Flock Cameras: Public Safety, Accountability, and the Steps Orting Police Have Taken to Protect Privacy

The Orting Police Department understands that automated license plate reader technology raises legitimate questions. People want to know what these cameras collect, how the information is used, who can access it, and what prevents misuse. Those are fair questions, and our community deserves clear answers.

Flock cameras can be valuable public-safety tools. They can help officers locate stolen vehicles, find missing or endangered people, and identify vehicles associated with serious crimes. At the same time, any technology this effective must be governed by clear rules, meaningful oversight, and safeguards that are more substantial than simply asking the public to trust that it will be used responsibly.

That is why the Orting Police Department has taken specific steps—through policy, training, technical controls, access restrictions, audits, and administrative oversight—to ensure our Flock system is used lawfully and only for legitimate public-safety purposes.

What Flock Cameras Actually Observe

A license plate is a government-issued identifier intentionally designed to be displayed where it can be seen by anyone on a public roadway. When a vehicle travels down a public street, its license plate, general vehicle description, and presence at that location are openly visible.  

A police officer could sit alongside the road and write down the license plates of passing vehicles. A witness could record the plate of a vehicle leaving a crime scene. A neighborhood-watch volunteer could document a suspicious vehicle, and a privately owned security camera could capture the same plate.  

In each case, the same publicly visible information is being observed. A Flock camera performs that basic task more consistently and efficiently. It records a vehicle’s license plate, general characteristics, location, and the date and time it passed the camera. It does not use facial recognition, look inside homes, listen to conversations, identify a vehicle’s occupants, or explain why someone is traveling.

Police work has always depended on people seeing and reporting what happens in public. Crimes are solved because an officer notices something, a witness remembers a detail, a resident recognizes a vehicle, or a security camera captures useful evidence. A Flock camera is another way of recording information that is already visible from a public place.

The same principle applies to information posted publicly online. If someone leaves a comment on a publicly accessible Facebook page, a police officer may read what every other member of the public can read. Police cannot unlawfully enter a private account or obtain private communications without appropriate legal authority. However, information does not become private simply because a police officer views it.

Likewise, observing a publicly displayed license plate from a lawful location is not the same as entering a home, accessing private communications, or searching a constitutionally protected area. The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures, but it does not ordinarily create a right to have information displayed openly on a public roadway remain unseen.

That does not mean publicly visible information should be collected or used without limits. Automated systems are faster and more efficient than human observation, and that increased capability warrants strong safeguards governing how information is searched, retained, and shared.

How many cameras does Orting Have?

Caution should be used when relying on opensource Flock camera tracking apps.  Most of this data is freely editable by anyone who creates an account.  In some cases, these apps are created by for-profit companies selling services like gps navigation that help people avoid flock cameras on their route.  For example:  opensource maps currently show Orting as having well over 30 Flock cameras this is simply false information.  

Orting currently operates less than 10 Flock cameras and does not intend to install any additional in the foreseeable future.  

Washington’s New Requirements

The Orting Police Department closely watched Washington’s proposed automated license plate reader legislation for approximately a year prior to its adoption. Department leadership participated in regional discussions with other police chiefs as the legislation moved through the process and began preparing for the anticipated changes before the new law took effect.

Following the adoption of House Bill 6002, codified as Chapter 239, Laws of 2026, the department updated its policies, system settings, search requirements, access controls, data-sharing practices, and camera-location review procedures.

The new law establishes important restrictions on automated license plate reader use. Orting’s response has been to incorporate those requirements into written department policy while also building many of them directly into the technology. This provides several layers of protection rather than relying on policy alone.

Searches Are Limited to Specific Public-Safety Purposes

Under the department’s updated Policy 430, officers may use Flock only for purposes authorized by Washington law. These include investigations involving:

• Stolen vehicles or license plates;
• Missing or endangered people;
• Individuals with qualifying felony or gross-misdemeanor warrants;
• Vehicles related to or involved in felony or gross-misdemeanor crimes; and
• Searches authorized by a judicial warrant or court order.

The search portal has been updated so officers can select only legally authorized reasons for conducting a search. The department has also added a notice that appears when users log in, reminding them of the system’s permissible uses.

These restrictions also apply to vehicle alerts, commonly called “hotlist” alerts. Before creating an alert, an officer must select an authorized reason for doing so. The system will not accept an entry based on a purpose outside the categories allowed by law.

This means the system is not available for general curiosity, personal use, political purposes, or routine monitoring of individuals who are not connected to an authorized investigation.

Prohibited Uses Are Blocked by Policy, Technology, and Oversight

There have been troubling cases across the country in which law enforcement personnel were accused of misusing automated license plate reader systems to locate spouses, former partners, or other people for personal reasons. An August 2026 national investigation initially identified at least 50 officers who had been accused, charged, or convicted of misusing Flock or similar systems. Subsequent reporting increased that figure to at least 69.

Those cases should be taken seriously. Misusing a law enforcement database to stalk or monitor another person is a serious violation of public trust and, depending on the circumstances, may also be a crime. The fact that such misconduct represents a very small fraction of the approximately 140,000 active Flock users nationwide does not excuse a single incident or lessen the harm experienced by those affected.

Unfortunately, there will always be a small number of people in any profession who misuse the authority or tools entrusted to them. The proper response is not to pretend that misuse can never happen. It is to establish controls that prevent misuse where possible, identify it when it occurs, preserve evidence of what happened, and hold the responsible person accountable.

It is significant that these cases are being discovered and publicly reported. Many were identified through audit logs, internal investigations, complaints, public-record disclosures, or outside scrutiny. Officers have been investigated, disciplined, terminated, charged, and, in some cases, prosecuted.

That does not make the underlying conduct acceptable. It does, however, demonstrate why detailed audit records and meaningful oversight are essential and effective. The best possible outcome after misconduct occurs is that it is detected, documented, investigated, disclosed, and addressed.

That fact that we are hearing about these cases should not automatically be viewed as proof that the entire system lacks accountability, but rather the opposite; it demonstrates that Police accountability is alive and well as officers who misuse these systems are being held accountable.   

The Orting Police Department has incorporated those lessons into its own safeguards. Department policy expressly prohibits using Flock data for personal reasons, political purposes, civil immigration enforcement, enforcement involving reproductive health care that is lawful in Washington, discriminatory targeting, or the monitoring of constitutionally protected activity.

Those policy restrictions are reinforced by technical controls. The search interface limits users to purposes authorized by Washington law and blocks searches containing prohibited terms associated with activities such as immigration or abortion enforcement. Officers must provide an authorized reason for each search, and every query creates an audit record identifying who conducted it, when it occurred, what was searched, and the stated investigative purpose.

Orting personnel may access the system only for official law enforcement business and only after completing department-approved training. Searches conducted by department users are available for administrative review, and regular audits provide a mechanism to identify unusual, repetitive, or unauthorized activity.

No safeguard can replace integrity, but safeguards can make misuse more difficult, easier to detect, and impossible to conceal without leaving a record. That combination of clear policy, restricted access, technical controls, training, auditing, and individual accountability is how the Orting Police Department intends to protect both public safety and public trust.

Federal and Out-of-State Access Has Been Restricted

Federal agencies do not have default access to information collected by Orting’s Flock cameras. Federal sharing has been disabled, and the Orting Police Department does not share its locally collected Flock data with federal agencies.

The department has also revoked all previous sharing arrangements with law enforcement agencies outside Washington. Agencies outside the state cannot directly access data captured by Orting’s cameras.

Orting shares locally collected data only with authorized, nonfederal law enforcement agencies within Washington. This is because those agencies are subject to the same state laws governing how automated license plate reader information may be accessed and used.

The department does not sell its Flock data. Washington law also prohibits vendors from selling, leasing, renting, or otherwise providing unauthorized access to data collected for a public agency.

Every Search Leaves an Audit Record

Every use of the Flock system is logged. The audit record identifies who conducted the search, when it occurred, what was searched, the agency associated with the user, and the stated investigative purpose or offense type. Searches are connected to standardized offense classifications, creating a documented public-safety justification for each use.

Changes to sharing permissions and system settings are also not allowed by anyone other than the Chief of Police and are recorded as separate audit events. They cannot simply be changed without creating a record of the action.

Department administrators can review the full details of searches conducted by Orting personnel. These records allow the department to identify improper access, confirm compliance with policy, and hold individual users accountable.

The department’s policy requires regular audits, and Washington law requires agencies to retain detailed access records and conduct an internal audit at least annually. These reviews evaluate compliance with restrictions governing access, retention, sharing, and deletion.

An Alert Alone Does Not Authorize a Traffic Stop

A Flock alert does not automatically give an officer legal authority to stop a vehicle.

Before taking enforcement action, an officer must visually confirm that the plate on the vehicle matches the plate shown in the alert and verify the information through the appropriate law enforcement database or another reliable source. The officer must either develop independent reasonable suspicion or complete the additional confirmation required by law.

This is an important safeguard. In any police records database system, not just Flock, license plates can be entered incorrectly, stolen, transferred between vehicles, or associated with information that has recently changed. These systems are investigative tools—not a replacement for an officer’s judgment, legal training, or responsibility to verify information before acting.

Flock Records Fixed-Location Observations; It Does Not Continuously Track Vehicles

Flock cameras do not continuously track a vehicle in the way a GPS device does. Each camera is installed at a fixed location and records the moment a publicly visible license plate passes that particular point.

The camera does not know where the vehicle came from, where it is ultimately going, who is inside, why the trip is being made, or where the vehicle travels between encounters with fixed cameras.

In that limited sense, the observation is similar to a vehicle passing a toll-access camera. The system records that a particular plate passed a particular location at a particular time. It does not attach itself to the vehicle or create an uninterrupted account of its movements.

The distinction is important. The word “tracking” can leave the impression that a device is following a vehicle continuously and reporting its live location. That is not what Orting’s fixed Flock cameras do. Each camera records a separate observation only when a vehicle passes that particular location.

A 21-Day Retention Period Prevents Long-Term Accumulation

Washington law adds another significant safeguard by generally limiting retention of automated license plate reader data to 21 days. Orting’s routine Flock data is automatically purged at the end of that period unless it has been lawfully preserved in connection with a qualifying criminal investigation, warrant, court order, or another exception authorized by law.

To place that period in perspective, 21 days represents approximately 0.07 percent of an average lifespan. It is a narrow window—not a permanent or lifelong record of someone’s travel. It is the smallest amount of time possible that still allows time for a potential crime to be discovered, reported, assigned, and an investigation opened by police so that evidence can be preserved.

The short retention period substantially limits the ability to use Orting’s locally collected data to reconstruct someone’s movements over an extended period. Once routine data is automatically deleted, it is no longer available for later searches. Relevant evidence may be preserved when legally justified, but routine vehicle observations that have no connection to an authorized investigation are not retained indefinitely.

A Flock camera records a momentary observation at a fixed public location. It does not follow a vehicle in real time, and Orting does not maintain an open-ended archive of every plate its cameras observe. The combination of fixed-location observations, restricted search purposes, documented access, and automatic deletion after 21 days helps prevent the system from becoming a long-term repository of community travel.

Stored data is also protected through procedural and technological safeguards. State law changes now protect drivers by exempting Flock’s data from being disclosed in connection with public records requests.  Additionally, Washington State Law makes it a gross-misdemeanor to access flock data for any purpose other then those authorized by law and discussed previously. 

Camera Locations Have Been Reviewed

Washington law now restricts automated license plate reader data collection at certain sensitive or protected locations.

The Orting Police Department reviewed the placement of every camera to ensure that cameras are not positioned to collect information specifically associated with protected facilities identified by state law. Those locations include schools, food banks, places of worship, courts, protected health care facilities, and facilities handling immigration matters.  That camera review resulted in my decision to disable one camera that appeared to be too close to one of these protected locations.

The purpose of Orting’s cameras is to support legitimate criminal investigations and public safety—not to identify or monitor people because they visit a sensitive location or participate in constitutionally protected activity.

In addition, state law now requires that all cameras in use by law enforcement agencies be registered with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office.   The Orting Police Department has complied with this requirement.

Responsible Use Requires More Than Trust

We recognize that some people remain uncomfortable with this technology, and we do not dismiss those concerns. Trust in government should not require anyone to ignore reasonable questions or accept vague assurances.

Responsible use should be demonstrated through enforceable rules and verifiable safeguards.

The Orting Police Department has narrowed the authorized uses of its Flock system, disabled prohibited sharing, revoked out-of-state access, restricted search categories, added technical blocks against prohibited searches, required training, established audit requirements, limited data retention, reviewed camera locations, and required officers to verify every alert before taking enforcement action.

These measures combine state law, written policy, technical controls, audit records, administrative oversight, and individual accountability. Together, they allow the department to retain the public-safety benefits of the technology while placing meaningful limits on how it may be used.

The proper question is not simply whether police may observe a license plate that is openly displayed on a public roadway. The more important questions are whether the information is being used for a legitimate public-safety purpose, whether access is controlled and documented, whether sharing is restricted, whether information is deleted when it is no longer legally needed, and whether officers verify the information before acting.

Those are the standards by which the Orting Police Department expects its use of Flock cameras to be judged. We will continue reviewing our practices, responding to changes in the law, and providing the public with clear information about how this technology is used while being operated under our control. 

Our objective is straightforward: to use an effective investigative tool to protect the community while respecting the law, individual rights, and the public trust placed in this department.  

Intended Future Use of Flock

Orting's contract with Flock is set to expire in November of 2026.  Budget discussions are currently underway to establish the 2027 budget.   Ultimately, the city council will decide whether to continue funding Flock cameras into the future, and the topic is slated to be included as an agenda item for council meetings scheduled in September.   

Part of my responsibility as Chief is to continually evaluate the department’s operations and identify the public-safety priorities most important to our community. I must also work within the budget established by the mayor and City Council. Because available funding cannot support every worthwhile project or initiative, I am responsible for recommending initiatives that will benefit the greatest number of residents and offer the greatest potential to prevent and reduce crime.

At this time, it is too early to determine where Flock will rank among the department’s competing priorities or whether sufficient funding will be available to continue the program. As the City moves closer to finalizing its budget, I will have a clearer understanding of our available resources and whether I will recommend that the City Council continue funding Orting’s use of Flock cameras, or request to use those funds somewhere else. 

Until then, I encourage the public to continue discussing the use of Flock cameras in a healthy, informed, and constructive manner.

Respectfully,

Devon Gabreluk
Chief of Police