By Alia Sinclair

On Nov. 6, 2025, the Skagit County Superior Court ruled that data from Flock Safety cameras is subject to public disclosure under Washington’s Public Records Act.

The ruling states:

“The Flock images generated by the Flock cameras…are public records. Flock camera images are created and used to further a governmental purpose.”

This ruling comes on the heels of SeaTac closing “backdoor loopholes” in the Flock camera system that inadvertently allowed federal agents access to vehicle data that could potentially be used for immigration enforcement purposes.

Interim City Attorney Cindy Corsilles explained that, under the new ruling, Flock data legally must be shared with whomever in the public asks for it. That person could then legally share whatever data they find and publish it publicly without legal obstacles.

Additionally, Interim City Attorney Corsilles stated that the obligation to comply with the law could be burdensome to city staff, as it could require large data storing needs and the necessity of manually reviewing and redacting information in huge quantities of raw data. The Interim City Attorney went on to state that as of the date of the meeting (Nov. 25, 2025) no public records requests had been made.

Alternatively, the Flock camera system has been a terrific asset to the city’s police force, with Chief of Police Troy Smithmeyer testifying to its irreplaceable help in solving crimes, including car thefts and human trafficking.

Given the complex nature of the issue, city staff sought direction from the council on whether or not to suspend the Flock camera system in the City of SeaTac.

Councilmembers James Lovell and Senayet Negusse were cautious to keep Flock, citing the example of perpetuators of domestic violence who are incentivized to track their victims by submitting a public records request and being granted information on who they are stalking.

Councilmember Kwon took a more measured approach, positing that the data gathered by the Flock system isn’t all that different from the license plate recognition (LPR) technology used in the city’s parking enforcement program.

“Our Resident Parking Program already uses LPR in order to read license plates,” Kwon said. “Same thing. Similar, but different, I understand that, but they both read license plate numbers and flag them […]. That [data] is also subject to public record requests. So, what’s the difference here?”

In the end, the council made the recommendation to defer their decision until they feel comfortable that they have all the information necessary to make the most informed decision.