencies can access it can have very real consequences.”
Councilmember Liz Campos also communicated similar concerns.
“I don’t see that everybody’s rights are protected in this system,” Campos said.
Campos said she trusts Ventura police officers but remains concerned about how information could reach other agencies.
“I understand why the community is frightened,” Campos said. “It’s a very fragile time for the community. That’s why I’m not confident that we are all in agreement about the Flock cameras.”
Resident Philip Fields framed his concerns around the potential for abuse when law enforcement is responsible for overseeing its own use of surveillance technology.
“We don’t live in a utopia. We don’t live with perfect human beings,” Fields said. “With uniform or without uniform, we’re flawed.”
Fields called the cameras a “means of control” and urged the council not to renew the city’s Flock contracts.
Police officials, however, said that the cameras are an important investigative tool and said that the department has now strengthened its oversight of the system.
“Public trust is everything to me and to us at this department,” Dickey said.
The council ultimately voted 5-1, with one member absent, to direct staff to return with a review of the Flock contract and the city’s data-sharing processes.
Councilmember Bill McReynolds, who initiated the request, said the council should consider terminating the contract and examine potential changes to the system.
“I think we owe the public that discussion,” McReynolds said.
The contract expires Dec. 18 and requires 30 days’ notice of cancellation. The council plans to revisit the issue in late October and discussed calling a special meeting if necessary to do so before the deadline.
