The Stockton City Council voted 7-0 Tuesday to approve a $3.15 million expansion of its contract with Flock Safety, adding a police drone response system, despite more than an hour of public opposition centered on privacy, immigration enforcement and government surveillance.
The vote authorizes an amendment to the city’s agreement with Flock Group Inc., allowing the addition of a “Drone as First Responder” platform and extending the contract through April 14, 2031. The amendment increases the contract by $3.15 million, bringing its total potential value to more than $5.4 million over five years.
Police officials said the drones would be stationed at multiple locations across the city and could cover more than 75% of Stockton, with response times ranging from about 30 seconds to four minutes.
“With this program, these drones are stationed throughout the city,” Police Lt. David Padula said. “We’re looking at realistic response times from 30 seconds up to about four minutes.”
The program builds on Stockton’s existing network of approximately 120 Flock license plate reader cameras. Under the new system, drones would be deployed after a 911 call is received, transmitting live video from the scene to officers before they arrive.
Officials said the technology is intended to improve situational awareness and allow some lower-level calls to be handled remotely.
“It’ll really enhance what we already have, in that we get quick deployments, real time updates for officers on scene,” Padula said.
Residents oppose expansion, cite surveillance and priorities
Public comment was overwhelmingly opposed, with residents raising concerns about civil liberties, immigration enforcement and how the city is allocating resources.
Alyssa Leiva, a community organizer, criticized the city’s continued investment in policing technology.
“Now we’re going to feed more money to Big Brother,” Leiva said. “Every meeting down here, you guys overplay our police budget even more and more, (which) our poverty rates are skyrocketing.”
Jarred Wright, a Stockton resident, also opposed the contract, raising concerns about immigration enforcement and the city’s relationship with private contractors.
“I do not see the appeal of outsourcing police jobs in the service of a contractor who we know collaborates with ICE,” Wright said. “Are you going to collaborate, or are you going to stand against ICE?”
Wright questioned whether the investment aligns with Stockton’s stated support for immigrant communities.
“We have a thriving immigrant community,” he said. “Are we going to put money first? Are we going to put immigrants first?”
Stockton has adopted policies positioning itself as a “compassionate city,” intended to support immigrant communities and limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Several residents questioned whether expanding surveillance technology is consistent with those commitments.
Questions raised about data, oversight and legal risks
Speakers and some councilmembers also raised concerns about how the system would be regulated and whether sufficient data exists to evaluate its effectiveness, particularly as the city expands its use of Flock technology.
Public commenters referenced California Senate Bill 34, which governs how license plate reader data is shared, arguing that existing law may not fully account for newer surveillance technologies such as drone systems.
The approval also comes as Flock Safety faces legal scrutiny elsewhere in California. A recent class-action lawsuit alleges the company’s license plate reader technology violates state privacy laws by collecting and storing detailed information about vehicles — including time and location data — that can be used to track movement patterns over time.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of California drivers, alleges that data collected through Flock systems has been accessed by out-of-state and federal agencies through databases tied to cities within the state, including San Francisco and San Jose.
In separate legal challenges, residents in San Francisco and San Jose have sued over the use of Flock cameras, arguing the systems enable widespread tracking without sufficient safeguards and may violate state and constitutional privacy protections.
The lawsuits argue such practices conflict with California law, which limits how license plate reader data can be shared and is intended to protect residents’ personal information.
Stockton police officials said they do not share data collected through the system with federal immigration authorities.
“We have not shared any information related to immigration with our federal partners,” Deputy Chief Kyle Pierce said.
Lily Ho, a spokesperson for Flock Safety, said agencies retain control over their data and emphasized that safeguards are in place to limit sharing.
“You own your data, and you choose who you share with,” Ho said.
Council moves forward unanimously
Council members acknowledged public concerns but emphasized the potential benefits of the program, including faster response times and improved officer safety.
Officials said the first year of the program is expected to be funded through a grant, though they did not specify the source of that funding during the meeting.
With the unanimous vote, Stockton joins a growing number of cities — including Chula Vista, California, widely considered a pioneer of drone-first response programs, along with Fremont and Louisville — adopting drone-based first responder systems as debates over surveillance, transparency and public safety continue.