What SB 34 requires
SB 34 took effect in 2016. It applies to anyone who operates a license plate reader system or uses its data, public or private. That includes police, cities, HOAs, parking companies and stores.
| Rule | What the law says | Section |
|---|---|---|
| Security | Operators must keep reasonable security to protect the data from unauthorized access, use or disclosure. | 1798.90.51(a) |
| Privacy policy | Operators must have a usage and privacy policy, available to the public in writing, and posted clearly on their website if they have one. | 1798.90.51(b) |
| Users of the data | People and agencies that access the data have similar duties. | 1798.90.53 |
| Sharing by public agencies | A public agency may not sell, share or transfer the data, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law. | 1798.90.55(b) |
| Public comment | A public agency must give the public a chance to comment at a regular meeting before starting a program. | 1798.90.55(a) |
| Lawsuits | A person harmed by a violation can sue for actual damages of at least $2,500, punitive damages for willful or reckless violations, attorney fees and other relief. | 1798.90.54 |
Can California police share Flock data with ICE or other states?
Not under California law. The law lets public agencies share only with other “public agencies.” The California Attorney General reads that term to mean California state and local agencies only, not out-of-state or federal agencies (AG Bulletin 2023-DLE-06).
Enforcement is active. Since June 2024 the Attorney General has contacted 18 agencies about possible violations. In October 2025 the Attorney General sued the City of El Cajon for sharing data with agencies in other states. A class action alleges that federal and out-of-state agencies searched San Francisco’s Flock data 1.6 million times in seven months. That claim has not been proven in court.
The 2026 court split: what is “harm”?
Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc. (First District, February 2026). A parking garage scanned plates without the required privacy policy. The court held that collecting and using plate data without the required policy is itself a harm under the law, even without money loss. The court also said not every violation creates harm. The California Supreme Court declined to review the case in May 2026.
Mata v. Digital Recognition Network, Inc. (Fourth District, July 2026). This court held that a plaintiff must show actual harm. A general feeling that privacy was invaded was not enough. The court questioned part of Bartholomew, but noted that the defendant here did have a policy. In September 2026, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation asked the California Supreme Court to review Mata.
What this means: Businesses that scan plates with no posted policy face real risk under Bartholomew. Beyond that, the rule is unsettled until the Supreme Court acts.
Why California has not passed new limits
SB 1013 (2026) would have limited state police use of the data to finding suspects and missing people, required officer training and random audits, and limited sharing with national databases. It passed the Senate. It died in the Assembly on August 31, 2026, without a floor vote. It was the fifth year in a row a bill like this failed.
California cities and counties that ended Flock
- Santa Cruz ended its Flock contract in January 2026.
- Los Altos Hills ended its contract in January 2026.
- Santa Clara County barred its sheriff from operating or using Flock in February 2026.
- Mountain View voted to end its contract in February 2026.
- El Cerrito voted not to renew in May 2026.
How to find out if your city uses license plate readers
- Search your city or police department website for “ALPR” or “license plate reader.” Operators must post their policy if they have a website.
- Check city council and police commission agendas. Public agencies must allow public comment before starting a program.
- File a public records request for the contract and policy. Note: raw plate data itself is generally exempt from disclosure (ACLU Foundation of Southern California v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1032).
What this means if you were hurt in a crash
The same data that raises privacy concerns can identify a driver who fled. The law does not stop police from using it in a crash investigation. But the data is kept for a short time. Flock’s default is now 7 days. If you were hit by a driver who left, read how to get license plate camera footage after a hit-and-run. For the bigger debate, read Flock cameras: do they actually save lives?
Frequently asked questions
Is Flock legal in California?
Yes. License plate readers are legal, but operators must follow SB 34: security, a public privacy policy, and limits on sharing by public agencies.
Can Flock data from California be shared with ICE?
California law allows public agencies to share license plate data only with other public agencies. The Attorney General says that excludes federal and out-of-state agencies.
Can I sue a business for scanning my license plate?
Possibly, if you were harmed by a violation. The law allows at least $2,500 in damages. Courts disagree on what harm you must show. A missing privacy policy was enough in Bartholomew. Actual harm was required in Mata.
Do HOAs need permission to install Flock cameras?
SB 34 does not require a vote for private operators, but HOAs must follow its security and privacy policy rules. HOA governing documents may add their own rules.
General information, not legal advice about your case. This area of law is changing. Every case is different.
Sources
- California Civil Code §§ 1798.90.5–1798.90.55.
- California Attorney General, Information Bulletin 2023-DLE-06 (Oct. 27, 2023).
- California Attorney General, press release on El Cajon lawsuit (Oct. 3, 2025).
- Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 438, opinion.
- Mata v. Digital Recognition Network, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., July 20, 2026, D084781), opinion.
- CalMatters, California kills bill regulating Flock cameras (Sept. 3, 2026).
- KQED, Santa Clara County leaders cut out Flock Safety (Feb. 25, 2026).
- ACLU Foundation of Southern California v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1032.
