Skip to content
ORWELL INDEX
Active Updated

San Bernardino Sheriff | License plate readers

Fifty-five Flock cameras leased for four unincorporated communities in June 2025, on the consent calendar, paid for from a supervisor's discretionary fund and a federal homeland security grant. The manual governing them still carries its 2018 sharing clause.

At a glance

Cameras leased in 2025
55: thirty-five for Arrowhead Farms, Rosena Ranch and Muscoy, twenty for Bloomington [3]
Cost
$575,750 across two order forms, for three years from system acceptance [3]
How it was approved
Consent calendar, 18 June 2025, five ayes and no noes [3]
Where the money came from
$364,750 allocated from the Fifth District Supervisor's discretionary fund in July 2024, and a federal Urban Area Security Initiative grant accepted in August 2025 [4] [5]
Earlier network
Vigilant Solutions, about $856,000 in four board authorisations between May 2016 and April 2017, plus $69,820 for installation [6]
Cameras on power poles
Yes. A 2017 agreement with Bear Valley Electric Service allows plate readers to be affixed to its poles, for five years with a five-year option [6]
Current policy
Department Manual 2.455, in the manual dated June 2026 [1]
Suspicion required to run a search
None. "Reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required before using ALPR" [1] [2]
Retention under the policy
Two years, then purged [1] [2]
Retention under the contract
Thirty days, rolling, unless the order form says otherwise. Which governs these cameras is not established [8] [1]
Sharing with other agencies
"law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies", with no geographic limit and no adoption of the statutory definition that excludes federal and out-of-state agencies [1] [2]
Public access to the data
None. The policy says it "is not open to public view" [1]
What the vendor may do with the data
Anonymise it and use it worldwide in perpetuity, including to train machine learning algorithms. The county keeps title, the data stays in the continental United States, and Flock may not sell it [8]
Total cameras operating
not stated. The 2025 lease covers 55; the 2016 to 2017 Vigilant purchases are not counted in any document we found, and nothing says whether they are still running [6]
Who the county shares plate data with
not published. A data-sharing memorandum with Flock was approved in February 2023 and its attachments were not readable this pass [7]

How it happened

  1. Procurement

    The first two systems

    The Board authorises a purchase order to Vigilant Solutions for $45,611.35, covering two plate reader systems with equipment, licensed software and a one-year warranty. [6]

  2. Procurement

    A five-year agreement for the auto theft task force

    An enterprise service agreement with Vigilant Solutions for $122,442, running to November 2021 with two one-year options, to help the county's Auto Theft Task Force recover stolen vehicles. Presented by an Assistant District Attorney rather than the Sheriff. [6]

  3. Expansion

    Half a million dollars of cameras, and permission to use the power poles

    Purchase orders to Vigilant Solutions in the aggregate amount of $532,568.52, installation of the fixed cameras by Electrical Energy Systems for $69,820, and an agreement with Bear Valley Electric Service allowing plate readers to be affixed to its power poles for five years with a five-year option. A further $155,682 order had been approved six weeks earlier. [6]

  4. Context

    The policy that is still in force

    The Department publishes the plate reader policy it still posts today. Its sharing clause permits release to "law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies" with no geographic limit. The same words appear in the manual dated June 2026. [1] [2]

  5. Decision

    A data-sharing memorandum with a new vendor

    The Board approves a non-financial memorandum of understanding with Flock Group, Inc. for data sharing, on the consent calendar. Its attachments were not readable this pass, so what the county agreed to share, and with whom, is not established. [7]

  6. Procurement

    A supervisor's discretionary fund pays for the installation

    On the consent calendar, the Board allocates $364,750 from the Fifth District's discretionary fund to the Sheriff for plate reader installation and three years of maintenance. The same figure appears in a Flock order form eleven months later. [4]

  7. Decision

    Fifty-five cameras for four communities, five ayes, no discussion recorded

    The Board approves a three-year master service agreement with Flock Group, Inc. and two order forms: 35 systems for Arrowhead Farms, Rosena Ranch and Muscoy at up to $364,750, and 20 for Bloomington at up to $211,000. Consent calendar, moved by Supervisor Hagman, seconded by Supervisor Baca, five ayes. [3]

  8. Procurement

    Federal homeland security money joins the lease

    The Board accepts $375,208 from the City of Riverside Office of Emergency Management under the federal Urban Area Security Initiative, for cadaver lift tables, 82 cadaver storage trays, cybersecurity operations centre video displays, three wheelchair ramp kits, and the lease of plate reader systems. The award is one figure covering all of it; how much is for cameras is not stated. [5]

What was bought, and how

On 18 June 2025 the Board of Supervisors leased fifty-five plate reader cameras for four unincorporated communities. Thirty-five for Arrowhead Farms, Rosena Ranch and Muscoy, at up to $364,750. Twenty for Bloomington, at up to $211,000. Three years from system acceptance.

It was on the consent calendar. Supervisor Hagman moved, Supervisor Baca seconded, and all five supervisors voted aye. The Statement of Proceedings records no discussion.

A consent calendar is how a board disposes of items it does not expect to argue about, and there is nothing improper in using one. It is worth stating plainly all the same, because the question this site keeps asking is whether a decision to watch a neighbourhood was made deliberately, and the record here shows what deliberation looked like: a line item, a mover, a second, and five ayes.

The money has a history too. Eleven months earlier, in July 2024, the Board allocated $364,750 from the Fifth District Supervisor’s discretionary fund to the Sheriff for plate reader installation and three years of maintenance. That is the same figure as the larger of the two order forms. In August 2025 the Board accepted $375,208 from the City of Riverside Office of Emergency Management under the federal Urban Area Security Initiative, a homeland security programme, covering cadaver lift tables, eighty-two cadaver storage trays, cybersecurity video displays, three wheelchair ramp kits, and the lease of plate reader systems. That grant is a single figure and the item does not break it down, so how much of it is cameras is not something this page can say.

There was a network here before this one

Between May 2016 and April 2017 the Board authorised four purchases from Vigilant Solutions totalling $856,303.87. One of them, an enterprise service agreement for $122,442 running to 2021, was presented by an Assistant District Attorney for the county’s Auto Theft Task Force rather than by the Sheriff.

The April 2017 item is the one worth reading twice. It authorised $532,568.52 of cameras, $69,820 to Electrical Energy Systems to install the fixed ones, and an agreement with Bear Valley Electric Service allowing plate readers to be affixed to its power poles for five years with an option for five more.

Nothing found in this sweep says how many of those cameras there were, where they went, or whether they are still running. The 2025 Flock agreement does not say whether it replaces them or adds to them.

The rules have not moved since 2018

The Department publishes a 1,036-page manual dated June 2026, and it can be read end to end. Section 2.455 governs plate readers.

On when a deputy may run a search:

ALPR may be used in conjunction with any routine patrol function or criminal investigation. Reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required before using ALPR.

That is written down plainly, which is better than leaving it to inference, and it is also no standard at all. The checks the policy relies on are elsewhere: a sergeant or above must review a case before a plate goes on the hot list, enforcement action should generally not follow from an alert alone, and the Commander of the Information Services Division is required to arrange random user audits.

On who may receive the data, the manual says this:

Data may be shared only with law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies.

And in the release section:

Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) data gathered and retained by the Department may be used and shared with prosecutors and other law enforcement agencies only as permitted by law. Data gathered by the ALPR shall not be released to a non-law enforcement entity.

Neither sentence has a geographic limit. Neither adopts the definition of “public agency” in Civil Code section 1798.90.5(f), which covers California state and local agencies and excludes federal and out-of-state ones. That definition is what the California Attorney General sent to every law enforcement agency in the state in an information bulletin in October 2023, and other sheriffs documented on this site have written it into their manuals since.

Both sentences are word for word the policy this Department published in 2018. Within section 2.455, exactly one subsection carries a revision stamp, and it is not either of these.

We are not saying this county shares plate data with federal agencies. Nothing read for this page records any such sharing. What the record shows is that the rule which would forbid it is the older, looser one, in a manual otherwise revised through June 2026.

Thirty days or two years

The manual says plate reads are kept for two years and then purged.

The master service agreement the county signed with Flock says something different:

Flock deletes all Footage on a rolling thirty (30) day basis, except as otherwise stated on the Order Form.

Which of those governs the fifty-five cameras depends on the order forms, and the executed copies filed with the board are scans with no text in them. This is a gap in what can be read rather than a contradiction in what the county decided, and it is first on the records request for this county.

What the vendor may keep

One clause of the agreement is worth quoting in full, because it is easy to miss and it is not about the county at all:

Flock shall have the right to collect, analyze, and anonymize Customer Data and Customer Generated Data to the extent such anonymization renders the data non-identifiable to create Anonymized Data to use and perform the Services and related systems and technologies, including the training of machine learning algorithms.

The licence for that anonymised data is “non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free”.

The same section is clear on the other side of it: title to the county’s data stays with the county, all of it remains in the continental United States, and Flock “does not own and shall not sell” either the county’s data or the anonymised version. Both halves are true at once, and a reader deciding what they think about this arrangement should have both.

On the map

The community has mapped 1432 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 San Bernardino County.

What we have documented in San Bernardino 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.
    San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department Manual, section 2.455, "Automated License Plate Recognition", in the manual dated 8 June 2026 · Primary document · · accessed
  2. 2.
    San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, standalone ALPR policy (2018), as published on the Department's policies page · Primary document · accessed
  3. 3.
    San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, Fair Statement of Proceedings, special meeting of 18 June 2025 · Meeting record · · accessed
  4. 4.
    San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, Fair Statement of Proceedings, 9 July 2024 · Meeting record · · accessed
  5. 5.
    San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, Fair Statement of Proceedings, 5 August 2025 · Meeting record · · accessed
  6. 6.
    San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, Legistar matter records HIST-253959, HIST-257863, HIST-260474 and HIST-261580, May 2016 to April 2017 · Meeting record · accessed
  7. 7.
    San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, matter 7563, "Non-Financial Memorandum of Understanding with Flock Group, Inc. for Data Sharing", 21 February 2023 · Meeting record · · accessed
  8. 8.
    Master Service Agreement between the County of San Bernardino and Flock Group, Inc., attachment to board matter 12509 · Primary document · · accessed

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.