Skip to content
ORWELL INDEX
Active Updated

Napa Police | License plate readers

Napa's police policy names three vendors whose cameras read plates in the city, including the red light cameras at intersections. It bars sharing the data for federal immigration enforcement and limits sharing to California agencies. The camera count is not in the policy.

At a glance

Vendors named in the policy
Flock Safety (fixed cameras), Axon Fleet 3 (in-car), Elovate (red light cameras) [1]
Retention
Vendors purge at the end of 30 days; data is not stored locally [1]
Federal immigration enforcement
Sharing not permitted, naming ICE and Customs and Border Patrol [1]
Who else can receive the data
California agencies in the Flock network holding a valid agreement with Flock, on request [1]
Suspicion needed to run the system
None. The policy says reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required [1]
Audits
Annually, and as the ALPR Administrator directs [1]
Camera count
not stated in the policy. The EFF Atlas of Surveillance snapshot in this repo counts 15 Flock cameras as of April 2024, which covers one of the three vendors the policy names [1] [3]

How it happened

  1. Context

    Atlas snapshot counts 15 Flock cameras

    The EFF Atlas of Surveillance records the department operating 15 Flock Safety license plate readers as of April 2024, and gives the retention period as 30 days. The Atlas counts Flock devices; the department's policy names two further vendors whose equipment also reads plates. [3]

  2. Context

    Policy 428 carries a March 2026 stamp

    The version of the license plate reader policy posted on the city website carries a Lexipol copyright stamp of March 26, 2026. It names Flock Safety, Axon and Elovate, bars sharing for federal immigration enforcement, and limits sharing to California agencies within the Flock network. [1]

What the record establishes

The Napa Police Department posts its license plate reader rules as Policy 428, a standalone document on the city website carrying a Lexipol copyright stamp of March 26, 2026. The policy names three vendors under the heading “CONTRACTED VENDORS”: Flock Safety for “fixed ALPR cameras located within the City of Napa”, Axon for “Fleet 3 cameras” in marked police vehicles that “also use ALPR technology to detect vehicles listed on a Hot List”, and Elovate, which “provides automated red light enforcement at designated intersections within the City of Napa” using “fixed cameras incorporate ALPR technology”.[1]

The red light cameras at signalised intersections are therefore plate readers as well, on the department’s own description of them.

On retention, the policy says vendors “will purge their data at the end of the 30 days of storage”, and that data accessed from a vendor “should not be locally stored”.[1]

What the policy says about sharing

Policy 428 states that the department “does not permit the sharing of ALPR data gathered by the City or its contractors/subcontractors for purpose of federal immigration enforcement, pursuant to the California Values Act”, and it names “Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CPB)”.[1] Sharing otherwise runs through the Flock system: “California agencies within the Flock Safety network, who have a valid MOU with Flock may make a request to share the data within the Flock system”, reviewed by the department’s plate reader administrator against the California Values Act.[1]

California’s Attorney General issued guidance in 2023 reading state law to bar sharing plate reader data with out-of-state and federal agencies.[2] Napa’s policy limits sharing to California agencies on its face.

The policy also sets limits that many others do not. It prohibits use of the system “solely because of a person’s, or group’s race, gender, religion, political affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or other classification protected by law”, and prohibits use “for the purpose or known effect of infringing upon First Amendment rights”.[1] Hot list entries “should be set to expire in 30 days”.[1]

What it does not establish

The policy states no camera count for any of the three vendors and no locations. The Atlas of Surveillance snapshot in this repo counts 15 Flock cameras as of April 2024, which is a dated figure covering one vendor of the three.[3] We hold no audit results, no list of agencies that have received Napa data, and no council record for the contract.

Where to ask

The annual audits are the lever here. Policy 428 requires them, and the department holds the results. A public records request for the most recent audit, and for the list of agencies granted access through the Flock system, would turn two of the open questions above into answers. Napa City Council meets in public and takes comment on any item.

If you want to reduce your own exposure, the readers record plates and vehicle descriptions in public view. Route choice is the only real control a driver has, and it is a weak one, which is why the decisions above are made in council chambers rather than in traffic.

Questions

Which cameras in Napa read licence plates?
The department's own policy names three vendors. Flock Safety supplies fixed cameras around the city. Axon Fleet 3 cameras sit in marked police vehicles. Elovate runs the automated red light enforcement at designated intersections, and the policy says those fixed cameras incorporate plate reading technology as well. [1]
How long is the data kept?
The policy says the vendors host the data and purge it at the end of 30 days, and that data accessed from a vendor should not be stored locally. Scans tied to a hot list vehicle or a criminal investigation may be kept longer under the city's retention schedule. [1]
Can immigration agents get the data?
The policy says the department does not permit sharing plate data for federal immigration enforcement, and it names Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol. It also limits sharing to California agencies in the Flock network that hold a valid agreement with Flock. We hold no record of what has actually been shared. [1]
Does an officer need a reason before running the system?
Not to use it. The policy says reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required before using a plate reader. Before acting on an alert, an officer must confirm the plate is still wanted and visually match the plate, and the policy says no action restricting anyone's freedom may rest on an unvalidated alert alone. [1]

On the map

The community has mapped 52 devices of this type in the county on OpenStreetMap. These are community reports: the vendor and operator of each point are unverified, and none is confirmed to belong to this system. See them on the map →

Street names from reverse geocoding — © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

What we do not know

What you can do

Show up

Systems like this one are approved by boards, councils and committees that meet in public. We have not yet confirmed where each of them meets in Napa County.

What we have documented in Napa County →

Protect yourself

Practical steps to shrink your personal data trail. Our guides publish at launch; until then, EFF's Surveillance Self-Defense is the best starting point.

Surveillance Self-Defense →

Sources

  1. 1.
    Napa Police Department, Policy 428, Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) · Primary document · accessed · archived copy
  2. 2.
    California Department of Justice, Information Bulletin 2023-DLE-06, guidance on sharing licence plate reader data · Law · accessed · archived copy
  3. 3.
    EFF Atlas of Surveillance, Napa Police Department entries (snapshot captured 2026-08-21, rows dated April 2024) · Dataset · accessed · archived copy

Get the digest

A regular digest of what changed in the world of surveillance: the counties we published, the devices that appeared on the map, and the public meetings where these decisions get made. We send it when there is enough to report.

Subscribe to the newsletter

One click to unsubscribe. What we do with your address is on the newsletter page.