Every city in WA State that turned off @Flock_Safety cameras because of fear mongering by anti-ICE activists
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A handful of Washington jurisdictions paused, hooded, or disabled Flock Safety automated license-plate readers this autumn amid public alarm about immigration-enforcement access and a recent court ruling that treated Flock images as public records, with Redmond, Olympia and Lynnwood among the cities that took concrete steps to render cameras inactive [1][2][3]. Other local governments and counties — including Skamania County and Skagit-area cities tied to a court case — have also been reported as suspending or reconsidering use after widespread scrutiny triggered by a University of Washington Center for Human Rights report showing federal searches of Flock data [4][5][6].
1. Which Washington cities actually turned off or disabled Flock cameras
Redmond publicly suspended operation of its Flock network and temporarily disabled the cameras after ICE arrests in the city prompted council action and a recommendation to pause the system [1][7]. Olympia moved to render its 15 pilot cameras functionless by installing “protective hoods,” deactivating the system pending removal and consultation with Flock Safety [2][8]. Lynnwood’s police department also shut down its Flock system amid rising privacy concerns and after identifying a vendor-enabled “nationwide search” feature that had been disabled earlier [3]. Reporting further documents that Skamania County turned off cameras following related court rulings and public pressure, and the Skagit County civil case involving Sedro‑Woolley and Stanwood produced a judicial ruling that intensified decisions to pause systems [4][5].
2. Why local leaders cite shutdowns — law, privacy and federal searches, not solely protest rhetoric
City officials and councils cited concrete legal and transparency catalysts: a Skagit County Superior Court ruling that images from Sedro‑Woolley and Stanwood qualify as public records and therefore could be compelled for release under Washington’s Public Records Act; that ruling amplified fears about compelled disclosure and outsider access [5]. Elected leaders also referenced a UWCHR report documenting that Border Patrol and other federal users conducted searches across many Washington Flock networks, a finding officials said justified pre-emptive deactivation to protect residents [6][9].
3. Official denials, technical caveats and the alternate view of law enforcement
Police chiefs in several jurisdictions pushed back on claims that ICE had accessed their specific local systems, stressing contractual controls, auditing and policies that limit external access and saying there was no direct evidence ICE used their cameras in the cited arrests [1][7]. Olympia officials defended their program’s strict privacy settings and audit logs even as they hooded cameras temporarily, pointing to a contract amendment restricting disclosure without written authorization or valid court order [10][8]. Auburn and other agencies emphasized blocking or tightening external access rather than wholesale removal [11].
4. What the reporting does and does not prove about motives described as “fear mongering”
Available sources tie shutdowns to legal rulings, UWCHR data on federal searches, and visible federal arrests near cameras — documented drivers of the policy reversals [5][6][7]. The reporting does not substantiate a blanket claim that the decisions were driven primarily by “fear mongering” by anti‑ICE activists rather than by elected officials responding to legal risk and constituent concern; sources show community pressure played a role but also show officials citing court orders, audit findings and contract questions as proximate reasons for disabling systems [2][1][3]. Where motive beyond documented statements is alleged, the sources do not provide independent proof and do not support definitive attribution of intent to activists alone.
5. Bottom line and implications
At minimum, Redmond, Olympia and Lynnwood — plus reported actions in Skamania County and pause decisions connected to Sedro‑Woolley and Stanwood after the court ruling — are confirmed among Washington jurisdictions that turned off or rendered Flock cameras nonfunctional in late 2025 amid privacy and immigration‑access concerns [1][2][3][4][5]. Officials and advocates disagree sharply about whether the moves were precautionary public‑safety decisions or overreactions to activist pressure; public records rulings and the UWCHR audit provide factual hooks for the policy reversals, while several police chiefs maintain there was no direct evidence their systems had been used by ICE [6][1][7]. Reporting is consistent that legal exposure and documented federal searches — more than a single narrative of “fear mongering” — were central in prompting the shutdowns, though community activism helped drive the political moment [5][6][3].