Read the evidence.
Granite Falls records, official correspondence, SCSO answers and contract documents.
Officials repeatedly discussed public-records exposure.
The emails below document concern about whether Granite Falls would receive Flock-related public-records requests. In a September 2026 meeting, City Manager Jeff Balentine told this project that those concerns were raised to protect citizen ALPR data from being obtained through records requests. Washington’s ESSB 6002 has since exempted ALPR data from public inspection and copying under the Public Records Act.
Counsel circulated a legislative template.
City counsel circulated a template asking Washington legislators to create a specific Public Records Act exemption for ALPR data. The subsequent thread discusses legislative advocacy and Flock's position that the agency, not Flock, owns the data.
Cases where officials said Flock assisted.
Chief Tom Dalton identified a fatal hit-and-run investigation, a mental-health response, search-and-rescue and an illegal-dumping investigation as examples in which Flock assisted. Later records also cite the McDaniel’s Hardware burglary and the January 2026 AED-theft investigation.
The City asked Flock for a technical solution.
Deputy City Manager Jeff Balentine asked Flock Legal about a cloud-based portal that could reduce administrative burden and potential penalties when producing Flock records. Flock responded that product development was already addressing some of the issues.
Police leadership made renewal a priority and pushed for broader rules.
Council opposition was documented.
Councilmember Bruce Straughn wrote that he opposed the original Flock contract and remained opposed. He later asked for another Council discussion and a legal interpretation of developing court rulings.
Five active cameras recorded 40,470 reads in five days.
A five-day dashboard sample from Feb. 13–17, 2025 covers five active cameras and shows 40,470 total vehicle reads and 28,515 unique vehicle reads. Separate 2025 correspondence shows city staff arranging to trim a tree that was blocking a 100th Street Flock camera.
Installment 6 completed the City production.
City Clerk Darla Wilkins described Installment 6 as the City’s sixth and final production and stated that the City had provided all responsive records currently in its possession.
The City directed several remaining categories to the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office: Attorney General registration material; audit, search and access logs; records identifying outside agencies that queried, searched or accessed Granite Falls ALPR data; and complaints, inquiries or comments held by SCSO.
Installment 6 adds Council packets, police activity reports and the City’s 2026 ALPR compliance presentations. The underlying SCSO audit/search/access logs remain part of the separate SCSO production.
The SCSO request remains open for those operational records. The next installment is currently estimated for Nov. 23, 2026.
Questions to Chief Tom Dalton and his answers.
1. Granite Falls High School camera
Question: Was the Flock camera near 100th Street NE and Quarry Road reviewed, disabled, re-aimed, or relocated after ESSB 6002 took effect? If so, when? Is that camera currently collecting ALPR data? If it remains active, what determination was made regarding the statute’s prohibition on collecting ALPR data on the premises, immediate surroundings, or access to or from elementary and secondary schools?
Dalton:The camera placed near Penny Ave and 100th ST was never disabled or physically moved from its original installation location. we did, however out of concern of public perception, re-aim the camera slightly more facing north. We knew this realignment would impact the ability to collect some data but felt that the realignment of the camera would show that we acknowledged the publics concern about its placement and we were doing everything we could to comply with the intent of SB6002 (around May 1st). After consulting with both the civil attorney for Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office and with the city attorney, they both felt that the placement of the camera was not in violation of SB6002. The data collected from the Penny AVE and 100th ST camera does not collect known data from the schools or place of worship that are in the area. We did however use this camera for a case on or about January 27th, 2026, after collecting suspect vehicle information from the school district to successfully identify the suspect vehicle in the theft of the AED from the sports fields from Granite Falls HS (LL2026-455). We had to rely on the schools cameras as we had no way of identifying any vehicles coming and going from the high school parking lots.
2. Who can access Granite Falls data
Question: Jeff referenced a “50-mile radius” when I asked who can access Granite Falls Flock data. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean agencies within 50 miles automatically have access to Granite Falls detections, that SCSO users can search participating cameras within 50 miles, or something else? Which agencies and categories of SCSO personnel currently have direct access?
Dalton:The information related to which agencies are accessing our cameras can be found on the Transparency Portal. Commissioned staff and other classifications with a business need such as Public Disclosure.
3. Cross-agency / network searches
Question: Is Flock’s Nationwide Lookup, or any equivalent cross-agency network-search functionality, enabled for Granite Falls? If so, does Granite Falls contribute its detections to that network, merely permit SCSO users to search other participating agencies’ data, or both? What geographic or agency restrictions are currently configured?
Dalton:The information related to which agencies are accessing our cameras, and which cameras SCSO can access can be found on the Transparency Portal.
4. Technical access controls
Question: Jeff indicated that unauthorized access is prohibited by policy. I am specifically trying to understand the technical controls. What system-level controls prevent ICE, another federal agency, or another unauthorized entity from directly or indirectly accessing Granite Falls data? Are sharing permissions based on an allowlist, user roles, agency credentials, geographic restrictions, or another mechanism? Who at SCSO can change those settings?
Dalton:Agencies that are restricted from seeing Flock data in Washington State by statute, ICE etc. are restricted by default. Both Granite Falls PD and SCSO share with other Snohomish County Law Enforcement Agencies using Flock software by general CEO agreement. Granite Falls PD and SCSO grant access to other Washington State L/E agencies by use of reciprocal Data Sharing Agreements. Agencies that do have access to our networks are reflected on the Transparency Portals as well as the networks our deputies have access to.
5. Data ownership and administrative authority
Question: ESSB 6002 states that the agency operating an ALPR system is the legal owner of the data generated by that system. Since Granite Falls pays for and contracts with Flock while SCSO operates the system, does SCSO consider the City, SCSO, or both to be the legal owner of Granite Falls ALPR data? Who at SCSO has administrative authority to disable a Granite Falls camera, revoke a user’s access, or change its sharing permissions?
Dalton:With limited exceptions, SCSO Flock users (this includes deputies working in the Granite Falls PD contract) do not have access in any contract city Flock accounts. SCSO users conduct searches from the SCSO Flock account exclusively. The entity that owns the contract owns the data. The Granite Falls Chief of Police has ultimate responsibility for the administering the Flock account. He delegates authority to the Sheriff’s Communications and Technology Division for daily administration of the software.
6. Audit trails
Question: Jeff indicated that SCSO retains the access logs and provides them to the City. Who within SCSO is responsible for obtaining and retaining Flock’s audit-trail data? Does the audit trail record the individual user, date and time, search terms, stated purpose/offense type, associated call or case number, camera locations accessed, and any export, download, or sharing action? How long are those audit records retained, and when was the Granite Falls system last audited?
Dalton:The Communications and Technology Division administers the Flock Systems.
Search parameters reflected in the audit trail: Flock ID Assigned to this User, Deputy Name, Networks Searched, Number of Devices Searched (cameras), Time Frame of Search, License Plate, Reason, Case #, Filters, Search Time, Search Type. Audit trail retained indefinitely. Organizational Audits are not scheduled for Granite Falls because all SCSO searches are performed in the SCSO account.
7. Retention and false alerts
Question: Does SCSO track the number of false hits, plate misreads, or alerts involving the wrong vehicle from the Granite Falls cameras? If so, how many have occurred since deployment, and what verification is required before an officer acts on an alert?
Dalton:Not tracked
8. Flock system changes
Question: The Granite Falls MSA permits Flock to make software/platform updates, while ESSB 6002 requires the knowledge and explicit consent of the authorized Washington agency for changes that may affect sharing permissions. Who at SCSO is authorized to provide that consent for the Granite Falls system, and how are those approvals and configuration changes documented?
Dalton:The contract is owned by the city of Granite Falls and their reps. make any decisions regarding the Granite Falls contract. Flock has yet to ask for changes that would affect sharing, so we are not yet familiar with that process.
9. Anonymized data and machine learning
Question: The current Flock MSA permits Flock to create anonymized data from customer data and use it for machine-learning training and other product-development purposes. Has SCSO determined whether Flock is currently deriving anonymized data from Granite Falls ALPR captures, and whether that activity remains permitted under Washington’s new ALPR requirements? If that is controlled exclusively by the City’s contract rather than SCSO, please clarify that division of responsibility.
Dalton:I’m not familiar with the contract, do not know if Flock is currently deriving anonymized data, and have not seem anything in the state law that forbids this activity.
Chief Dalton first routed the questions as a public-records request.
On Sept. 11, Chief Dalton wrote that he was considering my nine-question email a public-disclosure request and forwarded it for processing. Snohomish County then opened a records request using the text of my questions.
I objected that the email sought direct answers rather than identifiable public records, citing Washington public-records law and Snohomish County’s published request standards. Dalton later sent direct substantive answers to the questions.
Flock was cited in several investigations.
City and police records cite Flock in a fatal hit-and-run investigation, a mental-health response, search-and-rescue, an illegal-dumping investigation, the McDaniel’s Hardware burglary and the January 2026 AED-theft investigation. A 2025 police report also attributed lower auto theft to a combination of pursuit-law changes, Flock and community outreach.
When asked whether SCSO tracks false hits, plate misreads or alerts involving the wrong vehicle, Dalton answered: “Not tracked.”
Mayor Matt Hartman stated his position on Sept. 17.
Joah:
This email apparently ended up in my spam folder--my apologies for not getting back to you.
I appreciate your passion about the ALPR system that Granite Falls has. I will reference your email--the third to last paragraph: “I do not believe that tradeoff is justified.” In my opinion, I do believe that it is justified. Citizen safety is vitally important to me, and this system helps make the public safer. There is a measure of loss of autonomy involved in utilizing this technology, but if it results in lives saved, cars returned to rightful owners, or abducted children returned to their parents, it is worth it to me. Thank you for your concern.
Matt Hartman
Seven cameras, $26,784.05 billed.
The invoice lists seven Flock Safety Falcon cameras plus implementation charges, with a balance due of $26,784.05.
