Community members push back on Sheriff’s plea for Flock camera support

Debates in Shasta County over Flock cameras over recent months have prompted Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson to call on the community to pick a side — his. 

In a Facebook post yesterday, the Shasta County Sheriff’s office asked community members to show up and support Flock cameras during Tuesday’s Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting, where he’ll be presenting on the technology at the board’s request.

“Currently, the Board of Supervisors is primarily hearing from one side of this issue,” the post said. “It is important that our elected officials hear from the community members who support responsible use of this valuable investigative technology.”

Flock cameras, also known as automated license plate readers or ALPRs, have appeared on the agendas of both the Anderson City Council and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors over recent months as groups such as Flock Off Shasta County have advocated and organized to voice their opposition to the cameras. 

This Tuesday, the board could vote to terminate the county’s contract with Flock or provide other direction to the sheriff. 

Despite the sheriff’s plea, supportive comments online are few. One supporter Shasta Scout spoke with said he backs the technology because it increases safety and reduces costs. Those who oppose the cameras are worried that ALPRs put privacy at risk, leave data open to security breaches and could spark controversy that damage the public’s trust.

The Sheriff’s major claims

Johnson used the Facebook post to articulate a series of claims about ALPRs, calling them one of the most important tools law enforcement agencies have, declaring them compliant with the Fourth Amendment and insisting that the system cannot be used for non-investigative purposes, at least in Shasta. 

Among his statements, he said that Flock has been used to solve countless crimes locally. The county’s Flock transparency portal outlines 105 cases resolved by utilizing the cameras.

He also addressed the issue of data sharing, saying Flock data held by the sheriff’s office is deleted after 30 days unless it’s part of an active case and noting that Shasta County shares its Flock data with over 100 agencies across the state. Shasta Scout’s records requests in July have documented that the sheriff’s office wasn’t sharing data with federal agencies, which would have violated state law. 

In connection to another state law which requires a documented reason for each search query when utilizing ALPRs, Johnson claimed that Shasta personnel “cannot access the system to simply ‘spy on’ individuals or use it for non investigative purposes.” But Shasta County audit logs of data from May-June 2026, received through a public records request, lack a documented reason code for ALPR queries. That’s in contrast to Anderson Police Department audit logs from a similar time period which name the reason for each ALPR system search. Johnson has not yet responded to a request for comment. 

Here’s what opponents say

Anderson City Council member Darin Hale has been one of the leading voices against Flock cameras. By phone yesterday, he identified three primary concerns: potential violations of the Fourth Amendment, uncertainty over whether data is permanently destroyed after 30 days and distrust of Flock’s business model, which he claims is built on collecting and selling data.

Of the more than 1,000 comments on the sheriff’s office Facebook post, most agree with Hale with the resounding theme being resistance to surveillance. But some in the community support the cameras saying they help reduce crime and increase the pace of investigations, especially as local law enforcement faces budget pressures.

In a conversation today, Shasta County resident Steven Kohn acknowledged abuses of the Flock system nationwide, but argued that such incidents result from improper use and should be addressed through monitoring and safeguards, not removal.

He debated the validity of the online pushback against Johnson’s Flock agenda, questioning whether those commenting on Facebook were even locals. 

“To me, we need to get a sense of how the people here locally feel,” Kohn said.

Amid the back and forth, Supervisor Matt Plummer has chosen a middle ground. He is most vocal about the need for strong county policies in order to prevent abuse of the system. In an email sent to constituents on Nov. 2, Plummer advocated for a public conversation about such oversight before jumping to eliminate the technology. 

Noting recent court cases, he said the “constitutionality [of Flock cameras] increasingly depends on how broadly the technology is deployed, how much historical information is retained, and how law enforcement is allowed to search it.”

“That is why the policy that governs the Sheriff Office’s use of Flock Cameras matters so much,” he added.

Tuesday’s meeting could determine if the county will continue to use the cameras or terminate the contract with Flock. Both sides of the debate anticipate a full house. Social media posts indicate that a protest against the cameras is also scheduled to take place before the meeting. 

Have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org