ATLANTA, Aug. 13 (Our Los Angeles) — Flock Safety says it will reduce the standard retention period for vehicle-location data from 30 days to seven, while adding new controls for police searches and data sharing. The changes come as the Los Angeles Police Department pauses or declines to renew its agreement with the company over concerns about privacy, security and ownership of camera data.
Flock announced the measures Aug. 13. The company operates automated license-plate-reader cameras used by law-enforcement agencies. The cameras record passing vehicles and can allow investigators to search for vehicles seen in particular places or time periods.
What Flock is changing
Under the new policy, seven days will be the default period for retaining vehicle-location data. Flock said agencies may keep data longer for active investigations through a feature called “Evidence Mode.” Longer retention may also depend on state or local rules and agency policies.
Flock also said it would make its Audit Assistance system standard for law-enforcement customers. The system is designed to identify unusual search activity. It can lock a user out while an administrator reviews the activity.
The company said every search will require a reason and a case code. An emergency exception will allow searches without the usual information in situations such as a missing-child investigation.
Flock also said local agencies will be able to decide which types of offenses outside agencies may use when searching their camera data. Those controls could allow an agency to block searches connected to immigration enforcement.
Flock CEO Garrett Langley said the company’s goal was not to monetize the data. The company has defended the changes as safeguards against misuse.
Why Los Angeles is part of the dispute
The LAPD has operated or operated 138 Flock cameras in Los Angeles. The department’s agreement with Flock, dating to a 2023 memorandum of understanding, expired in June 2026, according to the department’s reported statements and contract discussions.
In July, LAPD paused use of the service or did not renew the agreement. Dean Gialamas, the department’s chief information officer, said the decision involved concerns about civil liberties, privacy and control of the data collected by the cameras.
“The sticking point is around having very clear terms about who owns the data, what happens with the data once they collect it,” Gialamas said, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The Los Angeles City Council also became involved. In late May, Councilmember Ysabel Jurado introduced a motion asking the Board of Police Commissioners not to enter new Flock agreements or pilot programs.
LAPD and Flock were reported to be discussing a new agreement. The proposed terms would give LAPD ownership of data and related metadata collected by the cameras and would restrict Flock from sharing the information with another entity or using it to train artificial-intelligence systems.
The department’s current status is not fully clear from the available records. The reports describe the action as a pause, a nonrenewal or an expired agreement, and do not establish whether LAPD has resumed using the cameras or finalized a new contract.
What prompted the backlash
Flock’s policy changes followed criticism of the company’s growing license-plate-reader network and reports alleging that police personnel misused such systems. A Washington Post investigation cited searches involving romantic partners, among other alleged abuses.
Those reports do not establish that every agency or officer using Flock systems engaged in misconduct. The supplied records also do not identify criminal charges, court cases or final findings involving the individual officers referenced in the reporting.
Privacy advocates have questioned whether the company’s safeguards go far enough. The American Civil Liberties Union called the changes “a thinly veiled PR attempt” and described the security promises as largely hollow.
Flock has said that agencies own their data and that the new controls are intended to limit improper access. The company’s announcement does not resolve the broader policy question facing Los Angeles: who should control information that can reveal where vehicles traveled, how long it should be stored and which agencies may search it.
For LAPD, those questions remain tied to any possible replacement agreement. For other agencies, Flock’s new default rules will not necessarily produce the same result because local policies and state requirements may allow different retention periods or data-sharing limits.
