7 (059)
Susana Barrios
From:Karen G. Hernández <karen@ocrapidresponse.org>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21, 2026 3:33 PM
To:Public Comment
Cc:tanya@chispaoc.org; boomer@chispaoc.org; Kelsey Gordon; Sandra De Anda;
carolinamendezoc@gmail.com
Subject:\[ Public Comment - Agenda Item #7
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
You don't often get email from karen@ocrapidresponse.org. Learn why this is important
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
My name is Karen Hernández, Managing Director of OC Rapid Response Network, and an Anaheim
resident in District 4. I am writing to express my STRONG opposition to Agenda Item 7 on the
consent calendar, which would authorize over $736,000 to expand Automated License Plate Reader
(ALPR) surveillance in Anaheim and across the region.
This proposal would significantly expand Anaheim’s ALPR program by adding 72 new cameras,
deepening the City’s integration into a dangerous and controversial regional data-sharing network
across Orange County. This is not a small upgrade; it is a major expansion of surveillance
infrastructure.
ALPR systems collect data on every vehicle that passes by, not just those connected to crimes.
Research shows that over 99% of this data is unrelated to any criminal investigation, meaning the
system primarily tracks ordinary residents without suspicion or consent.
This expansion raises serious concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and the safety of immigrant
communities. ALPR systems are designed to share data across jurisdictions, and that data does not
stay local. Across California, law enforcement agencies have already shared ALPR data with federal
immigration authorities, including ICE, in violation of state law, including documented cases here in
Southern California.
That means this is not just about local policing—it is about building infrastructure that can and has
been illegally used for immigration enforcement.
Even if that is not the City’s intent, these systems rely on third-party vendors and regional platforms
that enable broad access. Once this data is collected, the City cannot fully control how it is used or
who ultimately accesses it. Expanding this system increases the risk of misuse and undermines
public trust—especially at a time when Anaheim has taken important steps to support immigrant
communities through efforts like the Contigo Fund.
1
For many residents, this is not theoretical. Surveillance changes behavior. People avoid work, school,
healthcare, and places of worship when they believe their movements are being tracked. That makes
this not just a privacy issue, but a public safety issue. Time and again, in the community
work OCRRN engages in, we see the real impact of harmful policies like surveillance layered on top
of the daily attacks immigrant communities already face. Families are navigating fear not just from
federal enforcement, but from systems that quietly track their movements and create uncertainty
about who may have access to their information. These technologies don’t exist in a vacuum—they
deepen mistrust, discourage people from accessing essential services, and make it harder for
communities to feel safe in their own neighborhoods.
This expansion will not meaningfully improve safety—it will only expand monitoring, and those are not
the same.
While the proposal relies in part on grants and donations, it still commits the City to long-term costs
and deeper dependence on surveillance technology.
Anaheim MUST reject this expansion and instead invest in community-based safety strategies that
build trust and protect the rights and dignity of all residents, especially those most vulnerable to
illegal ICE enforcement actions.
At a minimum, the City should require:
Explicit prohibitions on sharing ALPR data with federal immigration enforcement
Strict limits on data retention and access
Independent audits and public reporting
Meaningful community input before expanding surveillance systems
Until these protections are in place, approving this item is premature.
For these reasons, I urge you to vote no on Agenda Item 7.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Karen Hernández
References:
https://reason.com/2026/04/16/san-joses-creepy-and-deeply-intrusive-alpr-camera-system-is-
unconstitutional-a-new-lawsuit-says/
https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2025/06/california-police-sharing-license-plate-
reader-data/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/heres-why-you-cant-trust-what-cops-and-companies-
claim-about-automated-license
https://www.aclunorcal.org/news/alameda-rejects-surveillance-deal-company-tied-ice/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-cops-are-using-flock-safetys-alpr-network-surveil-
protesters-and-activists
2
https://pasadenanow.com/main/residents-raise-privacy-equity-concerns-over-police-use-of-
flock-cameras
--
Karen G. Hernández
Pronouns: (She/Ella)
Managing Director
Orange County Rapid Response Network
www.ocrapidresponse.org
Email: karen@ocrapidresponse.org
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO
WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE
READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR
AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU
ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS
COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
3