The intersection of law enforcement efficiency and digital privacy has reached a boiling point in Southern California. Attorney General Rob Bonta recently filed a lawsuit against the City of El Cajon and its police department, a move that signals a new era of aggressive state-level enforcement of data privacy statutes. The core of the dispute involves Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology and the strict, non-negotiable laws governing how that data is shared across state lines.
For privacy professionals and compliance officers, this case is more than a local news story. It is a vital case study in how the use of third party technology vendors can inadvertently lead an organization into a significant legal crossfire.
A Deep Dive into Senate Bill 34
At the heart of the Attorney General’s complaint is Senate Bill 34 (SB 34), a piece of legislation that remains a cornerstone of California’s privacy framework. Enacted nearly a decade ago, SB 34 was designed to create a transparent, accountable system for how ALPR data is handled.
The complexity of the El Cajon case often hinges on the specific definition of a “public agency” under the California Civil Code. Section 1798.90.5 of the Code provides the regulatory boundary: a “public agency” is defined as any state or local agency, including a county, city, or other political subdivision. Crucially, the Attorney General’s guidance has clarified that this definition does not extend to federal agencies or out of state law enforcement.
This distinction is the fulcrum of the lawsuit. The state alleges that El Cajon’s police department shared sensitive data with hundreds of agencies outside of California. By doing so, they essentially treated the entire nation as a single “public agency” for the purposes of data exchange. Under SB 34, however, once that data crosses the state line, it is no longer protected by California’s rigorous privacy mandates. The law prohibits sharing ALPR information with entities in states that may have starkly different legal protections regarding reproductive healthcare, immigration, or civil liberties.
The Myth of Vendor-Assumed Liability
One of the most critical lessons from the El Cajon situation involves the role of ALPR vendors, most notably platforms like Flock Safety. These vendors offer a powerful, high-speed value proposition: a networked infrastructure that allows departments to “hotlist” vehicles and share data with “nodes” across the country.
The technical architecture of these platforms is often designed for maximum utility, emphasizing “point and click” sharing features. From a purely operational standpoint, this is a miracle of modern policing. From a compliance standpoint, it is a minefield.
A common misconception among local governments and corporate entities alike is the belief that if a vendor provides a feature, that feature must be legally compliant. However, technology vendors are in the business of providing tools, not legal advice. While a platform may provide the technical capability to share data globally, they do not assume the legal liability for the user’s choice to do so. In the El Cajon case, the state argues that the department failed to properly audit these sharing settings, resulting in a massive data exposure that contravened SB 34.
The “Default Setting” Trap
The broader lesson for the compliance community is the danger of “default” configurations. In many modern SaaS environments, features that maximize data utility are turned on by default to provide the best user experience. In a regulated environment, however, these “helpful” features can become liabilities.
If your vendor’s technical architecture allows for broad data distribution or cross-platform data harvesting, the burden of restriction lies with you, the data controller. El Cajon’s defense, which frames the lawsuit as “political theater” or an overreach of power, does not change the statutory reality. If a state law says “do not share outside California,” and your software is configured to “share with all partners,” you are in violation of the law.
Get a free privacy audit to see if your business is sharing data and violating state and federal privacy frameworks.
Auditing Your Data Sharing Ecosystem
The El Cajon lawsuit is a reminder that data compliance is not a static event. It requires constant vigilance and a deep understanding of the hidden plumbing of your information systems. As we move deeper into an era of integrated AI and automated surveillance, the risks associated with third party data handling will only grow.
We recommend that all organizations, whether public or private, perform a comprehensive audit of their data sharing agreements and software configurations. This audit should go beyond the high-level Terms of Service and look at the actual data flow:
-
Mapping Data Destinations: Precisely where is your data being sent, and which jurisdictions have jurisdiction over that receiving server?
-
Vendor Permission Scrutiny: Does your vendor have “back-end” access to aggregate your data for their own machine-learning purposes?
-
Access Control Verification: Who, outside of your immediate organization, has the technical ability to query your database?
Secure Your Compliance Roadmap
Navigating the complexities of California privacy law and third party risk management is a daunting task. The legal landscape is shifting beneath our feet, and what was acceptable practice yesterday may be a lawsuit tomorrow.
At Captain Compliance, we specialize in providing the clarity and software solutions needed to protect your organization from litigation and data exposure. We help you move beyond the “default settings” to a state of intentional, defensible compliance.
If you are concerned about your current data sharing practices or the compliance of your technology stack, we are here to help. Contact us today to sign up for a demo of our platform and see how we can streamline your regulatory obligations and secure your data future.
