Voice of OC75%
Costa Mesa Keeps Controversial Flock Cameras, Looks to Clean Up Contract Next Year 22%
By Angelina Hicks51%
7/22/2026, 8:00:00 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 24% saturation with 374 hits. Analysis detected 1,147 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,560 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.7% and a BS Rank of 22% (15,995 of 20,304 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.80% of the article peer group.
Controversial cameras that scan drivers’ license plates in Costa Mesa will remain despite an outpouring of residents who claim the cameras invade their privacy and the company who operates them isn’t trustworthy.
During a meeting on Tuesday night, Costa Mesa City Council members voted 6-1 to keep the city’s contract with Flock — who operates the 46 automated licence plate reader cameras in town — ahead of the contract’s expected expiration date in April 2027.
Councilmember Arlis Reynolds voted no, citing vulnerabilities in the current contract.
As part of the vote, council members directed staff to renegotiate a slew of terms in the contract, including specific details about how Flock is allowed to access and use the data collected by the cameras in Costa Mesa.
But while staff look to renegotiate that contract, which could include a reduction in the devices in town, the cameras will remain and operate in Costa Mesa.
“I want to modify the contract.
I don’t want to stop it, but I want to cancel the way it exists now,” Councilmember Loren Gameros said at the meeting.
“Keep the Flock program, but our contract needs to be modified,” he continued.
“We’re not going to tie the hands of the police department while we try to figure this out.”
The item is expected to be brought back to the council for further consideration at a future meeting in October or November.
The discussion came after a growing coalition of residents locally and nationally have been speaking out against Flock cameras, especially after a Costa Mesa police officer used the devices to stalk women, including his wife, an ex-girlfriend and romantic rivals.
Scores of Costa Mesa residents and others from nearby cities have been asking leaders to ditch the cameras for months.
[ Read : Will Costa Mesa Ditch License Plate Surveillance Cameras After Cop Stalking Scandal?
]
The cameras are strategically positioned to monitor entry and exit points throughout the city and aid criminal investigations, according to the staff report included with the agenda for last night’s city council’s meeting.
They photograph passing vehicles, read license plates and compare the information against law enforcement databases.
Almost every single other California police department that uses Flock has the ability to tap into Costa Mesa’s cameras at any time if they need it to assist in an investigation or official police business.
Similarly, Costa Mesa officers can also tap into the hundreds of California cities’ Flock cameras during an investigation.
About 170 Costa Mesa employees have authorization to access the city’s Flock cameras.
Most of those are sworn police officers with a handful of civilian employees also having access.
Representatives from the Costa Mesa Police Department said some officers go weeks without using the Flock cameras while others utilize them on a daily basis when conducting police business.
They repeatedly emphasized that every search must list a law enforcement reason, and the department conducts weekly audits to see if there’s been any unusual activity in the system.
“I understand the concerns surrounding this technology,” Costa Mesa Police Chief Joyce LaPointe said at the meeting.
“I understand there are questions about privacy, government surveillance, data collection, who has access to this information, how long it will be retained and whether law-abiding people are being monitored.”
“Every access must have a legitimate law enforcement purpose, and misuse is not tolerated,” she said.
Police department representatives emphasized that Flock does not sell data to third parties or use facial recognition.
They said the cameras don’t capture names, images or personal information of drivers, adding that cameras are not placed in parks.
Law enforcement representatives also explained that state law prevents police departments from sharing Flock data with any agencies outside California — that means it’s illegal to share Flock data with federal law enforcement agencies, including immigration enforcement.
From July 2025 to July 2026, Flock cameras directly resulted in 20 recovered stolen vehicles in Costa Mesa, according to the police department.
Using information from the cameras, officers in the city were also able to find three missing people and solve 10 sexual assault cases.
“Without Flock, these cases would not have been solved as quickly as they were solved, and it’s potential that we may have not solved them,” said Police Lieutenant Jared Barnes, who oversees the city’s Flock cameras.
“Flock gives us the ability to bring closure and justice for the victims of these crimes.
These aren’t just numbers, these are people in our city.”
A Stalking Scandal Raises Concerns
Much of the community pushback over Flock cameras stems from a stalking scandal involving an officer from the Costa Mesa Police Department.
Robert Jay Josett, 35, was accused of using the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System database beginning in 2023 to make 13 inquiries on people and vehicles not related to his job, including his mistress, someone she dated, and his own wife, according to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office .
Josett was also accused of accessing information from Flock cameras and using it to locate his mistress’ vehicle and the vehicles of her romantic interests in order to follow them to their locations.
He continued to illegally access data from the Flock cameras in 2024 after he lost his job at the police department, according to the DA’s office, and he used the information to find the address of his mistress’ new boyfriend in Torrance.
Josett pleaded guilty in April to three misdemeanors, including unauthorized computer access and fraud related to illegally accessing the police department’s license plate reader system.
Residents and community members at the meeting also pointed to privacy concerns and criticized Flock’s intentions as a company.
“Cancel the Flock contract because their incentives are profit, not actually public safety,” a Newport Beach resident who frequents Costa Mesa said during the public comment portion of the meeting.
“Please vote to cancel this Flock contract and build a public safety system that does not rely on an unaccountable company full of vulnerabilities.”
Many residents pointed to the cameras as an example of surveillance measures that cross the line.
“We are trying to tell you that AI-powered mass surveillance does not make the community feel safe,” another speaker said.
The city has used license plate readers in town for 15 years, but the specific contract with Flock began in 2022.
The city first started with 31 cameras, but now there are 46 around the city.
It costs leaders $151,800 annually to run the devices.
Costa Mesa has a public transparency portal for their license plate reader program that lists the camera locations.
The cameras currently store data for 365 days, but council members are asking for that to be reduced to 45 days.
“We’re trying to work out a way to allow you [police] to continue to do what you’re doing and manage the concerns that the public has about privacy,” Mayor John Stephens said.
“I don’t like that Flock has not shown up at this meeting.
That bothers me.”
Stephens said he’s never seen this many residents speak out against an issue with such unified opposition.
“I don’t think that I’ve ever in 10 years had an item that’s come before us where virtually 100% of the people gave the same position on it, including people that are on email,” he said at the meeting.
Councilmember Manuel Chavez said the cameras are valuable for police, but he’s also willing to cancel the contract if Flock isn’t willing to meet them to make certain changes to the contract.
“Heinous crimes have been done in my community, and these cameras have solved that,” Chavez said at the meeting.
“These cameras have done good work in bringing peace to families that have minors die.
I also hear the complaints and concerns of residents about — are we stepping into a surveillance state type of situation?”
“If Flock is not willing to take into account the valid concerns we raise on this dais, thanks to your feedback, I am perfectly fine canceling that contract,” he said.
Councilmember Jeff Pettis said he supported reviewing the contract to make some changes when it expires in April.
“Government should not collect or search location data without strict terms of accountability.
At the same time, the system has produced meaningful public safety results in my view,” he said.
“We have an obligation to protect both privacy and public safety at the same time,” Pettis said, “they’re not mutually exclusive.”
Councilmember Reynolds suggested that review could include a reduction of cameras.
“I think it’s reasonable and appropriate and correct that members of our public should have an expectation that their local government is not collecting and tracking data on them,” Reynolds said at the meeting.
“It seems like a breach.”
Reynolds voted no last night after making a motion to immediately cancel the Flock contract altogether.
That motion died because it wasn’t supported by any of her colleagues.
“There’s just too many vulnerabilities,” she said, “and I appreciate that we’ll be taking steps to tighten up those vulnerabilities.”
Angelina Hicks is the Voice of OC Collegiate News Service Editor.
Contact her at ahicks@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @angelinahicks13.
Voice of OC is Orange County's nonprofit newsroom.
We rely on donations from people like you to sustain our news agency.
Please make a contribution today: https://voiceofoc.org/donate
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.