KING 5 investigator Chris Ingalls reports that Skagit County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Yost Neidzwski has ruled images and data captured by Flock brand automated license plate readers are public records under Washington’s Public Records Act.
The ruling came after an ordinary citizen, Jose Rodriguez, requested copies of the images from dozens of agencies.
According to Ingalls, the cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood tried to block those requests in civil court. They lost – and then shut the cameras off.
Ingalls notes the implications are statewide because dozens of Washington departments use Flock systems. That means the ruling ripples far beyond two small cities.
As Ingalls describes it, these pole-mounted cameras sit on busy corridors and photograph every passing vehicle. Not just suspected criminals – everyone.
How We Got Here: A Tattoo Artist and a Records Request
Ingalls introduces Rodriguez as a tattoo artist who files public records requests in his spare time. He told KING 5 that constant, indiscriminate imaging felt like “violating my privacy, everyone’s privacy.”
When some agencies complied, the records showed exactly how broad the net is. Photos displayed more than license plates; they often revealed occupants’ faces.
Rodriguez’s attorney, Tim Hall, told Ingalls the case exposed a basic oversight problem. “A lot of cities are discovering right now that we don’t know who has access to this,” Hall said.
Ingalls also connects this to a University of Washington report that found federal agents accessed Washington’s Flock network. That access may conflict with a state law forbidding immigration enforcement uses.
This is why records matter. Once data exists, the most important question is who can touch it – and for what.
Cities Push Back – Then Pull the Plug
In court, municipal attorney Emily Guildner argued for Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood that releasing images would endanger privacy and enable stalkers.
She called the system a “valuable and effective law enforcement tool.”
Judge Neidzwski didn’t dispute the tool’s usefulness. She focused on its scope.
As Ingalls recounts, the judge said Flock’s surveillance is so broad and indiscriminate – and mostly not about suspects – that it must be released under the Public Records Act. That’s a narrow, records-law holding, but it’s a big one.
After the ruling, the cities kept their systems turned off while they evaluate next steps. In the short term, transparency won; the cameras went dark.
Transparency vs. Privacy: The Awkward Middle
Attorney and YouTuber Steve Lehto, on his show Lehto’s Law, highlights the core irony. If the government surveils the public using public money, aren’t the results public records?
Lehto says the ruling “changes the game a little bit.” If people can request the photos, one kind of fear – secret surveillance – lessens.
But the pushback is immediate: releasing the images is now labeled a privacy invasion. Lehto calls out that argument shift – if the photos were privacy-invasive, wasn’t the invasion the moment they were taken?
He adds practical notes about records requests. You can’t just demand “everything”; you have to be specific, and you’ll likely have to pay for the work.
Lehto underscores a slippery slope that bothers many viewers. If we normalize photographing every car, how long until it’s every face on every sidewalk?
What Flock Really Sees – and Why That Matters
Ingalls’ review of images shows Flock cameras can capture faces and plates of everyday drivers, not just suspects. That difference matters.
Hall points out the software goes well beyond plate reading. He says it can flag make and model, bumper stickers, dents, and racks – turning cars into fingerprints.
That’s the quiet revolution in automated surveillance. It’s not only what’s collected; it’s how searchable and linkable it becomes.
Ingalls ties the legal fight to a policy gap exposed by the UW report. If federal agents can see the data, even accidentally or informally, then local promises about narrow use ring hollow.
This is where public records laws do their best work. They test the claims agencies make about limited access, retention, and purpose.
Safety Arguments Meet Civil Liberties
Guildner’s courtroom warning about stalkers and bad actors is not imaginary. Open data can be misused.
But that’s precisely the tension courts navigate in open records regimes. You don’t balance transparency by guessing at the worst hypothetical; you craft redactions and rules.
Practically, agencies have options short of flipping the off switch. They could blur faces, redact plates, or batch-delay releases to reduce real-time tracking risks.
They could narrow retention windows and publish access logs that show who queried what, and when. They could bar external networks – no federal hooks, no vendor backdoors.
Turning off the cameras solves an immediate legal headache. It does not resolve the governance problem.
The Bigger Picture: A Statewide Test Case
Ingalls emphasizes this ruling could affect dozens of departments across Washington. Many are now in the same box Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood found themselves in.
Lehto predicts others will try the same legal approach in their states. “It worked there – will it work here?” is the natural next step.
To me, the lesson isn’t that ALPRs must disappear. It’s that secret ALPRs cannot coexist with robust public records laws and still retain broad public trust.
If agencies want these tools back on, they’ll need a new social contract. Here’s what that could look like.
- First, public dashboards. List all camera locations, retention periods, and aggregate query stats.
- Second, hard retention caps. Think days, not months – unless a plate is lawfully tied to an investigation.
- Third, release-by-default with sensible redactions. Faces blurred, plates truncated, fixed delays for bulk requests.
- Fourth, independent audits. Annual outside review of access logs, with findings published.
- Fifth, vendor controls. Contracts must forbid vendor reuse, sharing, or secondary analysis, with steep penalties for violations.
- Sixth, bright-line prohibitions. If state law bars immigration enforcement uses, build technical walls so it’s not even possible.
These are not anti-police measures. They’re pro-legitimacy.
What Happens Next
Ingalls says the cities are evaluating an appeal or other steps. For now, the Flock systems in Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood remain off.
Lehto frames Rodriguez’s persistence as a civics win. A citizen asked a simple question – “If you’re filming me with my money, can I see it?” – and a judge said yes.
If that logic spreads, agencies will face a choice. Design ALPR programs for transparency, or risk shutting them down again.
Here’s my bottom line. When surveillance is broad, continuous, and searchable, sunlight isn’t a nuisance – it’s nonnegotiable.
Washington’s courts just said as much. The technology can stay, but only if the people it watches can watch back.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.
