The Woodland City Council approved extending Flock Safety’s contract. Your voice can change their decision.
Below are actions you can take TODAY.
Key Points to Make When Contacting Council
When you reach out to your council members, emphasize these critical concerns:
• Legal Violations California Senate Bill 34 explicitly prohibits sharing ALPR data with federal agencies. Flock Safety has violated this law in multiple California cities including Mountain View, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Richmond.
• Security Vulnerabilities: Investigators found Flock doesn’t require multi-factor authentication and at least 35 customer account passwords were stolen by hackers. Woodland residents’ location data is at risk.
• Lack of Transparency: The contract extension happened without adequate public deliberation. Council members themselves reported not having sufficient information. This deserves a full public hearing.
• Immigrant Community Impact: When federal immigration agencies can access location data in violation of California law, sanctuary city protections become meaningless. Woodland’s Latino families deserve better.
• Other Cities Are Acting: Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Oakland, Woodburn, Olympia, and others have canceled or suspended Flock contracts. Woodland should join them.
Growing list of what was missed from the Feb 3, 2026 meeting
Outreach Questions
Q: Which council members should I contact?
A: ALL of them. Send individual emails to each member for maximum impact.
Q: What if I don’t get a response?
A: Follow up after one week. Attend the next meeting and ask for their position during public comment.
Q: Can I call AND email?
A: Yes! Multiple touchpoints increase your impact. Call, email, then attend meetings.
Q: What if I’m not good at public speaking?
A: Written comments are just as important. Use our email templates or submit written testimony to be included in the meeting record.
Q: Will this actually make a difference?
A: Yes. Council members respond to constituent pressure. Mountain View, Oakland, and other cities changed course because residents spoke up. Woodland can too.
Who to Contact
Mayor
Tom Stallard
📧 tom.stallard@cityofwoodland.gov
Council Member
Rich Lansburgh
📧 rich.lansburgh@cityofwoodland.gov
City Manager
Ken Hiatt
📧 jennifer.robinson@cityofwoodland.gov
Mayor Pro Tempore
Mayra Vega
📧 mayra.vega@cityofwoodland.gov
Council Member
Tania Garcia-Cadena
📧 tania.garciacadena@cityofwoodland.gov
Council Member
David Moreno
📧 david.moreno@cityofwoodland.gov
Phone Call Scripts
Not sure what to say? Here are some examples of how to voice your concern.
"Hi, my name is [Your Name], and I'm a Woodland resident in [neighborhood/district].
I'm calling to urge [Council Member Name] to cancel our city's Flock Safety contract.
On January 30th, Mountain View suspended their entire Flock system after discovering federal agencies illegally accessed their data in violation of California law. Multiple other California cities have found the same violations—San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Richmond.
The contract was extended without adequate public input. Even council members said they didn't have enough information. This deserves a full public hearing.
I'm asking you to support canceling the Flock contract and holding a transparent public hearing on surveillance technology.
Can I count on your support to protect Woodland residents' privacy and follow California law?
Thank you for your time.""Hello, my name is [Your Name], and I'm a small business owner here in Woodland.
I'm calling about the Flock Safety surveillance contract. As a business owner, I'm deeply concerned about the security vulnerabilities that have been documented.
Federal investigators found that Flock doesn't require multi-factor authentication, and at least 35 customer account passwords were stolen by hackers. This data is being sold on the dark web.
That means my employees' movements, my customers' visits to my business—all of that location data—could be in the hands of criminals.
This isn't a question of politics, it's a question of accountability. Flock has documented security failures and a repeated pattern of violating California law. Woodland residents and businesses deserve to know their data is protected and that surveillance of their movements is subject to genuine oversight.
I urge you to cancel this contract and hold a full public hearing before any future surveillance contracts are approved.
Can you please let me know your position on this issue?
Thank you.""Hi, my name is [Your Name], and I'm a parent of [number] children in Woodland schools.
I'm calling about the Flock Safety cameras tracking our movements around town. Every trip I make with my kids—to school, to the doctor, to church—is being documented and stored.
Recently, we learned that multiple California cities discovered Flock was sharing this data with federal agencies in violation of state law. In one case in Texas, deputies used Flock to track a woman across 83,000 cameras nationwide after she had an abortion.
Our family's privacy and safety should not depend on a company with a documented pattern of breaking California law.
I'm asking [Council Member Name] to support canceling the Flock contract and holding a public hearing where parents and families can weigh in on surveillance technology.
Our children deserve to grow up in a community that protects their privacy.
Will you support contract cancellation?
Thank you.""Hello, my name is [Your Name], and I'm a member of Woodland's Latino community.
I'm calling because I'm very concerned about ICE access to Flock Safety camera data.
California law—Senate Bill 34—specifically prohibits sharing license plate data with federal immigration agencies. But investigation after investigation has shown that Flock violated this law in cities across California.
In Santa Cruz, they found nearly 4,000 searches with ICE-related terms. In San Francisco, at least 19 ICE searches. Mountain View just suspended their entire system because they couldn't trust Flock to follow the law.
When federal immigration agencies can track where we live, where we work, where we worship, where we send our kids to school—sanctuary city protections mean nothing.
Woodland's immigrant families deserve the protections California law promises. We need you to cancel this contract and choose a vendor that respects our rights.
Will you commit to canceling the Flock contract?
Gracias.""Hi, my name is [Your Name], a Woodland resident and [software developer/IT professional/tech worker].
I'm calling about the Flock Safety contract, and I need to share some concerning technical details.
First, Flock's data can be integrated into Palantir's Gotham platform—the same system ICE uses for immigration enforcement, with over $200 million in contracts. When Flock data flows to agencies that use both systems, it becomes part of a massive surveillance web.
Second, Senator Ron Wyden's investigation documented that Flock doesn't require multi-factor authentication and stolen credentials are being sold online. From a cybersecurity perspective, this is inexcusable.
Third, Flock built a nationwide network designed for maximum data sharing—then 'accidentally' enabled settings that violated California law in multiple cities. That's not a bug, it's the architecture.
As someone who works in tech, I can tell you: when a vendor repeatedly fails basic security and repeatedly violates the law, you don't give them more chances. You fire them.
I urge you to cancel the contract immediately.
What's your position on this?
Thank you."Email Scripts
Here are some examples of how to email your concerns.
Subject: Woodland Resident Requests Flock Safety Contract Cancellation
Dear [Council Member Name],
I am writing as a Woodland resident to request immediate cancellation of our city's contract with Flock Safety.
Recent investigations across California have revealed a disturbing pattern:
- Mountain View (January 30, 2026): Police chief suspended entire Flock system after discovering federal agencies illegally accessed data, stating "I no longer have confidence in the Flock system"
- San Francisco (September 2025): At least 19 searches related to ICE documented, plus access by Georgia and Texas agencies
- Santa Cruz (December 2025): Analysis found nearly 4,000 searches with immigration-related terms performed on behalf of federal agencies
- Richmond (January 2026): Police department shut down system after discovering unauthorized "national search" features were active
All of these violate California Senate Bill 34, which explicitly prohibits sharing ALPR data with out-of-state or federal agencies.
Additionally, Senator Ron Wyden's federal investigation found:
- Flock does not require multi-factor authentication
- At least 35 customer account passwords stolen by hackers
- Credentials being sold on dark web
- Data exposed to "hackers, foreign spies, and criminals"
Woodland's contract extension happened without adequate public deliberation. Council members reportedly did not have sufficient information to make an informed decision. This contract deserves proper public review.
I respectfully request the City Council:
1. Cancel the Flock Safety contract immediately
2. Conduct an independent audit of data-sharing settings and access logs
3. Hold a full public hearing on surveillance technology and policies, including who can access resident data, under what legal authority, and with what community oversight — before any future contracts are approved.
California law is clear. Woodland should follow it. Our residents—especially our immigrant community—deserve surveillance systems that respect their rights and privacy.
I look forward to your response on how you plan to address this issue.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Street Address, Woodland, CA 95695]
[Your Phone Number]
[Your Email]Subject: Request to Cancel Flock Contract - SB 34 Violations
Dear [Council Member Name],
I'm a Woodland resident requesting you support canceling our Flock Safety contract.
Key facts:
✗ Mountain View suspended their Flock system (Jan 30) after illegal federal access
✗ Multiple CA cities documented SB 34 violations (SF, Santa Cruz, Richmond)
✗ Federal investigation found weak security, stolen passwords sold online
✗ Woodland's contract extended without adequate public/council review
Other cities are canceling. Woodland should too.
Please respond with your position on contract cancellation.
Thank you,
[Your Name]
[Woodland, CA 95695]
[Phone/Email]Subject: Business Owner Concerns About Flock Safety Contract
Dear [Council Member Name],
I'm writing as a Woodland business owner regarding the Flock Safety surveillance contract.
From a business perspective, this vendor presents unacceptable risks:
1. LEGAL LIABILITY: Flock's documented pattern of violating California SB 34 exposes Woodland to lawsuits. EFF and ACLU are already suing San Jose over Flock's warrantless searches.
2. SECURITY FAILURES: Federal investigators found Flock doesn't require multi-factor authentication. Stolen credentials are being sold to criminals. Our customers' and employees' location data is vulnerable.
3. VENDOR RELIABILITY: Mountain View's police chief just stated he has "no confidence in the Flock system." If they can't deliver on contract promises, why are we paying them?
4. REPUTATION RISK: Multiple cities are canceling Flock contracts due to public backlash. Woodland's business climate suffers when residents don't trust their local government.
As a business owner, if a vendor repeatedly failed security audits and violated our contract terms, I'd terminate immediately. The city should do the same.
I urge you to:
- Cancel the Flock contract
- Conduct proper RFP process that includes community input that covers who can access resident data, under what legal authority, and with what community oversight
- Hold public hearing before deploying any surveillance technology
Our business community deserves fiscally responsible government that doesn't violate the law.
Please let me know your position on this issue.
Respectfully,
[Your Name]
[Business Name]
[Woodland, CA 95695]
[Contact Info]Subject: Parent Requests Reconsideration of Flock Surveillance Contract
Dear [Council Member Name],
I'm a Woodland parent writing about the Flock Safety cameras tracking our families' movements.
My concerns:
PRIVACY: Every trip with my kids—school drop-off, doctor appointments, church, soccer practice—is documented and stored. This data could be accessed by hackers (passwords were stolen) or federal agencies (documented violations in multiple CA cities).
SAFETY: The Texas case where deputies used Flock to track a woman across 83,000 cameras shows how this system can be weaponized. What happens when a domestic abuser uses Flock data to stalk their victim? Washington state is already grappling with this issue.
TRUST: The contract was extended without parents having any say. We weren't consulted. We weren't informed. Our children's daily routines are being monitored without our consent.
Our community deserves surveillance systems, if any are used, that follow California law, protect our data, and have genuine community consent. Flock fails on all three.
✓ Follow California law (Flock doesn't)
✓ Protect our data (Flock doesn't)
✓ Have community consent (Flock doesn't)
Please support canceling this contract and holding a public hearing where families can weigh in on surveillance policies.
Our children deserve to grow up in a community that respects their privacy.
Thank you,
[Your Name]
[Parent of [#] children in Woodland schools]
[Woodland, CA 95695]
[Contact Info]What City Council Missed on Feb 3
NEW: March 2026 Community Audit of Woodland Flock Data <– Covers Feb 17 Audit and more
Feb 17, Community Audit of Woodland Flock Data
Review of key misunderstandings (adding more as time goes on) from Feb 3, 2026 Woodland City Council discussing with Chief Kinna and Lieutenant Parsons regarding Flock Safety extension.
Council Member David Moreno asked Chief Kinnan about data safeguards.
“So who’s granted access to this license plate reader information, and how can we guarantee that the safety of our information is being looked at?”
Chief Kinna and Lieutenant Parsons address the question citing state laws prohibiting sharing of data and how Woodland PD oversees and controls access.
Lieutenant Parsons: “We control who we share with unless someone’s doing something criminal and they’re bypassing our system or bypassing, you know, information technology protections. No one can access our system without our authority.”
Why This is Misleading/Incorrect:
The problem is NOT whether Woodland INTENDS to share, it’s that Flock’s system design ENABLES federal access without the city knowing.
What wasn’t mentioned: Mountain View (January 30, 2026) – Just 4 DAYS before this meeting:
- Federal agencies included: ATF (Kentucky), ATF (Tennessee), Langley AFB (Virginia), GSA OIG
- Mountain View believed they had the same protections
- Mountain View Police Chief notes that MVPD worked closely with Flock Safety during the outset of the program to design a model that strictly prohibited out-of-state data sharing.
- Yet federal agencies accessed their data for 3+ months without the city’s knowledge
- Woodland PD has, thus far, shared its data with 315 other California Agencies. We don’t know the number of individuals or amount of searches within those agencies.
Mayor Stallard has a fundamental misunderstanding
“The system does not focus on faces or people. It focuses on cars, license plates. And I sort of feel like it’s a privilege to drive the streets. I feel you have to give up a little of your privacy, perhaps. And our license plates are read when you cross the bridge, right? When you go in a high-occupancy vehicle lane because that’s how you pay for the services. So I feel like while all of us can mourn the loss of, let’s just say, our privacy or some of our privacy, uh, this is not the beginning of it.”
Bridge Tolls = Flock Surveillance are NOT the same thing.
| Bridge/Toll Collection | Flock ALPR Surveillance |
|---|---|
| You know when it happens (crossing a specific toll point) | You don’t know when/where you’re being tracked |
| You choose to use that route (can take alternate route) | Cannot avoid (cameras cover entire city) |
| Data used to bill YOU for a service you’re receiving | Data shared with thousands of agencies in the state and potentially nationwide |
| Limited retention (billing purposes only) | Searchable database across agencies, possibly indefinitely |
| Single purpose (toll collection) | Any law enforcement purpose (including immigration enforcement in violation of CA law) |
| You receive the service (road maintenance funded by toll) | You receive surveillance with no direct benefit |
| Transparent (you see the toll booth/sign) | Covert (many don’t know cameras exist) |
The Key Difference:
Toll collection = Transactional (you pay → you use the bridge)
Flock surveillance = Mass dragnet (everyone tracked whether suspected of anything or not)
Privilege to Drive = “No Privacy Rights”
The California Legislature Disagreed With You, Mayor
Yes, driving is a privilege. But California still passed SB 34 to protect privacy even while exercising that privilege.
The law recognizes:
- ✅ You can be observed in public
- ❌ But mass surveillance tracking everyone’s movements is different
- ✅ One license plate scan at one location = acceptable
- ❌ But comprehensive tracking across time and space = invasion of privacy
What the Mayor THINKS People Are Concerned About is not wanting their license plate photographed while driving
What People Are ACTUALLY Concerned About:
- Mountain View: Federal agencies accessed data 3+ months
- San Francisco: 19 ICE-related searches
- Santa Cruz: 4,000 immigration searches
- Richmond: Federal access despite “fixes”
Mayra Vega notes The Technology Saves Lives
“To the cost-benefit analysis, I mean, if the mom of one of those lives that was saved, I think they would say that it was worth it.“
The question isn’t whether the council cares about public safety, it’s whether Woodland residents have a right to know who is accessing data about their movements, under what authority, accountability and transparency with usage, and whether California law is being followed. Mountain View’s Police Chief suspended Flock specifically because he could no longer answer those questions with confidence.
Rich Lansburgh and Look at ICE, Not Our Police
“When criminals run the streets, including ICE officers, when criminals run the streets, we are not safe.”
“You should be looking at ICE and what they do and not what our police department does, because they are here to help us, not to hurt us.”
This is actually the STRONGEST argument AGAINST Flock.
Rich acknowledges ICE is problematic, but doesn’t connect that FLOCK IS THE TOOL THAT ENABLES ICE ACCESS.
Rich’s Logic:
- ICE is the problem ✓ (He’s correct)
- Our police department is not the problem ✓ (He’s correct)
- Therefore, don’t blame our police for using Flock ✗ (He’s wrong)
The Actual Logic:
- ICE is the problem ✓
- Flock enables ICE to access local data illegally ✓
- Our police department doesn’t know when ICE accesses data ✓ (Mountain View proved this)
- Therefore, choosing Flock enables the very ICE access Rich is concerned about ✓
Tania Garcia-Cadena and Stolen and Saving Lives
“I think people kind of have it in their mind that it’s identifies individuals, perhaps, versus stolen vehicles or saving someone’s— the potential to save someone’s life.”
It’s not “privacy concerns VERSUS saving lives.” The question is whether Woodland residents have any accountability over how their movements are tracked, whether California law is being followed, and whether the council had complete information when they approved this contract. Those aren’t competing values, they’re the same value: community safety with transparency.
Chief Kinna Didn’t Mention Everything
“The Gateway, actually one of the things that Flock allows us to do is actually tied into, through private and public partnerships, is to tie into different people’s cameras with their agreement, obviously. And what happens is, so think like HOAs, or businesses, they can take their cameras and plug it into the gateway, and it now increases the access to cameras that we have.“
A centralized surveillance hub that has the potential to integrate with:
- Church cameras
- 36 Flock license plate cameras (public streets)
- 5 “Partnership Video Cameras” (unknown type)
- UNLIMITED private cameras from homes, businesses, HOAs via the gateway
- Ring doorbell cameras (anybody in Woodland who owns a camera)
This creates a city-wide surveillance network far beyond public thoroughfares. And these are often paired WITH AI FACIAL RECOGNITION.
Questions the council didn’t ask about Gateway and people need to know:
- What types of cameras can be integrated?
- Ring doorbells and private cameras? ✓
- Business security cameras? ✓
- HOA cameras? ✓
- School cameras? ✓
- Body cameras? ✓
- Dash cams? ✓
- How many cameras are currently integrated?
- Zero?
- Or already active?
- Is there a written policy on what cameras can be integrated?
- What is the consent process?
- Who must consent?
- Is consent revocable?
- Are affected parties notified?
More meeting notes to come…
Woodland City Council Approves – Link to Video