Region 10 260727-1800z

Subject	Flock Safety ALPR Deployment, Contract Volatility, and Federal Data-Access Risk — MAGNET Region 10
Purpose	Provide a regionally scoped intelligence assessment of Flock Safety ALPR camera deployment, legislative response, contract cancellations, and federal/immigration data-access risk across Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska, and translate the nationwide MAGNET digital-footprint guidance into region-specific operational context.
DTG	260727-1800Z
Reporting Period	2022 – 27 July 2026 (regional program trend); January – July 2026 (current reporting period)
Geographic Focus	MAGNET Region 10 — Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska
Precedence	RR – ROUTINE
MagCon Status	3 – ELEVATED (NO CHANGE, per nationwide 260720-2000Z baseline)
Sources	Multiple source reporting from Local, State, and National platforms. See source list at the bottom of this report.
Related Reporting	Supersedes/supplements Nationwide 260720-2000Z (MAGNET S2, Flock Safety Nationwide ALPR Expansion and Correlated Digital Footprint Exposure Risk)

Region 10 shows the same two opposing, mutually reinforcing trends identified nationwide — continued ALPR expansion alongside accelerating local backlash — but with materially different legal terrain by state. Washington passed the Driver Privacy Act (SB 6002) in 2026, the region’s first binding statewide ALPR statute, restricting retention, siting, and federal data-sharing while permitting reactivation of paused programs; Oregon has seen the region’s most concentrated wave of municipal contract terminations, centered on Eugene and Springfield; Idaho has no comparable statewide restriction beyond a “law-enforcement-purpose-only” data-use statute now being tested against Flock’s AI-training data license; and Alaska shows minimal public reporting on Flock-specific deployment or legislative activity, representing an intelligence gap rather than an absence of risk.

At least eight Washington law enforcement agencies, including the Yakima Police Department, were identified by the University of Washington Center for Human Rights as having enabled direct 1:1 Flock network data sharing with U.S. Border Patrol during 2025. Yakima’s own city council voted to renew its Flock contract in June 2026 over sustained community opposition, making it a locally elevated exposure point directly relevant to MAGNET operations based in or transiting Central Washington.

This report adopts the nationwide report’s standing MAGNET-wide digital footprint reduction guidance without modification and adds regionally specific situational detail to support route awareness and camera-density expectations across the four Region 10 states.

Flock Safety’s nationwide ALPR network, detailed in the 260720-2000Z Nationwide report, has exceeded 100,000 devices and 20 billion monthly scans as of mid-2026. Region 10 states have adopted the technology unevenly: Washington and Oregon have the region’s densest urban/suburban deployment and the most active state-level regulatory and municipal-cancellation activity; Idaho has broad but less centrally coordinated adoption across southern Idaho cities, with several jurisdictions actively disputing contract terms under existing state law; Alaska’s deployment footprint is not well documented in open-source reporting reviewed for this report, which is itself a notable intelligence gap given the state’s size and dispersed population centers.

A recurring regional pattern, consistent with nationwide findings, is the “front door / back door / side door” data-access problem: formal federal data-sharing agreements, undisclosed 1:1 network sharing enabled by individual agencies, and vendor-side default settings that re-enable broader access than a jurisdiction intended. Washington’s 2025 UWCHR report and subsequent state legislative action were driven directly by this pattern.

The University of Washington Center for Human Rights reported in October 2025 that at least eight Washington law enforcement agencies — the Yakima Police Department, Benton County Sheriff’s Office, and the police departments of Wenatchee, Richland, Sunnyside, Arlington, Auburn, and Lakewood — “appear to have enabled 1:1 sharing of their Flock Network with Border Patrol at some point during 2025,” characterized in the report as effectively opening a “front door” for searches potentially connected to civil immigration enforcement.

In Yakima specifically, a volunteer group (Central Washington Resistance) collected more than 550 petition signatures beginning November 2025 asking the city to pause its 87 fixed and 6 mobile Flock cameras pending a stronger use policy. Yakima Police Chief Shawn Boyle stated the department had no plans to disable the cameras, and in June 2026 the Yakima City Council voted to renew its roughly $250,000 Flock contract despite continued public opposition; the council was subsequently considering an ordinance to place new restrictions on live camera access as of mid-July 2026.

Elsewhere in Washington, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Olympia, Redmond, and Auburn either canceled or paused Flock contracts amid the same set of concerns, while Stanwood — which had deactivated its cameras in May 2025 following a public-records-request dispute — announced plans to reactivate its network in April 2026 after Governor Bob Ferguson signed the Driver Privacy Act (SB 6002).

SB 6002, effective 2026, is the region’s first comprehensive statewide ALPR statute. It restricts data collection near sensitive sites (schools, places of worship, food banks, health-care facilities, and immigration-related services), shortens proposed retention windows (an original 72-hour retention proposal was negotiated against a prior 30-day standard), and requires warrants for most federal data-sharing. More than 80 cities, six counties, and three tribal governments in Washington had contracted with Flock or comparable ALPR vendors as of 2025, per state legislative reporting.

A separate Washington state legal development — a public-records ruling involving the cities of Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley, unrelated to immigration — established that Flock camera images are public record, a precedent regional privacy advocates argue increases downstream misuse risk regardless of a given department’s internal policy.

Oregon has produced the region’s most concentrated cluster of municipal contract terminations. The Eugene Police Department ended its Flock contract effective December 5, 2025, citing “vulnerabilities and limitations” in the system’s ability to meet operational needs, data-security requirements, and community expectations, following an ACLU of Oregon public-records lawsuit and an October 2025 audit that found federal agencies had conducted searches of Eugene’s data in May and June 2025. Notably, at least one Eugene-area camera continued capturing plate data for several hours after the department’s public announcement of contract termination, and online data showed nearly 8,500 vehicle plates captured in the preceding 30-day window even after the stated shutdown — an example of the same “cameras remained active after cities asked them turned off” pattern documented nationally in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Springfield ended its ALPR agreement the same day as Eugene, before its cameras went fully live, though Springfield’s police chief left open the possibility of a future ALPR vendor meeting stricter data-security and transparency standards. The Lane County Sheriff’s Office followed on December 10, citing reduced utility once Eugene and Springfield data-sharing ended. Smaller Lane County communities (Veneta, Junction City) subsequently paused their own ALPR deliberations pending anticipated 2026 state legislation. Bend, Oregon removed four cameras in January 2026 citing security concerns, and Skamania County Sheriff’s Office (Washington side of the Columbia River Gorge, operationally relevant to the same travel corridor) also discontinued use.

Notably, Eugene police had separately reported in a November 2025 internal analysis that stolen-vehicle recoveries were 30% faster while the ALPR system was active compared to 2023-2024 baselines, illustrating the same investigative-value-versus-deterrence-and-trust tension described in the nationwide report’s comparative-evidence section.

Idaho lacks a comprehensive statewide ALPR statute comparable to Washington’s SB 6002, but existing Idaho code restricts ALPR data use to law-enforcement purposes and prohibits non-law-enforcement use. This is the basis of an active dispute in Idaho Falls, where city council public comment in June 2026 alleged that Flock’s standard contract — which grants Flock an “irrevocable, worldwide license” to use a fraction of collected images as AI training data — may violate that state-law restriction. Idaho Falls Police Chief Bryce Johnson defended the department’s 13 cameras (plus nine operated by Bonneville County Sheriff’s Office) while stating the department would consider switching vendors if community concerns persisted. The City of Wilder’s council voted unanimously in July 2026 to amend its Flock contract to explicitly bar the company from using Wilder-collected footage for AI/machine-learning training, and Caldwell’s contract is reportedly facing similar scrutiny.

Twin Falls (40 ALPR cameras, in use since 2023, 30-day retention per its Flock Transparency Portal) is the focal point of a growing statewide removal campaign as of July 2026, with organizers explicitly framing the cameras as “too easily abused” and seeking removal on a state-wide basis rather than city-by-city. Other confirmed or reported Idaho deployments include Pocatello (34 cameras, since 2024), Coeur d’Alene (multi-year use, vendor unconfirmed in public reporting), Meridian (Axon Outpost ALPR units, not confirmed as Flock, installed 2026 per city statement), and Bellevue, Idaho (two cameras funded 2025). At least four ALPR vendors, not solely Flock, are confirmed active across Idaho jurisdictions, complicating region-wide vendor-specific tracking.

Open-source reporting reviewed for this report did not identify confirmed Flock Safety ALPR deployments, city council actions, or state legislative activity specific to Alaska comparable in volume to the other three Region 10 states. Available reporting on Anchorage Police Department technology adoption in the review period addressed AI-assisted report-writing software (Axon Draft One, discontinued after trial) rather than ALPR camera infrastructure. Crowdsourced ALPR-mapping projects maintain an Alaska-specific tracking page, indicating community interest in documenting camera locations, but this report was unable to confirm the scale or vendor composition of any Alaska ALPR network from currently available sourcing. This absence of reporting should be treated as an intelligence gap, not as confirmation that Alaska deployment is minimal or absent.

A bipartisan federal highway-funding amendment supported by the ACLU and introduced by Reps. Scott Perry and Chuy García would restrict federal highway funds to states permitting non-tolling ALPR use; this measure, if enacted, would have direct fiscal implications for all four Region 10 states given their current municipal-level Flock adoption. As of this reporting period the measure’s enactment probability is assessed LOW, consistent with the nationwide report’s federal-legislation assessment.

Washington represents the region’s highest-confidence, near-term federal-data-access exposure, given the confirmed 1:1 Border Patrol data-sharing finding covering eight named agencies, including one directly serving the Yakima Valley corridor. SB 6002’s warrant requirement for federal sharing is a meaningful legal check going forward, but it does not retroactively address exposure that occurred during 2025, and enforcement/compliance verification mechanisms were not identified in available reporting.

Oregon’s pattern of cameras remaining active after public contract-termination announcements (Eugene) mirrors the nationwide report’s Cambridge, Massachusetts example and should be treated as a general operating assumption: a public announcement of ALPR contract cancellation in any Region 10 jurisdiction should not be treated as confirmation that data collection has actually stopped without independent transparency-portal verification.

Idaho’s exposure vector differs qualitatively from Washington/Oregon. Rather than federal immigration data-sharing being the primary public concern, the dominant regional dispute concerns commercial AI-training use of locally captured footage under existing state law — a distinct but related risk to personal image/location data persistence beyond the original law-enforcement purpose. MAGNET members should not assume Idaho’s comparatively lighter regulatory backlash reflects lower underlying data-exposure risk; it reflects a different and still-unresolved legal dispute.

Alaska is assessed as a genuine intelligence gap rather than a low-risk state. The absence of confirmed reporting is more likely to reflect lower Alaska-specific media/advocacy coverage volume than confirmed absence of ALPR infrastructure, particularly given nationwide vendor expansion trends and Flock’s stated “every city” growth target referenced in the nationwide report.

Assessment Category (Region 10)	Probability
Continued Regional ALPR Network Growth, Idaho and rural WA/OR (12 mo.)	HIGH
Additional Confirmed WA Agency-Level Federal/Border Patrol Sharing Disclosures	MODERATE
Idaho AI-Training-Data Contract Dispute Expanding to Additional Cities	MODERATE-HIGH
Yakima Policy Change (Restriction Ordinance Adoption) Within 6 mo.	MODERATE
Confirmed Alaska Flock Deployment Data Becoming Available (12 mo.)	LOW-MODERATE

• All nationwide digital-footprint reduction measures from the 260720-2000Z report remain in effect for Region 10 members without modification. The following are regionally specific supplements:
• Members operating in or transiting the Yakima Valley corridor should treat the area as a confirmed higher-confidence ALPR/federal-data-sharing exposure zone based on the UWCHR-identified 1:1 Border Patrol sharing finding and Yakima’s confirmed 87 fixed-camera network; route awareness and DeFlock/community-mapping consultation is specifically recommended for this corridor.
• Do not treat a jurisdiction’s public announcement of a Flock contract cancellation (e.g., Eugene, Springfield, Stanwood-prior-to-reactivation) as confirmation that camera data collection has actually ceased; verify current status against the relevant agency’s Flock Transparency Portal where available before adjusting personal route-awareness posture.
• In Idaho, be aware that even where ALPR data use is nominally restricted to law-enforcement purposes by state statute, standard Flock contract terms may grant the company rights to use a fraction of captured imagery for AI/machine-learning training; this is an additional data-persistence pathway distinct from law-enforcement search/retention risk.
• Given the Alaska intelligence gap, Alaska-based or Alaska-transiting members should not assume lower ALPR exposure by default; apply the same standing nationwide digital-footprint guidance uniformly rather than de-prioritizing it for Alaska operations.
• Route any newly confirmed Region 10 agency-level federal/ICE/CBP data-sharing disclosure, Alaska-specific deployment confirmation, or material change to Washington’s SB 6002 implementation through S2 intake for regional notification update.

This report supplements, and does not replace, the standing nationwide digital-footprint reduction guidance issued in MAGNET S2 Nationwide 260720-2000Z. Region 10 members should continue to treat digital-footprint reduction as routine personal OPSEC practice, independent of current MagCon status.

PACE tier guidance is unchanged from the nationwide report: smartphone-based Primary/Alternate coordination methods should be treated as inherently more exposed than MAGNET HF/NBEMS, JS8Call, and VarAC BBS channels, with Contingency/Emergency tier radio-based coordination favored where operational sensitivity is a factor — this is particularly relevant for movement through the Yakima Valley and Eugene/Springfield corridors given the confirmed federal-data-sharing findings in those areas.

Members are reminded that digital footprint reduction is a routine risk-mitigation practice, not an indicator of wrongdoing.

• [1][B2]KUOW — Washington adds safeguards for Flock cameras; Driver Privacy Act signed into law — kuow.org/governing/2026-03-31/washington-adds-safeguards-for-flock-cameras
• [2][B2]ACLU of Washington — It’s time to regulate Flock Cameras and ALPRs, with the Driver Privacy Act — aclu-wa.org/news/its-time-to-regulate-flock-cameras-and-alprs-with-the-driver-privacy-act/
• [3][A1]MRSC — What to Know About the New Restrictions on Flock and Similar Camera Systems (SB 6002 analysis) — mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/april-2026/restrictions-flock-cameras
• [4][B2]GovTech — Why Flock Safety Finds Itself in a Surveillance Backlash — govtech.com/spotlight/why-flock-safety-finds-itself-in-a-surveillance-backlash
• [5][B2]State of Surveillance — Flock Safety’s Private Surveillance State: 80 Cities Are Pulling Out (WA/Border Patrol 1:1 sharing detail) — stateofsurveillance.org/articles/surveillance/flock-safety-national-surveillance-database-how-it-works-2026/
• [6][B2]Rural Privacy Coalition — Find Flock ALPR Cameras in Your Area (WA law and federal access detail) — ruralprivacy.org/find-flock-alprs-in-your-area
• [7][B2]KOMO News — Stanwood to reactivate Flock cameras after Driver Privacy Act signed — komonews.com/…/city-of-stanwood-to-reactivate-flock-cameras-after-passage-of-new-law-alpr
• [8][B2]Washington Senate Democrats — Bill introduced to regulate ‘Flock’ automatic license plate reader cameras (Sen. Trudeau, SB 6002 origin) — senatedemocrats.wa.gov/blog/2026/01/06/bill-introduced-to-regulate-flock-automatic-license-plate-reader-cameras/
• [9][B2]Yahoo/Land Line Media — Hearing on ‘Flock cameras’ set for Tuesday in Olympia — yahoo.com/news/articles/hearing-flock-cameras-set-tuesday-235516301.html
• [10][B2]Yakima Herald-Republic — Community members urge Yakima Police Department to turn off Flock cameras — yakimaherald.com/…/community-members-urge-yakima-police-department-to-turn-off-flock-cameras
• [11][B2]NWPB/OPB — Yakima organization urging city leaders to turn off Flock traffic cameras (UWCHR eight-agency finding) — nwpb.org/local/2025-11-21/yakima-organization-urging-city-leaders-to-turn-off-flock-traffic-cameras
• [12][B2]Yakima Herald-Republic — Yakima City Council to consider guardrails for live Flock cameras — yakimaherald.com/…/yakima-city-council-to-consider-guardrails-for-live-flock-cameras
• [13][B3]92.9 The Bull — Yakima Supports Flock Cameras Despite Regional Suspensions — 929thebull.com/ixp/113/p/yakima-talking-about-flock-cameras/
• [14][B3]Newstalk KIT — Yakima Police: No Plans to Turn Off Flock Cameras — newstalkkit.com/yakima-supports-flock-cameras/
• [15][B2]KOIN — Eugene cancels contract with Flock cameras over privacy, data concerns — koin.com/news/oregon/eugene-cancels-contract-with-flock-cameras-over-privacy-data-concerns/
• [16][B2]The Record from Recorded Future News — Flock cameras remained active in two cities where officials had asked for them to be turned off (Eugene detail) — therecord.media/flock-safety-cameras-remained-active-after-cities-asked-turned-off
• [17][B2]KLCC — Eugene and Springfield both announce end of Flock camera usage — klcc.org/breaking/2025-12-05/eugene-and-springfield-both-announce-end-of-flock-camera-usage
• [18][B2]OPB — Eugene and Springfield both announce end of Flock camera usage — opb.org/article/2025/12/06/eugene-springfield-end-flock-cameras/
• [19][B3]KEZI — Eugene Police drops Flock Safety contract, ‘effective immediately.’ — kezi.com/…/eugene-police-drops-flock-safety-contract-effective-immediately
• [20][B2]Lookout Eugene-Springfield — Timeline: The brief, troubled history of Flock cameras in Eugene, Springfield — lookouteugene-springfield.com/…/timeline-the-brief-troubled-history-of-flock-cameras
• [21][B3]Yahoo/local — Junction City slows on Flock after metros end contracts — yahoo.com/news/articles/junction-city-slows-flock-metros-120428325.html
• [22][B2]State of Surveillance — 30+ Cities Have Canceled Flock Safety Contracts. The List Keeps Growing (Bend, OR detail) — stateofsurveillance.org/news/flock-safety-cancel-wave-30-cities-alpr-surveillance-contracts-2026/
• [23][B2]Idaho Freedom — Spy Cameras Are Flocking To Idaho – Your City Could Be Next — idahofreedom.org/spy-cameras-are-flocking-to-idaho-your-city-could-be-next/
• [24][B2]KMVT/KSVT — ‘Too easily abused’: Idaho residents organize to remove Flock cameras from Twin Falls and beyond — kmvt.com/2026/07/14/too-easily-abused-idaho-residents-organize-remove-flock-cameras-twin-falls-beyond/
• [25][B2]Idaho State Journal — Idaho Falls police defend use of Flock Safety cameras as privacy critics demand changes — idahostatejournal.com/…/idaho-falls-police-defend-use-of-flock-safety-cameras
• [26][B2]Idaho Press — City defends use of Flock Safety cameras as privacy critics demand changes — idahopress.com/apgstate/city-defends-use-of-flock-safety-cameras-as-privacy-critics-demand-changes
• [27][C3]WaypointIdaho — What Are Flock Cameras? Boise & Idaho 2026 Complete Guide — waypointidaho.com/blog/what-are-flock-cameras-boise-idaho-guide/
• [28][B3]BoiseDev — You Asked: Is Meridian installing Flock surveillance cameras? — boisedev.com/news/2026/07/07/you-asked-has-meridian-been-installing-flock-surveillance-cameras/
• [29][B3]104.3 WOW Country — The Flock Safety camera debate heats up in Idaho cities — 1043wowcountry.com/flock-cameras-idaho-debate/
• [30][B2]EFF — Anchorage Police Department: AI-Generated Police Reports Don’t Save Time (AK technology-adoption context) — eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/anchorage-police-department-ai-generated-police-reports-dont-save-time
• [31][C3]ALPR Maps — Crowdsourced Map of Flock Safety & ALPR Cameras, Alaska — alprmaps.com/flock-cameras/alaska
• [32][B2]EPIC — EPIC, Coalition Urge Congress to Ban Flock Automatic License Plate Readers (federal highway-funding amendment) — epic.org/epic-coalition-urge-congress-to-ban-flock-automatic-license-plate-readers/
• [33][B2]Stateline — Worried about surveillance, states enact privacy laws and restrict license plate readers — stateline.org/2026/01/08/worried-about-surveillance-states-enact-privacy-laws-and-restrict-license-plate-readers/
• [34][B2]Land Line Media — License plate readers are topic of bills in seven states — landline.media/seven-states-pursue-rules-for-license-plate-readers/
• [35][C2]Flock Safety — License Plate Reader Policy (vendor-published contract/data-use terms) — flocksafety.com/legal/lpr-policy