What Stockton Bought

Stockton records describe an original 15-camera contract, a Prepared 911 integration, a federal grant and 105-camera Falcon expansion, a later amendment whose underlying document remains missing, and a 2026 package for drones, radar, Flock911, a mobile trailer, FreeForm search, and ten integrated video streams.^{[7][8][5][1][2]}

The March 2026 staff report states that the new package adds $3.15 million, extends the agreement through April 14, 2031, and raises the stated maximum to $5,416,700.^[1][2]

City contract-history records described 120 license-plate readers. Flock’s public Stockton portal reported 147 cameras on August 8, 2026. The portal figure is vendor-published data preserved by a third party, not a City-certified inventory.^[5][4]

Records name AB109 funds, a federal COPS Technology and Equipment Program grant, Board of State and Community Corrections funds, the Police Department Field Services budget, later grants, and possible city appropriations.^{[7][8][12][5][1]}

A grant is public money. It may carry legal restrictions, and it may create future subscriptions, staffing duties, training costs, and pressure for replacement funds.

Staff cited proprietary integration, continuity with existing Flock infrastructure, a limited market, and the risk of duplication or incompatibility. That rationale shows how an embedded platform can make later expansion appear easier than choosing a different course.^[5][1]

The drone addendum says Flock owns the hardware and places stated risk of loss on the customer after delivery. It defines a broad category of “Flock Drone IP” that includes operational and derived information.^[2]

This record does not prove that Stockton lost control of protected records. It shows that public operations depend on private technology, permissions, and contract terms.^[2]

The August 8 portal archive listed 320 outbound-sharing recipients, including NCRIC, El Cajon Police Department, Stanford University CA PD, University of San Francisco CA PD, University of the Pacific, and “Decommissioned Org.” ICE, CBP, DHS, and USMS were not listed as direct recipients. A listed recipient is a sharing configuration, not proof of a search or disclosure.^[4]

The same 1,774-row public audit contained 40 rows labeled “USMS case,” and every public user ID was masked. USMS is a separate Department of Justice agency, not ICE. The label does not identify who requested the search, who had credentials, what information was returned, or whether the search was lawful.^[4][16]

A City response to PRA 10325372 says an SPD Flock administrator authorized UOP through the portal and that no written agreement was located. This raises an audit and compliance question. It does not prove UOP searched or received Stockton data or establish a legal violation.^[17][18][19]

NCRIC’s structure and generic data-sharing agreement create a possible indirect pathway worth auditing. The public materials do not prove Stockton executed that agreement, contributed Flock data under it, or that a federal or immigration agency accessed Stockton records.^[20][21]