The nondescript black cameras are mounted near each entrance of the Las Americas Premium Outlets, capturing the license plate, make and model of every car that enters the mall parking lot.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs soon as you come in, it’s in the system,\u201d said a former worker with Simon Property Group. The company is the largest owner of shopping malls in the country, including Las Americas, the sprawling complex next to the San Ysidro border crossing.<\/p>\n
At first, he embraced the automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras from Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based surveillance technology company. The former employee believed the ALPR system would help address shoplifting and solve serious crimes that occasionally happened around the mall, like robberies and vehicle theft.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A Flock camera captures vehicle images outside of the Lowe’s in Mission Valley on Nov. 17, 2025.<\/p>\n
And then he realized the power \u2014 and scope \u2014 of the license plate surveillance system. Flock can help users analyze patterns of movement and potential associations between drivers. And Simon Property Group gave several law enforcement agencies open access to search and receive notifications from its ALPR system.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf people knew more about it, I would say people will obviously be pissed off,\u201d he said. \u201cNobody wants big brother watching you on every single little thing.\u201d<\/p>\n
The former employee agreed to speak with KPBS on the condition of anonymity, fearing professional consequences for discussing company policies. A spokesperson for Simon Property Group did not respond to multiple requests for comment.<\/p>\n
The use of license plate reader technology has long been a flashpoint between law enforcement and privacy advocates.<\/p>\n
In recent years, California has established certain guardrails<\/a> for ALPR networks owned by police departments and other public entities, including restrictions on how the data can be shared. The systems are also subject to public records requests.<\/p>\n But those safeguards don\u2019t apply to the many private businesses \u2014 including Home Depot, Lowe’s, the Southwestern Yacht Club, Fashion Valley mall and homeowners associations \u2014 that give police access to their license plate readers.<\/p>\n These private systems effectively serve as a wide-ranging extension of law enforcement’s surveillance apparatus \u2014 even though the private businesses are not subject to the same public scrutiny and transparency requirements.<\/p>\n A KPBS review of more than 1,500 pages of police records reveals law enforcement agencies in San Diego County have access to dozens of local private Flock camera networks, which include over 150 previously undisclosed license plate readers.<\/p>\n Have a tip? \ud83d\udce8<\/p>\n The Investigations Team at KPBS holds powerful people and institutions accountable. But we can\u2019t do it alone \u2014 we depend on tips from the public to point us in the right direction. There are two ways to contact the I-Team.<\/p>\n For general tips, you can send an email to investigations@kpbs.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n If you need more security, you can send anonymous tips or share documents via our secure Signal account at 619-594-8177.<\/p>\n To learn more about how we use Signal and other privacy protections, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Police officials say license plate readers help them investigate crimes.<\/p>\n \u201cWe’ve been able to solve multiple murders, several kidnappings, several rape cases,\u201d said Commander Christopher Lawrence with the San Diego County Sheriff\u2019s Office. \u201cBut the vast majority have been narcotic cases and stolen vehicle cases.\u201d<\/p>\n Privacy advocates and civil liberties experts, on the other hand, say access to private ALPR networks creates a shadowy expansion of law enforcement\u2019s surveillance capabilities. The lack of oversight \u2014 or awareness \u2014 of these systems, they argue, could give rise to misuse.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the case of a private party, there’s very little (transparency),\u201d said Rachel Levinson-Waldman, director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy institute. \u201cIt really often leaves people in the dark about these incredibly powerful surveillance technologies.\u201d<\/p>\n Flock users can search a license plate number, partial plate information or general description of a vehicle (such as \u201cblack pickup truck.\u201d) Users can also conduct a \u201cconvoy search\u201d that identifies cars \u201cthat often travel alongside the vehicle of interest,\u201d according to a 2023 Flock user guide.<\/p>\n Searches can also identify vehicles that frequent specific locations.<\/p>\n The company says its cameras only capture information<\/a> about vehicles and do not use facial recognition software.<\/p>\n Despite such assurances, the ALPR networks installed today, privacy experts warn, will likely become much more powerful in the coming years as companies like Flock develop more sophisticated, interconnected products.<\/p>\n Consider that Flock recently announced<\/a> a new drone that can pair with customers\u2019 existing ALPR systems, read license plates from 2,000 feet away and reach speeds of up to 60 mph.<\/p>\n And then there\u2019s Nova<\/a>, Flock\u2019s new data-compiling platform. Starting with something as simple as a license plate hit, departments can use Nova to quickly build an individual profile based on information from property records, body-worn camera transcripts, social media accounts, jail phone call recordings and other data sources, according to promotional materials.<\/p>\n El Cajon Police Chief Jeremiah Larson said Flock is giving his department early demo access to Nova as an add-on to the department\u2019s ALPR cameras.<\/p>\n “We look forward to trying it out,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Flock\u2019s boom and recent scrutiny<\/p>\n Flock is a relatively young company. Founded in 2017, it initially focused on selling license plate readers to homeowner associations. But as more communities adopted the technology, law enforcement wanted their own systems, said Flock spokesperson Holly Beilin.<\/p>\n \u201cWe work with roughly 5,000 law enforcement agencies,\u201d Beilin said. \u201cThat ranges from very small agencies in rural or suburban areas to state law enforcement agencies.\u201d<\/p>\n Flock also has approximately 1,000 private customers, according to Beilin.<\/p>\n Flock has faced scrutiny in recent months for the way some of its customers used the license plate readers.<\/p>\n A number of law enforcement agencies gave so-called \u201cside-door access\u201d<\/a> to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by conducting searches for the federal agency. Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias claimed Flock broke state law<\/a> by allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to search its ALPR data. And the Electronic Frontier Foundation found Flock\u2019s cameras were used to search for a Texas woman<\/a> who had an abortion.<\/p>\n A Flock camera at Fashion Valley Mall cast in silhouette on Oct. 27, 2025.<\/p>\n Flock has acknowledged wrongdoing by some law enforcement and said it revoked access to dozens of agencies<\/a> that improperly searched its ALPR networks and introduced safeguards, such as the ability to block searches containing certain keywords. The company has pushed back<\/a> on the Electronic Frontier Foundation\u2019s findings, though the privacy group has stood by its reporting.<\/p>\n In an interview, Beilin said Flock does \u201cnot have any contracts with any sub-agencies\u201d under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which would include ICE and CBP. The Associated Press reported<\/a> in August that the company halted a pilot program with CBP and Homeland Security Investigations.<\/p>\n Beilin said she does not believe federal agencies have access to any private networks, but did not provide confirmation in response to follow up inquiries. The company also did not provide a list of federal agencies that use Flock. <\/p>\n Cities around the country \u2014 in Massachusetts<\/a>, North Carolina<\/a>, Illinois<\/a> and beyond<\/a> \u2014 have canceled their Flock contracts in light of the recent concerns. San Diego\u2019s Privacy Advisory Board recently recommended<\/a> the city only continue its Flock program if certain changes were made to data storage and access.<\/p>\n In a letter last month, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) called<\/a> on Oregon communities to cut ties with Flock due to the \u201cinevitable abuses\u201d of the company\u2019s ALPRs. In response<\/a>, Flock said the senator \u201cposes a series of hypotheticals, and posits, without support, that future abuses of our technologies are \u2018inevitable.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Sprawling private networks<\/p>\n In its user guide, Flock encourages businesses to share access to their license plate cameras with local law enforcement, though it\u2019s not a requirement.<\/p>\n KPBS obtained Flock system records from 10 law enforcement agencies in San Diego County that list all of the license plate readers they can access. The numbers vary widely from department to department.<\/p>\n At the higher end, the El Cajon Police Department owns about 80 ALPR cameras but has access to thousands of networks nationwide, which include more than 50,000 cameras.<\/p>\n In San Diego County, malls, big box stores and other private businesses give law enforcement departments access to their ALPR feeds, the KPBS analysis shows.<\/p>\n These businesses either declined or did not respond to interview requests from KPBS.<\/p>\n Over a dozen homeowner associations and private communities \u2014 from Carlsbad to Chula Vista \u2014 also share access to their cameras.<\/p>\n Malabar Ranch, a gated community in Fallbrook, allows the San Diego County Sheriff\u2019s Office to search its two Flock cameras and monitor for license plates of interest.<\/p>\n \u201cI can’t see a reason any HOA would not share the data feed with the local sheriff if the intent of putting the camera system in is for security,\u201d said Robert Lin. He\u2019s a board member with the Malabar Ranch homeowner association but spoke to KPBS in his capacity as a resident of the community.<\/p>\n A Flock Safety sign outside the Malabar Ranch community in Fallbrook on Oct. 27, 2025.<\/p>\n Since the gated community\u2019s roads are private, Lin said the public shouldn\u2019t be concerned about law enforcement having access.<\/p>\n Signs posted outside the community\u2019s gates read \u201c24\/7 recording\u201d and \u201cFlock Safety.\u201d Lin said Malabar Ranch residents strongly supported installing the Flock cameras, though he acknowledged they may not know about the extent of law enforcement\u2019s access.<\/p>\n \u201cGod, we can’t even get people to show up to the HOA meetings to talk about our streets that are cracked or the water system that’s costing us a fortune,\u201d Lin said.<\/p>\n Law enforcement touts ALPRs<\/p>\n Law enforcement agencies across San Diego County emphasized the effectiveness of ALPRs and the importance of having access to private camera networks.<\/p>\n \u201cThe more vast the network, then the more cameras that might capture that plate in a crime,\u201d said Larson, the El Cajon police chief.<\/p>\n Larson said he understood some people\u2019s concerns. But he stressed that his officers use surveillance tools responsibly and abide by state law.<\/p>\n The California Department of Justice filed a lawsuit<\/a> against the El Cajon Police Department in October for sharing its ALPR data with out-of-state agencies, which the department claims is against the law. KPBS found<\/a> outside agencies searched El Cajon\u2019s data for immigration purposes over 550 times this year.<\/p>\n San Diego Police Department (SDPD) Captain Charles Lara said private ALPR networks give SDPD an \u201cadditional sets of eyes\u201d in the city.<\/p>\n \u201cHaving access to those Flock cameras helps us to tie into networks of thieves, networks of criminality,\u201d Lara said.<\/p>\n (SDPD stopped searching all outside ALPR networks this spring. The department is working toward lifting the pause once it provides the city with more detailed disclosures about how it uses outside networks.)<\/p>\n Lawrence, with the Sheriff\u2019s Office, suggested the average consumer probably isn\u2019t thinking about surveillance issues when they go shopping.<\/p>\n \u201cI don’t think too many people are concerned, if we’re honest,\u201d the commander said. \u201cI think people go about their days just trying to get their own lives handled and they’re not always worried about some of the periphery that goes on.\u201d<\/p>\n When asked to elaborate on \u201cperiphery,\u201d Lawrence said: \u201cEverything else outside of their control.\u201d<\/p>\n Some shoppers supportive, others weary<\/p>\n KPBS spoke to four patrons at the Fashion Valley mall on a recent afternoon to gauge their response to the shopping center sharing its ALPR network with law enforcement.<\/p>\n None of the shoppers knew about the mall\u2019s Flock system, although all were keenly interested in learning more about it.<\/p>\n Gilberto Kornemann, 55, said he supports the mall\u2019s use of ALPRs and law enforcement\u2019s access to it.<\/p>\n \u201cI appreciate what they are doing. Why? Because of safety,\u201d he said. \u201cThis country is founded on rules and regulations.\u201d<\/p>\n The Fashion Valley mall sign with a Flock camera in the background on Oct. 27, 2025. <\/p>\n Others were on the fence. Alexa Sandoval, 29, used to work at the mall and saw shoplifting firsthand. She believes law enforcement\u2019s access to the Flock cameras could help address retail crime.<\/p>\n But now, as a consumer, that notion gives her pause.<\/p>\n \u201cIf we\u2019re not really doing anything wrong here, do they really need to have all of our information?\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Phil Rivas, 46, expressed grave concerns about the ALPR system.<\/p>\n \u201cHere in the United States, we want privacy as much as possible \u2014 and transparency,\u201d he said. \u201cIt seems like companies or corporations are going out of their way to not give us that privacy.\u201d<\/p>\n Rivas said he supports helping law enforcement solve crimes \u2014 but adds private businesses should inform customers about the technology being used and what happens with their data.<\/p>\n KPBS did not observe signs at Fashion Valley describing the mall\u2019s ALPR system or law enforcement\u2019s access to it.<\/p>\n Lara, the SDPD captain, suggested people can shop elsewhere if they\u2019re uncomfortable.<\/p>\n \u201cIf I’m being surveilled, I can vote with my feet or my car,\u201d he said. \u201cI can solicit another mall or I can use Amazon. You have any number of choices if you feel put upon.\u201d<\/p>\n Transparency and disclosures<\/p>\n Lara encouraged residents to do their homework to determine where private license plate readers are located. But finding that information is difficult. And requesting the necessary records from police departments can be challenging \u2014 especially from SDPD.<\/p>\n The department has an online map<\/a> showing where city-owned ALPRs are located, but it doesn\u2019t include the private license plate networks that granted access to SDPD.<\/p>\n To find this information, KPBS requested the \u201cdevice list\u201d stored in the Flock system\u2019s admin profile.<\/p>\n SDPD initially declined to release the document. At first, a records custodian said the document didn\u2019t exist; later, they claimed the document was exempt from disclosure. After weeks of pushback from KPBS, SDPD provided the 82-page device list.<\/p>\n Levinson-Waldman, with the Brennan Center, said this scenario illustrates the concerns around transparency and private ALPR cameras.<\/p>\n \u201cI think that’s really the nub of it \u2014 the difficulty in finding out how they’re being used,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Without that baseline information, she said important next steps \u2014 \u201cactually having some input and being able to build protections around that data\u201d \u2014 are virtually impossible.<\/p>\n A state law<\/a> passed in 2015 requires all ALPR operators in California to post a privacy and usage policy online that details how the license plate data is used and who has access to the system.<\/p>\n KPBS could not locate these policies for many private entities. And those that are available online are light on details.<\/p>\n The policy<\/a> from Lowe\u2019s states the company \u201cmay use\u201d ALPRs, but doesn\u2019t specify which store locations. The company acknowledges that it may share data with law enforcement \u201cupon appropriate request and solely in connection with criminal investigations.\u201d But it does not state that certain law enforcement departments can search its ALPR databases whenever they want. Home Depot\u2019s policy<\/a> is very similar.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n