The Light’s recent article about Flock technology in Marin raises legitimate questions about privacy, data security, and the appropriate use of law-enforcement technology. Those questions deserve public discussion and scrutiny. Our office welcomes that. But the article does not give readers a complete picture of the safeguards we have in place, the distinction between unauthorized access and authorized data sharing, or the public-safety value this technology provides to our community.

Most importantly, our office has never authorized the sharing of our Flock data with out-of-state or federal agencies. Before Flock was implemented, we took deliberate steps to disable nationwide data-access capabilities and establish controls to ensure our system complied with California law, including S.B. 34 and S.B. 54. 

The access described in the article occurred without any authorization from us and involved a limited portion of our data for approximately nine weeks in late 2024. Many searches returned no data at all. When we became aware of this issue, we immediately again deactivated the ability for out-of-state agencies to access the affected data, and we contacted Flock to determine how the access occurred. The issue appears to have affected multiple state entities, and Flock subsequently permanently disabled its “National Lookup” feature for all California agencies.

That distinction matters. There is a significant difference between an agency intentionally sharing information with outside jurisdictions and an unauthorized event the agency did not permit and moved to shut down once discovered. The article’s discussion of nationwide Flock controversies can leave the impression that these are the same thing. They are not.

Marin’s system operates with safeguards governing how deputies use the technology. Deputies receive training directing them to use A.L.P.R. information only for legitimate law-enforcement purposes, never for immigration enforcement, and never to share with out-of-state or federal agencies. Searches require a reference number, such as a crime report, along with an explanation of the reason for the search. The system is audited regularly to identify searches that may not comply with those requirements and action would be taken promptly.

Our office has also gone beyond those internal guardrails. Before sharing data with another California law-enforcement agency, the other agency must agree in writing to restrictions that prohibit use for immigration enforcement, personal purposes, or inquiries made at the request of federal or out-of-state agencies. Our system consists of 31 fixed cameras that capture license plates on public roads. We do not use Flock’s video, audio, or drone services.

None of these safeguards means the public should stop asking questions. Quite the opposite: Transparency and independent oversight are essential when government agencies use game-changing technology. But those discussions should consider existing safeguards and documented results and advantages.

In 2025, Marin’s Flock system was used in 354 cases. It generated 186 investigative leads, contributed to 71 arrests, and resulted in 29 additional referrals for prosecution. It also assisted in locating 12 missing people and six people experiencing a mental-health crisis. 

So far in 2026, the system generated another 119 leads and 31 arrests. Twenty cases have been referred for prosecution after Flock helped identify a suspect. It has also assisted in locating two missing people and three experiencing a mental-health crisis.

Behind every one of those numbers is a person. A victim of a crime, a family searching for a missing loved one, or someone in crisis who needed to be found quickly. The technology has helped investigators develop leads and identify suspects in cases that otherwise may have taken considerably longer to solve.

That does not make Flock infallible, nor does it end the policy debate over A.L.P.R. technology. It does, however, demonstrate why the public deserves to weigh both the risks and the benefits rather than viewing the technology solely through the lens of its potential misuse. 

The same principle applies to the article’s discussion of the proposed Peregrine system. That proposal would not create a new collection of surveillance data. It would make existing information easier to retrieve across systems. Law enforcement technology has evolved from handwritten reports and paper files to electronic records, computer-aided dispatch, and records-management systems. Connecting those systems is part of a continuing evolution.

Every day, law enforcement is entrusted with powerful tools and extraordinary authority. That authority must come with training, restrictions, oversight, and accountability. The Sheriff’s Office recognizes that people make mistakes, which is precisely why we have systems in place to verify how tools are being used. We would not hesitate to act if misconduct occurs.

We should not dismiss concerns about privacy. The appropriate question is whether the technology is being used lawfully, whether safeguards are reviewed, and whether the public-safety benefits justify its use. When our office learned of unauthorized access, we shut it down and sought answers from the vendor. Those facts must be part of the public conversation.

Public trust is not built by asking residents to accept technology without question. It is built by being transparent about how technology works, establishing meaningful safeguards, acknowledging problems when they occur, and demonstrating that those entrusted with these tools are held accountable. We welcome that scrutiny. We also believe the community deserves a balanced discussion, one that recognizes both the responsibility to protect residents’ privacy and the responsibility to use lawful, effective tools to protect their safety.

Miguel Almaguer is the public information officer for the Marin County Sheriff’s Office.