Perhaps now more than ever, we are observed. Whether for security, data collection, or a host of other reasons, cameras capture our images in stores, government buildings, and, most frequently, on our nation’s roads. Automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras have become an increasingly popular tool for local law enforcement agencies, providing images from surveillance camera networks that pinpoint a vehicle’s movement. Reports of police departments sharing camera data with federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration enforcement raised concerns about mass surveillance, with some wondering just who has the right to see the images.
That’s what Jose Rodriguez had in mind when he made a public records request to see ALPR results from Flock Safety cameras in the Washington state cities of Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley, suburbs of Seattle, in Spring 2025. Instead of providing Rodriguez with images from the Flock surveillance cameras, the two cities sought a declaratory judgment in Skagit County Superior Court declaring that the collected data are not public records.
On November 6, 2025, Judge Elizabeth Neidzwski’s decision ruled against the judgment, instead finding that Rodriguez’s requisition fell under the Washington State Public Records Act. In rejecting the cities’ arguments, Judge Neidzwski deemed that images gathered by Flock cameras were indeed a matter of public record and not exempt from disclosure. For those who fear that the nation is slipping further into a surveillance state, the decision was a welcome one.
Do They Capture Bumper Stickers as Well?
Depending on who you talk to, ALPR systems are either an incredibly useful tool for local police or an overreaching invasion of privacy. Cameras controlled by artificial intelligence (AI), usually mounted at intersections, capture up to a dozen images of a vehicle’s license plate as it passes through. Proponents argue that these surveillance systems are an invaluable resource for law enforcement, particularly when trying to track a suspected criminal in a motor vehicle.
Flock Safety stands as one of the biggest entities in the ALPR field. More than 5,000 law enforcement agencies use Flock systems, claiming that the system helps promote public safety by aiding in the location of potentially dangerous individuals. However, eyebrows were raised when a University of Washington report revealed that, in addition to several police departments openly sharing Flock data with agents from DHS, Flock audits showed that the U.S. Border Patrol had apparently taken unauthorized “back door” access to data sharing from Flock technology being used by unsuspecting municipalities. If so, this would be a possible violation of Washington state law.
Rodriguez wanted to find out what else the Flock Network was capturing. His request for public disclosure of Flock data was granted by most of the towns and police departments, as required by the Public Records Act under state law. He discovered that Flock’s software recorded the license plates and driver’s faces of all cars that came into range, as opposed to searching for only requested tracking on specific vehicles.
Rodriguez’s request to Stanwood was filed on March 30, 2025. He was given surveillance footage of the town’s municipal buildings, but the town denied his Flock data request, stating that the private company held the images. Rodriguez requested a review of the decision, but instead was served with civil court papers by Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley on June 13.
Say That Again, but More Slowly This Time
As co-plaintiffs, the two cities requested a declaratory judgment that ruled images from the Flock surveillance system were exempt from the provisions of the Washington State Public Records Act. They reiterated the claim that the images generated by the cameras were the property of Flock and that they don’t exist anywhere in the cities as a record. The filing also claimed that granting public access to the Flock data would cause “privacy concerns.”
Given that the contracts with Flock specifically noted that the towns owned the rights to the images captured by the system and not the company, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Judge Neidzwski ruled against their petition. The ruling also waved away the argument that since the images are stored in a data cloud, the cities don’t actually “possess” them. The Flock system was purchased with taxpayer funds, making the resulting data a matter of public record.
Despite his victory, Rodriguez won’t get to see the images from the half-hour period he’d requested, as the data is automatically erased after a month. Given that Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood both decided to turn their Flock surveillance systems off after the ruling, that might not be a problem for him.
Related Resources
- Types of Invasion of Privacy (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law)
- What Is the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy? (FindLaw’s Torts and Personal Injury Law)
- Traffic and Red Light Camera Laws by State (FindLaw’s Traffic Laws)
