Santa Barbara to Review, Revise Automated License Plate Reader Policy

Three weeks after declining to renew its contract with Flock Safety, the Santa Barbara City Council has voted to keep automated license-plate-reader technology off the city's streets until its governing policy gets a full rewrite — a decision that leaves the Police Department without a tool it says has helped solve violent crimes.

The Noozhawk reported that the council voted 5-2 at its Sept. 15 meeting to hold off on implementing any new automated license-plate-reader (ALPR) system until the city and Police Department policy is thoroughly reviewed and revised. Mayor Randy Rowse and Councilman Mike Jordan cast the dissenting votes, arguing the pause leaves investigators without a resource in the meantime.

The vote was a follow-up to the council's Aug. 25 decision not to renew the Flock Safety contract or enter into a new agreement with Verkada, the vendor the city had been considering. The result: Santa Barbara police cannot use ALPR technology to aid investigations until the policy review is complete, and there is no firm timeline for how long that process will take.

A divided council

The debate laid bare a split on the dais — and within individual council members' own thinking.

Jordan, according to Noozhawk's coverage, argued that opponents of ALPRs might see the issue differently if a loved one were the victim of a serious crime that needed solving. He and Rowse did agree, though, that language in the city's existing ALPR policy needs to be "cleaned up" to better align with state law.

Councilwoman Meagan Harmon said she wasn't willing to enter a new contract without a strong system in place to ensure the safe use of the technology. "I don't think we have those systems in place," she said.

Councilman Oscar Gutierrez acknowledged being conflicted, saying he had heard from constituents who don't want the cameras — but had also spoken directly with crime victims who asked why the city couldn't do more to prevent crimes or apprehend those responsible. He said he would only support an ALPR system that was run "in-house," with Indivisible Santa Barbara, a local activist group, helping to monitor its use.

Policy gaps take center stage

Perhaps the most consequential moments of the meeting came when Larry Barrett of Indivisible Santa Barbara pointed to what he described as inconsistencies between the written policy and the assurances Police Chief Kelly Gordon had given the council.

According to the Noozhawk's account, the city's current policy states the department "shall provide" data to federal agencies for criminal investigations — language that conflicts with state law, which prohibits such sharing. City Attorney John Doimas acknowledged the discrepancy, saying the city cannot share the data with federal agencies regardless of what the policy says.

Barrett also flagged that the policy calls for data to be managed by vendors, even though Gordon had said the Verkada system would give the department complete control of its data. And while Gordon had previously said data is purged after 30 days unless retained as evidence, the policy calls for one year of storage.

"It really brings me no joy to say this," Barrett said. "Because I have the greatest respect for city administration and city police. But the policy is not consistent with the assurances you've given here in this room."

Gordon defended the department's practices, telling the council that state law bars sharing data with federal agencies and that other agencies seeking data must submit a specific request tied to a specific investigation. She also spoke about the human stakes: "I understand there's privacy concerns," Gordon said. "I also know this technology led to the identification and successful prosecution of someone who murdered someone in cold blood, who I sat with and told this individual's mom that their son had died going to the gym in the middle of the afternoon."

Residents push back on surveillance

Community members who spoke at the meeting largely urged the council to revise or abandon the technology, arguing the costs to privacy outweigh the benefits.

"The only way to ensure our data and privacy are secure is to not collect it in the first place," said resident Ana Garcia. "If we allow the use of these cameras to continue, we are trading a whole lot of our civil rights for a whole lot of nothing in return."

Speakers cited a study of 216 police departments that found ALPR cameras improved stolen-vehicle recovery times by only seven hours, and pointed to cases elsewhere in which license-plate data was reportedly used to track a woman who had an abortion across state lines, accessed by immigration enforcement, and misused by law enforcement officers to stalk romantic partners.

What the cameras did — and what's next

The Police Department had used 12 Flock automated license-plate-recognition cameras since late 2023 to locate stolen cars and identify suspect vehicles. Gordon said in August that the technology helped identify suspects in a series of 2025 jewelry store robberies, a 2025 stabbing and attempted homicide, and a 2025 assault. The department also reported an 11% increase in solved violent-crime cases and a 9% increase in solved hit-and-run cases since the cameras were installed.

For now, those cameras sit at the center of an unresolved question: how a city of about 90,000 balances investigative tools against civil-liberties concerns. City Administrator Kelly McAdoo indicated the city would undertake the policy review, though no completion date has been set.

What comes next for Santa Barbara residents is a period without ALPR-assisted investigations — and a policy rewrite that will determine whether the cameras return, under what vendor, and with what safeguards. Given the gaps Barrett identified between written policy and actual practice, the review is likely to be more than a formality, and the eventual council vote on any new contract will be watched closely by both victims' advocates and privacy groups.