Residents press Nevada County to review Flock Safety camera contract

Several residents used the June 9 public comment period to press the Board of Supervisors to suspend and review the county’s contract with Flock Safety, the vendor that supplies automated license‑plate reader (ALPR) cameras to the sheriff’s office.

"It is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment," one caller said during general public comment, urging the board to pull the contract for review. Multiple speakers claimed the system’s search logs demonstrate far broader access than the county’s public materials indicate. One commenter said, "Since installation, the FLOC cameras owned by the Nevada County Sheriff's Office have searched over 13,000,000 times by over 4,600 different outside agencies," and urged the board to defund the Flock line item in the next budget cycle and demand full disclosure of search logs.

Speakers raised three consistent concerns: privacy and Fourth Amendment implications, uncertainty about which outside agencies can access Flock data, and lack of transparency in public records disclosures. Another public commenter said reported third‑party access and possible improper employee access in other jurisdictions point to systemic risks and unpredictable liabilities for the county.

Chair Swartout and board members acknowledged the concerns and said they would request the sheriff bring a briefing to a future board meeting detailing how the system is used, how many cameras are deployed, how much the system costs, and how data is shared. The chair also noted a public meeting on Flock cameras hosted by the City of Grass Valley the next day and encouraged public participation.

What happened next: Board members said the issue will return for additional public dialogue; the record shows no board action to end the contract during the June 9 meeting.

Who spoke: callers and in‑chamber residents (identified in the hearing as speakers representing districts) raised the concerns and asked for formal transparency and disclosure from the sheriff’s office.

Why it matters: Automated license‑plate readers generate location data that critics say can be intrusive; the board signaled it will seek more information and public engagement before taking formal steps.