East Palo Alto residents showed up. The City Council shut them out

Ravneel Chaudhary is shown at the East Palo Alto City Council meeting on April 7, 2026, sitting with other East Palo Alto residents, as they opposed the city council's decision to use Flock cameras in East Palo Alto. - Photo- East Palo Alto City Council video

On Tuesday, April 6, 2026, East Palo Alto residents showed up to City Hall after work ready to speak about the city’s contract with Flock Safety. Many came directly from their jobs or rearranged their evening schedules to participate in a decision that directly impacts their privacy, safety, and civil liberties. They came prepared to ask questions and engage in a public process. Instead, in a 3 to 2 vote, Mayor Lincoln and Councilmembers Dinan and Barragan removed the agenda item entirely, blocking any discussion and cutting off residents who came to be heard. What happened that night was not just disappointing, it undermined the basic expectation that public participation matters in local government. 

Even after ACLU of San Mateo County raised concerns ahead of the meeting, the council still removed the item from the agenda, eliminating any opportunity for public policy discussion or meaningful council deliberation on the Flock contract. While public comment was still allowed, residents were denied the most important part of the process: the ability for the council to openly debate, respond, and consider whether to continue or reconsider the contract in a public forum. 

This decision raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to surveillance technology. Automated License Plate Reader systems like Flock cameras do more than capture license plates. They collect and store detailed location data on every vehicle that passes by, creating a record of where people go, when they go there, and how frequently they travel. Based on presentations from the East Palo Alto Police Department, these systems can also capture audio, adding another layer of concern about the scope of surveillance taking place in public spaces. 

The implications of this kind of data collection go beyond privacy in the abstract. Continuous tracking of movement can chill First Amendment rights, including the freedom to move through public spaces and associate without being monitored. It also raises Fourth Amendment concerns around warrantless surveillance, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States, which recognized that prolonged location tracking constitutes a search that generally requires a warrant. 

These concerns are especially urgent in a community like East Palo Alto, where many residents come from immigrant families and have raised serious fears about how location data could be accessed beyond the city. Federal agencies have been able to access California license plate reader data through local sharing systems, raising broader concerns about how this information may be used outside its original public safety purpose. When systems create detailed records of people’s movements, the impact is not abstract. It can shape whether residents feel safe driving to work, taking their children to school, or going about daily life without fear that their movements are being tracked or reviewed beyond the local level.

These concerns are not theoretical. In nearby Mountain View, an audit revealed that hundreds of outside agencies, including federal and out-of-state entities, accessed local ALPR data. That discovery led the city to end its Flock program entirely. Similar issues have surfaced across the region, raising ongoing questions about oversight, transparency, and how this data is shared once it leaves local control. California law limits sharing of this data with outside agencies, yet enforcement actions, including in El Cajon, show that those protections have not always been followed. 

Given that context, the concerns raised by residents are grounded in real and documented risks, not speculation. Vice Mayor Ruben Abrica and Council member Carlos Romero both opposed removing the item, warning that doing so would be a disservice to the community members who showed up to participate. Their position reflected a basic principle of governance: even controversial issues deserve open discussion, especially when the public is asking for accountability. 

As someone whose family has experienced gun violence, I understand the urgency of public safety, but that does not justify expanding surveillance through systems like Flock Safety. Surveillance is not the same as safety. Expanding surveillance without transparency or public input does not address the root causes of harm, and it risks eroding trust between residents and the institutions meant to serve them. 

By removing this item, the council avoided a necessary public conversation and deepened concerns about how decisions around surveillance are being made. The next City Council meeting on April 21 will be another opportunity for residents to be heard, and the community is already organizing to ensure that happens. 

East Palo Alto residents showed up once. They are not going to stop showing up now.

Ravneel Chaudhary, the author of the above article, is an East Palo Alto resident and community activist.

***********************

Please click on the box below and make a donation. Whatever amount you give will enable us to "Keep Community Media Alive!"