In the Shadow of ICE, Trust in San Diego Policing Tools Continues to Crumble

In the backdrop of intense federal deportation measures, community trust in local law enforcement faces renewed scrutiny, particularly over the use of surveillance tools like automated license plate readers (ALPRs) to track an individual’s whereabouts.

ALPR technology uses cameras and software to capture images of vehicle license plates. The data can be searched to track vehicle movements or identify stolen or suspect cars. If not used in an investigation, data is deleted after 30 days, according to the San Diego Police Department (SDPD).

Are state law protections enough?

While a decade-old California law, Senate Bill 34, bars local agencies from sharing ALPR data with federal or out-of-state entities, local communities fear the protections may not be enough. 

As of June 2025, San Diego’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office, which handles illegal movement of people, goods and money, has made over 1,339 arrests throughout the county. An Axios analysis from the Deportation Data Project reveals that 72% of arrestees had no criminal record or conviction.

Despite state laws, “the Trump administration is taking a much more authoritarian approach than I have seen in my lifetime,” said District 3 Councilmember Stephen Whitburn, during a June budget hearing where many residents voiced concerns over surveillance technology concerning immigration. 

“It seems within the realm of possibility that this administration would try to force the City of San Diego to share ALPR data and use that data to enforce its immigration policies,” said Councilmember Whitburn, who represents the South Park neighborhood, where a controversial raid took place at an Italian restaurant in May. 

Doubling down on oversight

Heightening concerns, a report from San Diego’s Privacy Advisory Board criticized the department’s lax audit processes, documenting instances where SDPD fell out of compliance with SB 34, including sharing data with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The Privacy Advisory Board, currently made up of seven members, was established in 2021 to advise the Mayor and Council on policies and issues related to privacy and surveillance.

Additionally, a two week time period was identified where local data was accessed through 12,960 separate search queries from outside agencies without authorization. This was due to a setting not being properly implemented by the city’s contracted vendor, Flock Safety.

The board also identified how this detail was mistakenly omitted from the SDPD’s annual impact report, which is supposed to include such instances. 

“This is a law that was implemented as of Jan. 1, 2016, and received guidance from the Attorney General of California in October 2023,” said Branden Sigua, a senior policy advocate at the San Diego and Imperial Counties branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “The SDPD—of all entities—should know exactly how they’re supposed to be utilizing this data,” said Sigua.

SDPD and their vendor, Flock Safety, maintain that this breach was not used for immigration investigations.

“We have zero intention of violating SB 54 or doing the federal government’s job,” said San Diego police Capt. Charles Lara, who oversees compliance. “People who are concerned about us being an arm of ICE—we are not. We’re not doing that work.”

In response to the privacy board’s findings, SDPD released a June memorandum outlining new safeguards and revisions to prevent future unauthorized access. 

“Moving forward, the department’s audit process will include multiple layers of oversight to prevent such omissions,” the memo states.

Companies powering San Diego’s surveillance network 

In 2023, the city approved the installation of 500 surveillance camera units under a five year, $12 million agreement with national tech companies Ubicquia Inc. and Flock Safety.

Both companies are major power players in the surveillance industry. Ubicquia provides streetlight-mounted devices, with dozens of government contracts across U.S. cities and over $61 million in funding. 

Flock Safety, backed by high-profile venture capitalist Peter Thiel, is valued at $7.5 billion and supplies cloud-based ALPR cameras used by thousands of police departments across 49 states. 

The expanding role of both companies in national surveillance has fueled concerns over their handling of sensitive local data.

“We cannot trust that the data being collected by third parties will be treated with the same integrity we expect in the City of San Diego,” said William Stedham, in reference to Ubicquia Inc. and Flock Safety. 

Neighborhoods push back

Stedham is a member of the IBEW 569 Electricians’ Union. During a June 27 Public Safety hearing, he and several other union members from blue-collar trades spoke out against what they see as rising surveillance of their members in certain parts of the city.

“We are seeing the rise of digital surveillance on construction sites to track our members,” said Stedham. 

District 8 has the highest share of ALPR cameras, raising concerns given its large Hispanic population in neighborhoods like Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, Otay Mesa, San Ysidro, and the Tijuana River Valley.

“Latino and immigrant communities are already being targeted based on the color of the skin, language, last names and identity,” said Miguel Avila during the hearing. “Our communities live in constant fear of being monitored.” 

According to SDPD, camera placement locations are “tied to several factors,” including violent crime, gun violence statistics and input from commanding officers. 

District 3 recorded the city’s highest number of violent crimes, with 1,707 reported cases. It has the second highest number of cameras, followed by District 4. 

Beyond data control and placement, critics also point to the system’s high cost and the broader issue of overpolicing. With over $5 million allocated in this year’s city budget for this technology, residents say the surveillance network is draining resources from essential services like parks, libraries, and housing.

“More often than not, [this technology] is used to surveil working-class, immigrant, Black and Brown communities—not because of actual crime patterns, but because those are the neighborhoods already overpoliced,” said CJ Valasek, a policy advocate with the Center on Policy Initiatives.

“That’s money that should be going to libraries, parks, housing, and other services that actually make communities safer,” said Valasek.

An important part of any relationship is trust

Christina griffin-jones

For Black Lives Matter organizer and former city police commission member, Christina Griffin-Jones, the state of surveillance has become personal. After her 2020 arrest at a BLM protest, SDPD withheld her cellphone for weeks, prompting a civil lawsuit.

“An important part of any relationship is trust, and trust is manifested from listening to each other and apologizing—the police department does not do that,” said Griffin-Jones.

Drawing from her activism and lived experience, Griffin-Jones believes the erosion of trust extends beyond policy language. “I’ve seen firsthand how police surveillance, like the license plate readers, doesn’t keep our community safe. It expands state control, especially in Black and Brown communities, with no real accountability.”

But, law enforcement officials push back on that narrative. According to police Capt. Lara, the department has one of the most rigorous oversight systems in the nation.

When the city approved contracts for ALPR and smart streetlight programs, it also adopted the Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology (TRUST) ordinance. The measure outlines several provisions for monitoring how surveillance tools are deployed.

“We are learning our way through this very complicated process that is the TRUST ordinance,” Capt. Lara said. “This is one of the most robust oversight mechanisms in the country.”

In addition, he said the technology plays a critical role in keeping the department efficient, as well as solving cases involving kidnapping and hit-and-run’s. 

“We’re employing the best technology, and we firmly believe this is a sound investment,” Capt. Lara said. “It helps us squeeze every drop of productivity out of the limited number of officers we currently have.”

But for many like Griffin-Jones, in an era where surveillance technology is expanding and federal immigration crackdowns intensify, trust in law enforcement feels increasingly out of reach.

“In a time where law enforcement is being used as the arm to enforce authoritarianism, now is not the time for us to lean in more and trust that they’ll act within our best interests,” said Griffin-Jones.