Uploaded August 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Monterey County residents voiced concerns Tuesday about a proposed 10-year contract for Flock cameras, prompting the Board of Supervisors to delay its decision until next month.
The sheriff’s office is seeking the contract, which would cost $2.7 million and increase the number of cameras in unincorporated areas of the county from 63 to 103.
One resident raised constitutional concerns about the cameras.
“Our constitution requires a warrant for the police or government to search us, and all of these searches of every single innocent person who’s going through the intersection is a violation of the constitution in my opinion,” the resident said.
Another resident questioned the effectiveness of the cameras and raised security concerns.
“I don’t feel like there is any data supporting that it has reduced crime rates. I also feel that Flock has not adequately responded to legitimate concerns about security,” the resident said.
The sheriff’s office said the cameras are vital to investigations, but the proposal has raised questions among supervisors.
“There are some questions about if or how much it would cost the county to terminate the contract at a point in time. Is it appropriate for us to have a contract with a company that holds no liability for the actions of their employees or any data that is shared?” one supervisor said.
Supervisor Root Askew sent the sheriff’s office about 40 questions regarding the proposed contract. The delay will allow the sheriff’s office to review those questions and respond at next month’s meeting.
“The sheriff can decide how she moves forward next. The sheriff can decide to bring back the same contract that was on the agenda for today with answers to questions. The sheriff could also decide to change what she’s proposing,” the supervisor said.
County leaders said this was one of the largest volumes of public comment they have received on an agenda item.
The sheriff’s office has until Sept. 22 to review the questions and respond before the Board of Supervisors considers the proposed contract.
Monterey County residents voiced concerns Tuesday about a proposed 10-year contract for Flock cameras, prompting the Board of Supervisors to delay its decision until next month.
The sheriff’s office is seeking the contract, which would cost $2.7 million and increase the number of cameras in unincorporated areas of the county from 63 to 103.
One resident raised constitutional concerns about the cameras.
“Our constitution requires a warrant for the police or government to search us, and all of these searches of every single innocent person who’s going through the intersection is a violation of the constitution in my opinion,” the resident said.
Another resident questioned the effectiveness of the cameras and raised security concerns.
“I don’t feel like there is any data supporting that it has reduced crime rates. I also feel that Flock has not adequately responded to legitimate concerns about security,” the resident said.
The sheriff’s office said the cameras are vital to investigations, but the proposal has raised questions among supervisors.
“There are some questions about if or how much it would cost the county to terminate the contract at a point in time. Is it appropriate for us to have a contract with a company that holds no liability for the actions of their employees or any data that is shared?” one supervisor said.
Supervisor Root Askew sent the sheriff’s office about 40 questions regarding the proposed contract. The delay will allow the sheriff’s office to review those questions and respond at next month’s meeting.
“The sheriff can decide how she moves forward next. The sheriff can decide to bring back the same contract that was on the agenda for today with answers to questions. The sheriff could also decide to change what she’s proposing,” the supervisor said.
County leaders said this was one of the largest volumes of public comment they have received on an agenda item.
The sheriff’s office has until Sept. 22 to review the questions and respond before the Board of Supervisors considers the proposed contract.
