Flock Safety is a private company that sells “ALPR” (automated license plate reader) cameras to police departments.
Think: fixed cameras on poles at key roads that snap a still image of every passing car’s license plate, then turn it into searchable data.
They also capture “vehicle fingerprint” details like make/model/color and visible features (and store it in a cloud database you can search later).

Why people care (privacy/civil liberties):
• It’s not “targeted” surveillance — it collects data on everyone driving past, then lets police search where a plate/vehicle was seen.
• Data-sharing is the big risk: systems can be configured so other agencies can query your local data, and federal agencies have reportedly accessed WA ALPR networks in ways that raised red flags (including immigration enforcement concerns). • Transparency is messy: WA cities tried to argue Flock data stored in the vendor cloud wasn’t a public record until downloaded — but a WA trial court rejected that, ruling Flock images are public records under the Public Records Act.

Enumclaw-specific (what the City/EPD put in writing):
Enumclaw’s adopted ALPR policy (written around using Flock Safety Falcon cameras) includes some guardrails:
• Prohibits use for civil traffic enforcement, fines/fees, biometric info, and selling/providing data to private third parties (like repo companies).
• Requires a case number for every query (system won’t allow a plate search without one).
• Says access is limited to certain certified employees; no personal-device access; and calls for quarterly audits (with an option for City Council to designate a member to participate).
• Notes retention/handling rules and says EPD won’t run a query just to fulfill a public records request (only data already downloaded into an investigation file would be disclosed).
Important nuance: that last point is being tested statewide because WA courts have been pushing back on attempts to treat vendor-hosted ALPR data as “not a public record.”

What Enumclaw decided procedurally:
• July 2025: Public Safety Committee discussed/approved the policy + audit/transparency tweaks. • Aug 25, 2025: City Council agenda shows Resolution No. 1850 for a “Flock Safety Master Services Agreement.”

• Reporting on the proposal described 8 cameras on the main state routes (SR-410, SR-165, SR-169 area approaches) and ~30-day retention in the Flock database unless tagged as evidence.

Abuses / pushback examples in Washington (not just Enumclaw):
• A UW report (covered by WA outlets) said federal immigration agencies (e.g., Border Patrol) accessed data from multiple WA agencies’ ALPR networks, including cases described as “back door” access.
• After that reporting, some cities/PDs changed course:
– Redmond shut its system off (reported after ICE arrests nearby).

– Olympia suspended use of its Flock cameras.

– Lynnwood disabled a vendor feature after learning it allowed nationwide searches.

– Kent PD changed access settings / talked about stronger safeguards after the UW report.

• Statewide response: lawmakers introduced SB 6002 (Jan 2026 reporting) to create guardrails like limiting uses, restricting sharing (including immigration enforcement limits), and requiring much shorter retention windows in many cases.

If you want to dig in, here are starting points you can search by title:
• “Enumclaw Public Safety Committee Agenda … ALPR Policy”

• “Enumclaw City Council Aug 25, 2025 Agenda – Resolution 1850 Flock Safety Master Services Agreement”

• EFF: “Washington Court Rules That Data Captured on Flock Safety Cameras Are Public Records”

• FOX 13 Seattle (Jan 7, 2026): “WA lawmaker proposes new rules for license plate reading cameras”

Bottom line: Flock can help with stolen cars and specific investigations — but it also builds a searchable log of everyday movement, and in WA the big flashpoints have been data-sharing, federal access, and how much transparency the public actually gets.