ACLU sues San Diego over Flock ALPRs (Sept. 2026)
ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties (PANA) v. City of San Diego (Flock ALPR privacy suit)
San Diego, CA · PANA (ACLU SDIC) v. City of San Diego, filed/announced Sept. 30, 2026
- Status
- Blocked / in litigation
- Applies to
- City of San Diego; San Diego Police Department
- Enforced by
- California courts
The ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties sued the City of San Diego and its police department on behalf of the immigrant-rights group PANA. The suit says the city's Flock license plate cameras violate the privacy right in California's constitution. It asks the court to stop the city's plate-reader use, remove the cameras and delete the data collected. The plaintiffs cite the risk that the data could reach immigration enforcement and expose people seeking reproductive care, LGBTQ+ people and protesters.
Who is protected: People whose vehicles are captured by San Diego ALPRs (if the plaintiffs prevail)
Legal detail
Civil action announced Sept. 30, 2026 (court not reported; likely San Diego Superior Court). Claim: violation of the Cal. Const. art. I, sec. 1 privacy right. Relief sought: injunction ending ALPR use, removal of Flock and other ALPR cameras, deletion of all collected data. Defendants: City of San Diego; SDPD. Related to the city's ALPR deployment approved under its surveillance-technology ordinance (see San Diego Surveillance Tech Ordinance).
Key facts
| Jurisdiction | San Diego, CA |
|---|---|
| Level | City / local |
| Citation | PANA (ACLU SDIC) v. City of San Diego, filed/announced Sept. 30, 2026 |
| Topics | consumer data privacy · police and surveillance AI |
| News report | Local ACLU Foundation sues City of San Diego, police department over use of Flock cameras — KPBS |
More AI rules in San Diego, CA
- San Diego algorithmic rent price-fixing ban (Ord. O-21955, May 2025) · In effect
- San Diego Unified School District · In effect
- San Diego Surveillance Tech Ordinance · In effect
- San Diego GenAI Policy · In effect
Related consumer data privacy rules elsewhere
- Vermont Data Broker Law (H.211) · Enacted (not yet in effect)
- Chatrie v. United States (Fourth Amendment protection for location… · Blocked / in litigation
- House Bill 2512 — Banning surveillance pricing by rideshare companies · Proposed / pending
- Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act) (H.R. 7757) · Proposed / pending
- Maine LD 61 (employer surveillance disclosure & prohibition) · In effect
- Washington SHB 1672 (employee monitoring notice, ADS restrictions, emotion AI ban) · In effect
See something wrong or out of date? Submit a correction. Every entry must carry a verifiable source.