‘Karen’ demands City of Visalia “fire” me

September 8, 2026

Jim Reeves commentary, News, Personal , , , , , , , Leave a comment

It’s been an interesting summer. It’s ending on a (not so) high note, as someone has tried to get me kicked off the Visalia City Council’s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). Can you guess who it was, and why? Here’s the letter sent to the City Council and the City representative on the Advisory Committee:

Visalia City Council letter re Jim Reeves -redacted.docxDownload

Here’s the cover letter for his email:

Formal Request for Removal of Jim Reeves from the Visalia Citizens Advisory Committee-redacted.txtDownload

I would agree with one thing in his letter. “…minor children are entirely uninvolved.” There was and is no danger to anyone’s children. (except when he gave out his home address while challenging another subject on Facebook, inviting them over to “continue” a heated conversation in person. oh, did he mention that the children are his, and the lawyer is his ex-wife? And she never asked to have her name redacted? No? Interesting.)

Since I wouldn’t submit to his demands, he published an Op-Ed in GV Wire attacking me, then the next day sent this letter to the City of Visalia. In it, he’s essentially begging someone, anyone, on the City Council, to agree with him, and move to have me dismissed from the CAC.

That didn’t happen. I’m still on the Committee. In fact, I’ve recently been made Vice-Chair. (and I’ve already presided over a meeting, as the Chair was not able to attend. Go me.)

There’s been a lot of drama stirred up around this nonsense. I’m comfortable in my editorial decisions regarding this entire series of events, and my actions in response to ‘Karen’. I’ll be happy to be done with it, but ‘Karens’ seldom know when to stop. We’ll see what happens next.

Visalia City Council Mislead? Or is it just semantics? More Flock shenanigans.

September 7, 2026

Jim Reeves geek, News , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Image by Gemini AI

At the October 21, 2024 City Council meeting, Consent Agenda item #6, file #24-0415, was approved with no separate discussion. That item was to enter into an agreement with Flock Safety out of Atlanta, Georgia, for their Automated License Plate Reader subscription service. Visalia Police Department wanted to install 22 cameras around the city, and have access to 18 other cameras operated by other organizations, for a total of 40 installations.

The issue here? The agenda packet does not reflect the reality of what the City Council was being asked to approve.

The information provided to the City Council says, “The Visalia Police Department has thoroughly researched various methods to prevent and respond to Part One crimes within the City of Visalia and County of Tulare.”

Let’s look at the “Background Discussion” presented by city staff in the agenda packet.

Background Discussion:

Flock Safety fixed-mount ALPR cameras have become one of the most popular ALPR cameras available to law enforcement and are also available to school districts, businesses, and hospitals.

True.

Currently, there are 18 Flock Safety fixed-mount ALPR cameras operating throughout the City of Visalia. These cameras are installed at various businesses and properties which are owned by private entities.

Also true.

As a Flock Safety customer, the Visalia Police Department would gain access to the 18 existing Flock Safety fixed-mount ALPR cameras at no additional cost. This would expand the network of ALPR cameras available to the Visalia Police Department significantly.

True.

Nationwide, all law enforcement owned Flock Safety ALPR cameras…

Not true. No Flock Safety ALPR cameras are owned by anyone other than Flock. They are the sole property of Flock. The City is entering into a lease.

communicate with each other, allowing law enforcement to track offenders from jurisdictions outside of the City of Visalia.

The cameras do not ‘communicate’ with each other. They take images, scan those images with a program to extract the license plate number, and send the image and the data to a central server, maintained as proprietary by Flock. The images can be further analyzed by Flock’s proprietary software for information other than simply license plate numbers. They do allow law enforcement agencies from outside the City of Visalia to access that data – if they subscribe to the service, or present a subpoena.

Locally, Flock Safety fixed-mount ALPR cameras are installed in the following cities: Farmersville, Woodlake, Porterville, Lindsay, Tulare, Hanford, Lemoore, Corcoran, Orange Cove, Reedley, Fowler, and Fresno. These cities combined have a total of more than 250 Flock Safety fixed-mount ALPR cameras, which the Visalia Police Department would gain access to after becoming a customer.

True.

Flock Safety fixed-mount ALPR cameras have no infrastructure requirements resulting in zero utility costs. The cameras are powered by solar and utilize a wireless LTE connectivity. Flock Safety services, maintains, and replaces each fixed-mount ALPR camera at no additional cost for the contracted period.

True. If the cameras or other parts of the system fail, Flock will replace them. If they are damaged or stolen, the City pays to replace them, at over $600-$800 per camera. Damage to the solar panel, cell equipment, or other parts of the unit are extra.

Flock Safety is the only fixed-mount ALPR camera company that provides connectivity with the existing Flock Safety fixed-mount ALPR cameras that are installed throughout the City of Visalia and surrounding jurisdictions. They are also the only company that features technology that is capable of capturing vehicle identifiers other than license plates.

There’s an important bit of information that I suspect many hope flies by unnoticed. “vehicle identifiers other than license plates”. And the data is used to train their own, again proprietary, AI.

Fiscal Impact:

No new appropriations required at this time.   There will be two (2) separate contracts due to separate funding sources.  Contract #1 is for nine (9) cameras and contract #2 is for 13 Cameras. The cost variance between the two projects is primarily due to differences in equipment and installation infrastructure.

I also have questions about the funding source, but that’s maybe for a different blog.

The ALPR cameras purchased under contract #1 are being installed on CalTrans right of way infrastructure which has an increased installation cost. Furthermore, two of the ALPR cameras included in this contract are more costly due to their range capabilities.

The cameras are not being “purchased”, they are being leased. While Flock claims, and contractually promises, that the data these cameras produce belong to the subscriber, and will not be ‘sold’, they do require “a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right to use and distribute such Anonymized Data…”. There is no way (publicly revealed, anyway) for the City of Visalia to insure the data is secure, and not used in violation of California law, or the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. (A class action lawsuit against Flock is in the beginning stages of court right now, based on 4th Amendment claims)

Purchased? Leased? Semantics? Maybe. But reading the Consent Agenda packet, would a City Council person necessarily understand that, one, the City was not “purchasing” the system, and, two, that the details presented in the agenda packet were not accurate? Many city council members rely heavily on the city staff to provide them with reliable information on which to base their decisions. Incomplete or misleading information, put in a consent calendar item, might reasonably fly right past them.

The Police Department recently told the Valley Voice that “according to their data, 2025 saw a 39% reduction in stolen vehicles, which VPD attributes to the Flock cameras it began using in 2024.” While that may be, correlation is not causation. We are not given the data required to authenticate the effectiveness of the Flock cameras.

combined_auto_theft_reportDownload

As I’ve stated in previous blogs, I’m not against these kinds of camera systems, if they are the property of, controlled by, and accessed only by local government(s). With Flock, agencies do not control the system, they only have access to it. The data, while said to be owned by the agency and not sold to anyone else, is solely controlled by Flock. Past incidents have shown the ease at which access control is lost, and how the system can be abused, even by authorized personnel.

Look at the Consent Calendar agenda item yourself, and decide. Did it accurately reflect what the Police Department wanted the City to do? Does it fully inform the Council about what they were being asked to authorize? Did it really result in a 39% reduction in stolen vehicles?

Or is “lease” and “purchase” just an issue of semantics?

Here are my previous blogs about Flock:

Is Visalia PD following it’s own License Plate Reader policy regarding Flock cameras?

September 6, 2026

Jim Reeves commentary, geek, News , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Image by Gemini AI

The Visalia Police Department Policy manual includes the following section (online as of 5 pm Pacific, 9/6/2026):

Automated-License-Plate-Readers-ALPRs-PDF_09062026Download

The devil’s in the details, as they say, and boy are there some details here! Let’s take a look.

428.3
“…to convert data associated with vehicle license plates for official law enforcement purposes, including identifying stolen or wanted vehicles, stolen license plates and missing persons. It may also be used to gather information related to active warrants, homeland security, electronic surveillance, suspect interdiction and stolen property recovery.”

“Homeland Security”. California law prohibits the release of ALPR data generated in California to Federal agencies.


California Civil Code § 1798.90.51: Mandates that an ALPR operator or end-user must not share ALPR data with agencies or entities that are not state or local law enforcement agencies operating strictly under California state law.

California Civil Code § 1798.90.55: Prohibits public agencies from selling, sharing, or transferring ALPR information, limiting valid dissemination solely to authorized local/state public agencies operating within California for defined law enforcement purposes.

As long as they’re operating only based on California law, and not in conjunction with any Federal or out-of-state agency, they could, theoretically, use ALPR data for a perceived “homeland security” threat. But if they call in the Feds, they can’t give any of the ALPR data that they developed from their investigation to them.

Here’s the real devil, in my opinion, though:

428.7

(a) The agency makes a written request for the ALPR data that includes:

  1. The name of the agency.
  2. The name of the person requesting.
  3. The intended purpose of obtaining the information.

(b) The request is reviewed by the Operations Support Division Captain or the authorized
designee and approved before the request is fulfilled.

(c) The approved request is retained on file.

On 9/6/2026, there were 258 agencies listed on the Visalia Police Department’s Flock Transparency page as “Sharing Network Data With – Organizations granted access to Visalia CA PD data.”

From May 1, 2026 through June 1, 2026, there were 507,696 “hits” on Visalia PD’s Flock data set. California Highway Patrol was the biggest user, with 46,693 inquiries. That’s just one month’s worth of data access. (Visalia PD accessed the data only 1,634 times in that month, for comparison.)

Somehow, I doubt Visalia Police Department received 507,696 written requests for information which included the name of the agency, the requesting officer’s name, and the purpose for obtaining the information, which was then processed and approved before the data was released.

Now, I’m not a lawyer. I’ve never played one on TV. Hell, I didn’t even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But it seems to me that the rule book isn’t being followed. The data is being accessed randomly by any agency on the “granted” list unsupervised. None of the required review or approvals are being done. Visalia PD has simply opened it’s data to anyone on that list. (To be sure, it’s a pretty common way to operate, as far as I can determine, statewide. Agencies all over the state are allowing the same access. The policy manual is one that is from a template, used by many agencies, and modified to reflect Visalia-specific regulation. One wonders how well it’s read before operations begin.)

I’m not universally against license plate reader systems. They have legitimate uses in the law enforcement world. What I don’t like is agencies, and especially the Visalia Police Department, giving control of these systems to an outside organization. The data is taken by cameras not owned by Visalia, the data is stored on servers not under the physical control of Visalia, and the programs used to access that data are proprietary property of Flock. The only real security on the data is Flock saying, “trust us, bro”. News reports the past few years tell us we can’t.

There are plenty of other ‘devils’ playing in this ongoing drama with Flock. Their use of the data, regardless of their claims that the customers own and control it and they won’t sell it, even though there are three places in the contract where the following is stated: “Customer hereby grants Flock a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right to use and distribute such Anonymized Data to improve and enhance the Services and for other development, diagnostic and corrective purposes, and other Flock offerings.”

They also will use the data, anonymized (whatever that means. How do you anonymize data but still do this) to teach their AI program: “including the training of machine learning algorithms.”

Automated License Plate Readers are the camel’s nose. The rest of the camel is all the things they will (not can, will) do with the data we pay them to collect. The nose is in the tent. Maybe the camel has his entire head inside.

Did you ever watch the TV show, “Person of Interest”? Mr. Finch was trying to create an AI that could hunt terrorists. He succeeded. A joke of the show was that before he could create that machine, he had to create the availability of data, so he created social media. Now everyone provided the data he needed to train his AI. If you followed the show, you know how well all of that turned out.

We have some decisions to make. And some decisions already made to overturn. At the very least, change the policy manual to reflect how things are actually done.

Or we can just trust the government to always do the right thing, and protect us from bad actors. We’ve seen how well that’s worked out in the past, haven’t we?

My previous Flock-related posts:

“Will Somebody Shut Him Up??”

September 5, 2026

Jim Reeves commentary, geek, News, Personal , , , , Leave a comment

58citycouncilappearancesthrough09052026Download

These are all but one of the times I’ve spoken at the Visalia City Council, during Public Comments. My first time isn’t on their website, and was in 2012, when I accepted the first June Pride Month Proclamation issued by the City of Visalia. It was the first Pride Month Proclamation by a government body in the Southern San Joaquin Valley.

I got bored, so I counted the times I appeared before the City Council, according to the minutes. As of this writing, I’m at 58 times.

There are fewer than 58 entries above, because I spoke several times at several meetings. One time I had so much to say about things that I spoke five times! Another day it was four. It’s usually just once per meeting.

I still get nervous, sometimes, but I probably enjoy it more than I should.

Lest you think I’m hogging all the time, there’s a lady that has spoken over 85 times in the same time frame. I don’t know if she enjoys it or not.

If you would like to let them know what you think about things, here’s the 4-1-1:

PUBLIC COMMENTS  

This is the time for general public comment on issues within the jurisdiction of the Visalia City Council. Each speaker tonight may speak for up to 3 minutes during this general comment period on a matter that is not on this agenda. The public may also make one comment for up to 3 minutes prior to the consideration of the Consent Calendar, and immediately before any regular agenda item is heard. The Council asks that you keep you comments concise and positive. Creative criticism, presented with appropriate courtesy, is welcome. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes and a timer will notify you when your time is expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence.

There are general public comments at the beginning of each session (work session and regular session), before the Consent Calendar, and after each item on the regular agenda, regarding that item.

Come join us at the meetings, on the first and third Mondays of each month (except on holidays, when they generally meet Tuesday). The regular session starts at 7pm, at City Hall, 707 W. Acequia. Work sessions start anywhere between 4pm and 5:30pm. Check the agenda for exact times.

“Hide my ex’s name (for the kids safety), but here’s my address!”

August 31, 2026

Jim Reeves commentary, News, Personal , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Meet Jason Bailey of Visalia.

Jason is not happy.

I think I’ve made him mad.

Jason is upset that some previous posts of mine have included his ex-wife’s name, and he’s very concerned. He even wrote an op-ed in GV Wire about it (which means he’ll generate even more exposure of his ex-wife’s name). He neglected to include some pertinent facts as he called me out by name, though.

On June 22, 2026, I received this through Facebook Messenger:

On June 23, he sent two more messages, linking a story about an intruder at the home of the Fresno City attorney. I replied “Yes, I read your message. I’m still considering it.” (and what’s with the “MBA”? Like that somehow makes a difference?)

On July 4, I received the following message:

I think he’s mad. He posted the following as a comment on a posting on Porterville Communists, regarding me. The poster started recording me shortly after I began my remarks, but I suspect the speaker after me was who they were actually interested in. (I have no connection to this group. I don’t know if it’s a legit site for a group, or if it’s satire.)

He never contacted me in any way to ask for my phone number. Notice the hostility growing already. (It’s ridiculously easy to find my phone number online, BTW.)

On August 20, 2026, I received this SMS message:

Was it from Bailey? I don’t know, but it’s mighty coincidental, isn’t it? Like I said, it’s not difficult to find my phone number online. (As an aside, this image had to be taken before the construction began on my street, at least two months before this appeared on my phone. Whoever sent this message had been holding on to this image for a while. Stalking?)

The online anger continued. More from the Porterville Communist’s comment thread:

Now it gets really weird. He’s all worried that his ex-wife’s name will somehow put his children in danger, but he does this:

After going on about his children’s safety, he posts his address on Facebook, and challenges a stranger to come “continue this conversation”. That doesn’t seem like he’s really very concerned about his children’s safety.

So it boils down to this: His ex-wife (who has my email and can contact me directly) appears on the signatory line of an official letter from the City of Visalia’s attorneys. Bailey fears someone will see her name, and attack their children. Because – something something something.

Since he’ll blast his own address out on the Internet, I think this entire thing is simply someone who doesn’t like to be told “No”.

Unless the attorney in question asks me directly, I’m not redacting her name.

Flock and Ding Dong Dash in Porterville

August 26, 2026

Jim Reeves 9-1-1, geek, News, Personal , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Image by Gemini AI

“Knocking on people’s doors and leaving the area”.

That was the ‘reason’ Porterville Police Department entered into the Flock Automated License Plate Reader system for three searches in late July and early August, 2026. Each time, they searched over 700 networks.

On July 29, 2026, they checked the system twice, for a ‘487’ (grand theft). Both times, they checked 1 network.

On August 19, 2026, they checked 710 networks for “RED TOYOTA CAMRY”.

Ding dong dash, over 700 networks. (fast runners? Fast and Furious ready to pick them up and flee the state? The long way?)

Grand theft, 1 network. (Too much to carry out of town?)

How many Red Toyota Camrys do you suspect are in those 710 networks?

I wonder if Arte Johnson’s character Wolfgang would say “verrrry interesting… but shtupid!”?

Can I See Your Flock?

August 20, 2026

Jim Reeves geek, News, Personal , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Image by Gemini

On July 14, 2026 I filed a second public records act request for information about the Visalia Police Department‘s use of the Flock Automated License Plate Reader system. In that request, I asked for information regarding any agreements or other documentation that would allow VPD to access any Flock cameras operated by the Visalia Economic Development Corporation, Lowe’s, and Home Depot. The following is what I received today, August 20, 2026.

2026.08.20 RB Ltr to J. Reeves (final)Download

No documents were presented regarding Lowe’s and Home Depot, so, assuming the lawyers are giving me the all the information the city has, there are no agreements of any kind for the Visalia Police Department to access any data collected by cameras owned by those companies.

Does that mean if VPD wanted to check that data, they’d have to get a subpoena? Can they simply call over and ask? If granted permission (and why would they not be?), do they have to go to the location and get access using the store’s system, or can they log in and take the data directly from Flock’s servers? I don’t know.

As far as the Visalia Economic Development Corporation is concerned, I’m not certain they’ve ever actually installed any cameras. One camera is shown in the industrial park, but I have as yet been unable to determine if that is part of the VPD network, or is operated by VEDC. At approximately $3,000 each per year, VEDC may not have the money to maintain the subscription.

What’s more interesting is the letter from the VEDC to a rather extensive email list about Flock needing to preserve data due to a class-action lawsuit that is pending. Check out some of the people they sent it to:

A Visalia City Council member, the Visalia City Manager, the Visalia Assistant City Manager, someone at Southern California Edison, two or more construction companies, the Visalia Unified School District Superintendent, the Tulare County Office of Education Superintendent, and several others identified by name only. Why most of them need to be informed about a class action lawsuit against Flock is puzzling.

The City of Visalia has closed out this public records request, telling me “no other records matching your request exist or are in the possession of the City of Visalia”.

My previous Flock-related posts:

P.S. – Since Visalia is using grant money for the first four years of this contract, there has been no ongoing expense for the city. They will eventually have 22 cameras up, which could result in a $66,000 a year cost to maintain the system, once those grants expire. Your tax dollars are and will be paying to surveil you every time you drive by a Flock camera. Smile, won’t you?

Hidden in plain sight, but you are not allowed to see it

August 18, 2026

Jim Reeves commentary, geek, News , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

The Visalia Transparency Showdown: One Citizen’s Fight for Accountability

Is Tulare County Transparent? The Magic 8 Ball Might Say “Reply Hazy, try again”

August 18, 2026

Jim Reeves commentary, News , , , , , , , Leave a comment

They Bought the Cars, Then Approved the Purchase: What Jim Reeves’ Critics Got Wrong

Half A Million Flocks in May, 2026

August 17, 2026

Jim Reeves commentary, geek, News, Personal , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

In April of 2026, I made a public records request of the Visalia Police Department. One of the things I asked for in that request was the logs of every outside agency that accessed the data collected by Visalia’s police department. I didn’t expect the sheer size of the results. I received audit logs for 18 months, running to tens of thousands of pages. I’m going to look at the latest (and biggest) of those files here.

From May 1, 2026 through June 1, 2026, there were 507,696 “hits” on the Flock data collected by Visalia PD. I’ve tallied the results to see who is searching license plate files (and other search terms) in Visalia. (Visalia accessed it’s own data 1,634 times in that month)

The biggest searcher was the California Highway Patrol, at 46,693 inquiries in just that one month’s time. Riverside County Sheriff’s Office was next, at 42,957.

There’s no way they thought vehicles they were “checking” for were in Visalia over 40,000 times each. It looks very much as if they simply have “all” selected for any search they do. Other agencies on down the list seem to be a bit more circumspect in their searches, but still cast wide nets when they do a Flock search.

Here’s a .txt file with the list, followed by an Excel list.

May 2026 audit

Beginning Search Time: May 1, 2026, 07:00:00 AM UTC
Ending Search Time: June 1, 2026, 06:59:59 AM UTC
Unique organizations: 309
Records tallied: 507,696

Org Name Tally

RankAgency / OrganizationCount
1California Highway Patrol46,693
2Riverside County CA SO42,957
3San Francisco CA PD28,422
4Los Angeles CA PD19,367
5Orange County SO CA19,114
6Los Angeles County CA SD17,766
7San Jose CA PD15,670
8San Bernardino County CA SO12,167
9Oakland CA PD11,855
10San Diego County CA SD9,855
11Fremont CA PD7,241
12City of Riverside CA PD7,054
13Sonoma County CA SO7,054
14Ontario CA PD6,786
15NCRIC6,742
16Irvine CA PD6,585
17Fontana CA PD5,588
18Ventura County CA SO5,543
19Santa Clara CA PD5,472
20Contra Costa County CA SO5,191
21Elk Grove CA PD4,942
22Daly City CA PD4,939
23San Joaquin County CA SO4,724
24Kern County CA SO4,660
25Santa Rosa CA PD4,550
26Stockton CA PD4,516
27San Bernardino CA PD3,851
28Solano County CA SO3,792
29Chula Vista CA PD3,725
30Bakersfield CA PD3,560
31Vacaville CA PD3,402
32Sunnyvale CA PD3,218
33Corona CA PD3,185
34Placer County CA SO3,028
35Salinas CA PD3,014
36Hayward CA PD2,878
37Murrieta CA PD2,854
38Pasadena CA PD2,761
39Chino CA PD2,691
40Concord CA PD2,613
41Sacramento CA PD2,569
42Newport Beach PD CA2,510
43California Department of Corrections2,476
44Buena Park CA PD2,463
45Livermore CA PD2,434
46Napa County CA SO2,422
47Costa Mesa CA PD2,408
48Anaheim CA PD2,324
49San Mateo CA PD2,259
50Santa Maria CA PD2,245
51Marin County CA SO2,239
52Sacramento County CA SO2,142
53Orange CA PD2,139
54Fairfield CA PD2,120
55National City CA PD2,038
56Alhambra CA PD1,984
57Montclair CA PD1,956
58Petaluma CA PD1,939
59Santa Barbara County CA SO1,891
60Cypress CA PD1,805
61Morgan Hill CA PD1,787
62Garden Grove CA PD1,699
63Rialto PD CA1,693
64San Leandro CA PD1,665
65Fullerton CA PD1,646
66Visalia CA PD1,634
67Turlock CA PD1,608
68Santa Ana CA PD1,465
69Tracy CA PD1,440
70West Sacramento CA PD1,433
71Union City CA PD1,391
72Monterey County CA SO1,389
73Rocklin CA PD1,384
74Manteca CA PD1,367
75Simi Valley CA PD1,364
76Greenfield CA PD1,323
77Burbank CA PD1,289
78Butte County CA SO1,287
79Ventura CA PD1,275
80Citrus Heights CA PD1,242
81Gilroy CA PD1,237
82Upland CA PD1,227
83Redwood City CA PD1,191
84Downey PD CA1,166
85Hanford CA PD1,153
86El Cajon CA PD1,149
87Tulare County CA SO1,136
88Hercules CA PD1,136
89Riverside County CA District Attorney1,121
90Brentwood CA PD1,115
91Oceanside CA PD1,112
92Vallejo CA PD1,099
93Merced County CA SO1,079
94San Bruno CA PD1,054
95Desert Hot Springs CA PD1,049
96Cal Fire1,042
97Placentia CA PD1,028
98Marina CA PD990
99Glendora (CA) PD982
100Imperial City CA PD932

There are 209 additional unique organizations with counts ranging from 899 down to 1. You can see the entire list in the Excel file.

May_2026_Network_Audit_Org_Name_TallyDownloa

Here are my previous Flock-related posts:

Older Entries