Overview

Flock cameras and other generically named automated license plate reader (“ALPR”) cameras give HOAs a searchable record of when every resident, tenant, and guest drives in or out of the community. And yet, California law puts few limits on what HOAs can do with that data. In fact, the Davis-Stirling Act doesn’t address Flock cameras at all. The only statutes that do, which the Legislature wrote mainly with public agencies like law enforcement in mind, leave major gaps in how HOAs must treat homeowners’ data.

HOA boards can install Flock cameras without a member vote. And yet, there are precious few controls over how private organizations, like HOAs, can use the data collected from those cameras. For example, nothing in California’s ALPR statutes caps how long HOAs can keep the movement history of every resident, tenant, and guest. This leaves HOAs free to write their own policies regarding how long they’ll retain the sensitive data. And, HOAs don’t have to identify the individuals who have access to the database containing all of the movement-tracking data.

Even worse, nothing stops HOAs from handing database access to directors and managers who have no need for it, or specifically requires HOAs to cut off that access when those directors are no longer on the board or those managers are no longer under contract with the HOA. And once an HOA connects its cameras to Flock’s wider network, nothing requires the HOA to tell homeowners when outside law enforcement agencies search that data. HOAs also don’t have to give homeowners the records of their own vehicles or the log of who actually took the time to examine their movements. And worst of all, HOAs currently have no legal obligation to tell homeowners when they share their data with anyone else, including private parties and organizations.

Misuse of Flock camera data can cause enormous harm. And while a lot of HOAs openly justified Flock cameras to themselves and their members as a way to deter crime, HOAs all over California actually installed them primarily to aid in rule enforcement (e.g., fining homeowners and towing cars parked in violation of HOA rules). Even more disheartening, under current California law, even when a director or manager misuses the Flock camera data, the available remedies are both discretionary and scant, giving homeowners little to work with in terms of obtaining justice. Courts decide whether to award damages and even attorneys’ fees, and the statute’s minimum damages award is too low to make most cases worth bringing regardless of how much harm was caused by the misuse.

This Fact Sheet identifies what California’s current ALPR statutes leave out when HOAs install Flock cameras, explains how each gap exposes homeowners’ movement data to misuse, and shows why the remedy the statute provides rarely makes a lawsuit worth filing.

Key Points

While California’s existing ALPR statutes do impose a few duties on HOAs that operate Flock cameras, such as maintaining security safeguards, adopting a written usage and privacy policy, and logging every search of the database, the list of what those statutes don’t protect is far longer and far more dangerous for homeowners. For the most part, the statutes require HOAs to write down their own rules and then leave the content of those rules to HOA boards. That gives homeowners no legal right to decide whether their HOAs install Flock cameras, how long the data stays in the database, who searches it (inside or outside the community), where it goes, or what the HOA uses it for. The points below break down each of those gaps, including the abysmally weak remedies currently available to homeowners whose Flock camera data has been abused by their HOAs.

• Even though HOAs qualify as operators under the ALPR statutes, the current statutes mostly require HOAs to disclose their choices, not limit them. Civil Code 1798.90.5 defines a covered “person” to include associations, corporations, and other legal entities, so HOAs that operate Flock cameras qualify as ALPR operators, and HOAs that search the Flock database also qualify as ALPR end-users under Civil Code 1798.90.53. Civil Code 1798.90.51 requires those HOAs to maintain reasonable security safeguards and to adopt a written usage and privacy policy that’s available to the public. That policy must address the authorized purposes for using the cameras, the job titles of employees and independent contractors who can access the system, how long the HOA keeps the data, and the restrictions on selling or sharing it. The statute sets only one general standard for those choices, which is that the policy must respect individuals’ privacy and civil liberties, but it never defines what that standard requires. Beyond that undefined standard, nothing in the statute stops HOAs from listing broad purposes, setting long retention periods, or authorizing wide sharing, as long as they write those choices down and make them public. Civil Code 1798.90.52 then requires HOAs to log every search and to limit use of the data to the purposes their own policies identify. [For a full breakdown of the duties California’s ALPR statutes impose on HOAs, read my Fact Sheet, “Can My California HOA Track My License Plate With Flock Cameras?”]
• HOA boards can install Flock cameras without a member vote or any chance for homeowners to comment. Nothing in California’s ALPR statutes or the Davis-Stirling Act requires HOAs to get member approval before installing Flock cameras or sharing their data with law enforcement. Civil Code 1798.90.55 requires public agencies to give the public an opportunity to comment at a regularly scheduled public meeting before implementing an ALPR program, but that requirement doesn’t apply to private organizations like HOAs. The current laws also don’t require HOAs to post signs at their entrances telling residents, tenants, and guests that cameras are recording their plates, or to notify anyone before the cameras go live. [To learn more about the protections California’s ALPR statutes give the public when a city installs license plate readers, and why those protections skip HOAs, read my Fact Sheet, “Can My California HOA Share My License Plate Data With the Police?”]
• Nothing in California’s current ALPR statutes limits how long HOAs can keep Flock camera data. Civil Code 1798.90.51 requires each HOA’s usage and privacy policy to state how long the HOA will keep the data and how it’ll decide whether to destroy it, but the statute sets no maximum. The statute even contemplates that HOAs might never destroy the data since it asks HOAs to describe how they’ll decide whether to destroy it at all, not just when. So an HOA can set a retention period of 30 days, five years, or no end date at all. Nothing in the law stops HOA boards from lengthening that period later, and nothing requires them to tell homeowners when they do. Every additional month of stored data gives HOAs a more complete picture of each resident’s daily routine, including when residents leave for work, when their homes sit empty, and who visits and how often.
  • The current statutes don’t address screenshots, downloads, or exports of Flock camera data. Directors and managers with database access can screenshot a resident’s entry and exit history, export it to a spreadsheet, or text it to someone else, and nothing in California’s ALPR statutes specifically bars them from keeping those copies on their personal phones or in their personal email accounts. So even when an HOA deletes data from the Flock database on schedule, copies can survive indefinitely outside of the HOA’s control. While Civil Code 1798.90.52 requires HOAs to log the date and time of each search, the plate or other data used, the username of the person who ran it, and the purpose, it doesn’t require the log to show whether that person viewed, downloaded, printed, or forwarded the results, or to whom.
• Nothing in the current statutes requires HOAs to tell homeowners which individuals can search the Flock database. Civil Code 1798.90.51 requires each HOA’s usage and privacy policy to describe the job titles or other designations of the employees and independent contractors who can access the system, along with their training requirements. But the statute doesn’t require HOAs to name those individuals, and it doesn’t limit how many people HOAs can give access to. Most HOA directors are volunteers who are neither employees nor independent contractors, so the policy doesn’t have to account for directors at all. Nothing, therefore, is stopping HOAs from giving every director, the management company’s staff, a security contractor, or a committee member a login, whether or not those individuals have any need to search the data.
  • The current statutes don’t require HOAs to cut off database access when directors leave the board or management companies lose their contracts. Civil Code 1798.90.51 requires HOAs to maintain reasonable security safeguards against unauthorized access, but it doesn’t define what reasonable means, nor does it set any deadline or procedure for revoking a login. A director whom the members just removed, or a management company the HOA just fired, can keep the same login until someone at the HOA or at Flock shuts off the account. Because the statute doesn’t require HOAs to disclose which individuals hold access, homeowners have no way to find out whether a former director or former manager still has access to their private data.
• Homeowners have no legal right to see the Flock data on their own vehicles or the log of who searched their plates. Civil Code 1798.90.52 requires HOAs to keep a running log of every search, including the date and time, the plate or other data used, the username of the person who ran it, and the purpose. But nothing in California’s current ALPR laws requires HOAs to show that log to the homeowners whose plates appear in it, or to hand over the entries and exits recorded for their own vehicles. The Davis-Stirling Act’s records law doesn’t fill that gap either, since raw plate scans and search logs don’t fit any of the categories Civil Code 5200 makes available to members. So homeowners who suspect that a director or manager has been tracking their movements for illicit purposes have no legal right to confirm it, even though their HOAs hold a record of every search that director ran. [To learn which HOA records homeowners can demand from their HOAs, read my Fact Sheet, “What HOA Documents Am I Legally Entitled to See in California?”]
• HOAs have no legal duty to tell homeowners when they share Flock camera data with anyone else. Civil Code 1798.90.51 requires each HOA’s usage and privacy policy to describe the purposes of, the process for, and the restrictions on selling, sharing, or transferring the data, but it leaves every one of those choices solely to the HOA board. The ban on sharing in Civil Code 1798.90.55 applies only to public agencies, so nothing in California’s ALPR statutes stops HOAs from selling or sharing plate data with law enforcement, private investigators, other HOAs, businesses, or any other private parties and organizations their policies allow. And no matter who receives the data, nothing requires HOAs to tell the homeowners whose movements it records, either before or after the HOA hands it over.
  • Because of the way Flock presents its law enforcement sharing option, many HOAs have unknowingly given police agencies across the United States access to their members’ data. Flock Safety, the company who is most associated with ALPR cameras, gives HOAs the option to share their camera data with law enforcement, which is accomplished by checking a single box during setup. Most HOAs board members and managers, however, have no idea that checking that little box connects an HOA’s cameras to the same nationwide network that local and out-of-state agencies search. Most of those agencies don’t require a warrant or even suspicion of a crime before they search your HOA’s database, and nothing in California’s ALPR statutes requires HOAs to get homeowners’ permission before sharing the data with law enforcement, or to tell homeowners when an outside agency searches their plates.
• Nothing in California’s current ALPR statutes stops HOAs from using Flock camera data to enforce the HOA’s rules. Civil Code 1798.90.52 limits HOAs to the purposes their own usage and privacy policies identify. Since HOAs write those policies themselves, the limitation does little to restrain the use of Flock data by those HOAs. Indeed, many HOAs who are using Flock cameras use them to aid them in parking enforcement, or other rule-related enforcement tasks, and thus have included those purposes in their policies. HOAs still have to give homeowners notice and a hearing under Civil Code 5855 before imposing a fine, but nothing stops them from presenting the homeowner’s Flock history as evidence at that hearing.
  • The current statutes do almost nothing to stop directors or managers from secretly using Flock camera data to track ex-spouses or homeowners the board doesn’t like. While it’s true that Civil Code 1798.90.52 requires every search to carry a stated purpose, since the person running the search is the one entering that purpose, the statute isn’t that helpful. For example, nothing in California’s ALPR laws bars HOA representatives from pulling the movement history of homeowners who sued the HOA, ran against sitting directors, or complained at board meetings. A director can search an ex-spouse’s plate, list “security” as the reason, and track when that person leaves for work, when the home sits empty, and who visits. Because homeowners have no right to see the access log, the people being tracked have no way to learn it happened. [Abuse of residents’ Flock data isn’t merely theoretical. At my firm, we’ve handled cases where board members pulled residents’ Flock data and used it to stalk and harass those residents in their own communities.]
• For residents harmed by the misuse of their Flock data, the remedies in the current statutes basically put justice out of reach for all but the wealthiest individuals. Unless a director’s or manager’s conduct also violates a criminal law, such as California’s stalking laws, a lawsuit is the only path to justice following the misuse of their Flock data. Civil Code 1798.90.54 lets individuals harmed by a violation sue the person who knowingly caused the harm. It also lets courts award actual damages of no less than $2,500, punitive damages when the violator acted with willful or reckless disregard of the law, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. But the statute says courts “may” award attorneys’ fees, not that they “shall.” In other words, the very remedies available even after proving a willful misuse of someone’s data is purely discretionary. Lawsuits like these are monumentally expensive, and by the time a case gets through trial, homeowners can easily spend $250,000 or more. For most families, that’s life-changing money. Without stiff statutory penalties for willful abuse of the law, and without a mandatory fee award for homeowners who win, filing a lawsuit is simply not a realistic option. [To me, that’s unacceptable. Homeowners who gamble their savings anyway, and who convince a court that a director intentionally misused their data, shouldn’t be in a position to walk away with as little as $2,500 in damages.]
  • The current ALPR laws only allow homeowners to sue people who knowingly caused their harm. Civil Code 1798.90.54 doesn’t let homeowners sue everyone whose gross negligence and carelessness made the misuse possible. An HOA that never cut off a former director’s login, never reviewed its access logs to determine whether access to the data was legitimately related to HOA purposes, or handed out logins to people with no need for them can argue that it didn’t knowingly cause anything. The fact that any reasonable person knows that failing to take such basic steps could easily result in abuses is irrelevant under the current laws.
  • Homeowners can’t sue over the gaps themselves, because the current statutes don’t treat them as violations. Civil Code 1798.90.54 gives homeowners a claim only when someone violates California’s ALPR statutes. So when HOAs keep plate data indefinitely, share it with law enforcement, give logins to every director, or use it to build a case for a fine, residents in HOAs have no legal remedies available to them.
• Homeowners who demand answers about their HOAs’ Flock cameras will find that the current statutes entitle them to very little. Civil Code 1798.90.51 requires HOAs that operate Flock cameras to make their usage and privacy policies available to the public in writing and to post them on any HOA website. This means that homeowners can demand to see a copy of that policy. Also, currently under the Davis-Stirling Act, homeowners can demand a copy of the signed contract between the HOA and the ALPR company (e.g., Flock Safety). But that’s it. HOAs have no obligation to provide homeowners with information about whether their data was turned over to law enforcement (or whether law enforcement had access to the data), who input searches for their data and why, or which directors or managers had access to their data.
  • There are websites that give homeowners a limited way to learn whether anyone has searched Flock data for their license plates. These websites let regular people find out what Flock search records exist featuring their plates. These sites work by scraping audit logs released by local governments in response to public records requests, and then collect and organize those static, historical text logs into a single searchable database. Homeowners can type in a plate number and see whether a Flock user searched for it and the reason that user entered. But those logs come from government agencies, and California’s public records laws don’t reach HOAs, so searches that HOA directors and managers run on their own residents will likely never show up there.
• If your HOA is using Flock cameras and you’re concerned about your privacy rights or possible misuse of your data, call the HOA attorneys at MBK Chapman. The HOA attorneys at MBK Chapman represent homeowners throughout California, and they can explain exactly where your rights begin and end, whether your HOA is complying with the few actual duties the law does impose, and what options you have if a director or manager has misused your data.

California’s current ALPR statutes leave homeowners in HOAs exposed at nearly every turn. HOA boards can install Flock cameras without a member vote, keep the data indefinitely, hand logins to anyone they choose, and turn on law enforcement sharing with a single checkbox, and nothing in the statutes requires them to tell homeowners about any of it. Homeowners can’t see the data on their own vehicles, can’t see who searched their plates, and can’t find out whether a former director or manager still holds a login. The only real limit on any of this is a written policy that HOA boards draft for themselves. For the homeowners, tenants, and guests who drive through their community entrances every day, that leaves almost nothing standing between their movement histories and whoever an HOA board decides should see them.

FAQs

About Michael Kushner

Michael Kushner is a California attorney with over 30 years of experience representing homeowners in disputes with their HOAs. He is widely regarded as California’s leading homeowner-side HOA attorney, and has built one of the state’s most prominent law practices dedicated to holding HOAs accountable under the Davis-Stirling Act and California law.

In addition to his law firm’s work, Michael is a recognized lecturer, author, and the host of the hit HOA HELL podcast, where he provides homeowners living in HOA-governed communities with clear, practical strategies for dealing with bad HOAs. He’s also the author of the best-selling book, HOA HELL | California Homeowners’ Definitive Guide to Beating Bad HOAs, which has become a go-to resource for both homeowners seeking real-world solutions to their HOA disputes, as well as those good HOA board members who are interested in doing a good job.

About MBK Chapman Fact Sheets

Homeowners searching for answers online will often come across articles that appear authoritative, but are actually written as search-engine marketing content rather than by an experienced HOA lawyer. These pieces tend to prioritize keyword density over clarity, accuracy, or legal context, which often leaves homeowners more confused than informed.

At MBK Chapman, our Fact Sheets are part of our HOA Law Library and are written by Michael Kushner, an HOA lawyer with decades of hands-on experience representing California homeowners. In fact, Michael Kushner is the HOA lawyer who pioneered the systems and strategies used by some of California’s most successful homeowner-side HOA law firms.

Each Fact Sheet is deliberately concise, statute-based, and designed as a quick-reference guide to help homeowners understand key HOA laws and enforcement rules at a glance.

AND DON’T FORGET TO TUNE INTO MY PODCAST, HOA HELL

YOU CAN ALSO ORDER MY GROUNDBREAKING BOOK

HOA HELL | California Homeowners’ Definitive Guide to Beating Bad HOAs

Amazon  |  Barnes & Noble