NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A Skagit County Superior Court judge ruled that images from Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras in Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley qualify as public records under Washington’s Public Records Act.
Judge Elizabeth Yost Neidzwski said the images are “not exempt from disclosure” and explained that an agency does not need to physically hold a record for it to fall under the law.
The request that led to the ruling
The case began when Washington resident Jose Rodriguez asked Stanwood for one hour of Flock camera images. That request prompted Stanwood and neighboring Sedro-Woolley to ask the court to declare that vendor-stored data did not count as public records.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.
Judge Neidzwski rejected that argument. She said the cities’ ALPR images support a government purpose and meet the definition of a public record.
SEATTLE ELECTS DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST KATIE WILSON AS MAYOR
Flock Safety cameras use AI to capture license plate images in real time, tracking vehicles as they move through neighborhoods. (Flock Safety)
However, Rodriguez will not receive the specific images he sought. The city had already allowed the footage to auto-delete after 30 days, and it expired before the ruling.
We reached out to Flock Safety, and a spokesperson provided CyberGuy with the following statement:
“The Court merely declined to exempt these records from disclosure under Washington’s extremely broad public records law. Nothing changed in the status quo in Washington as a result of this ruling — these records were covered by the law before the ruling, and remain so following the ruling. Unfortunately, some individuals in Washington have abused the breadth of the public records law to extort significant settlements from Washington communities for technical violations of the disclosure requirements, which we cannot believe is the intent of the law. We are supporting efforts to enact a legislative fix to this situation, which is costing Washington communities tens of thousands of dollars to stave off frivolous lawsuits.”
The Washington court ruling marks a major step toward transparency in how police collect and store surveillance data. (Flock Safety)
Why the decision matters for transparency
Flock’s automated license plate reader cameras capture multiple still images of passing vehicles along with time, location and license plate information. Cities use the system to assist law enforcement with investigations, relying on stored images to identify vehicles connected to crimes or alerts.
The court’s ruling raises broader questions about how local agencies manage these images once they’re created. By finding that the images qualify as public records, the decision forces cities to examine how long they retain this data, how it is stored and who may request access under state law.
Privacy advocates say the ruling highlights the need for clear policies around retention and transparency, while law enforcement groups argue that access rules must still protect ongoing investigations.
AI DASHCAMS ENHANCE TRUCKER SAFETY WHILE RAISING PRIVACY CONCERNS
The debate continues as communities weigh the balance between public safety, privacy and the right to know what’s being recorded. (Flock Safety)
How this ruling impacts privacy and surveillance
For years, cities and police agencies have argued that data stored by third-party vendors falls outside public records laws. They often make this claim even when the data documents activity on public roads. The Washington ruling did not settle broader questions about surveillance, but it rejected the idea that Flock camera images are exempt simply because a vendor stores them. This decision exposes a growing tension between how agencies use surveillance tools and what the public can access under state law.
Beryl Lipton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to defending digital privacy, free expression and transparency in technology, told Cyberguy, “The use of third-party vendors for surveillance and data storage is widespread and growing across the country, and allowing this to undermine the public’s right to know is very dangerous. The government’s primary obligation should be to its constituents, which includes protecting their rights under public records laws, not to the private vendors that they choose to employ while conducting mass surveillance. Whether an agency stores images and information on their own devices or on the private server of a vendor should not affect the appropriate disclosure of these records under public records laws. If the use of these devices makes it too difficult for a city to comply with the law, then the response should not be to circumvent the laws they find inconvenient, but rather it should be to only use vendors that won’t get in the way of a city’s ability to fulfill its responsibilities to their citizenry. Otherwise, they should not use these tools at all.”
What this means for you
If your town uses Flock or other automated license plate readers, this ruling shows how Washington courts may handle future records requests. It confirms that ALPR images can count as public records, even when a vendor stores the data.
The debate over privacy and safety continues. Supporters say public access builds trust and oversight. Critics worry that releasing vehicle data could expose sensitive details without strong safeguards or redactions.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Take my quiz: How safe is your online security?
Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: Cyberguy.com.
Kurt’s key takeaways
This ruling shows how courts may handle data from automated license plate readers. It also reveals how much vehicle information cities collect. As a result, it raises new questions about who should access these records. In addition, the decision may guide future transparency debates in Washington. However, it will also spark fresh conversations about how surveillance tools fit within state records laws.
Do you think public access to AI camera footage improves accountability or puts privacy at risk? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.
Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
