Automated License Plate Readers, such as Flock cameras, have become controversial in some communities, due to privacy and surveillance concerns. The city now operates several such cameras, and offers the option for private security cameras to be linked into a police-operated system. In addition, city leaders recently have suggested that Manhattan Beach should be added to a pilot “speed camera” program, which would place traffic enforcement cameras along Sepulveda Boulevard – a system that could issue citations. 

What is your view on Manhattan Beach's current use of ALPRs and other security/surveillance cameras? Would you seek any changes to current policies regarding city-operated cameras or integrated private cameras? Should the city pursue “speed cameras?”

JOSEPH UNGOCO

MBPD has regularly put out statistics proving that the current ANPR cameras have led to convictions in crimes that would have otherwise gone unsolved. The deterrent effect of these cameras is less well defined.  As the President of the Board of Beach Cities Masonic lodge on Artesia I led the decision to participate in the City’s voluntary camera registration program.  On several occasions the lodge has provided access to video to MBPD investigators.  

Any discussion of surveillance and privacy is complicated by the variations in expectations and perceptions among residents.  As the only candidate to live in NYC during 9/11 and the decade after, my own personal willingness to forego privacy for an increased sense of safety is quite high.  I very quickly became accustomed to being on a camera every 6 seconds because I valued the increased sense of personal safety that came with that. 

My example may sound extreme but residents need to be aware of how often they are already being recorded by their neighbors’ cameras - and how often they’re recording their neighbors - and what that actually means vis a vis their sense of security and safety in their homes and neighborhoods. Then, they can make informed decisions about whether or not to participate in the voluntary program.  

As for “speed cameras”, I believe that we need to support our local police when it comes to enforcing laws that protect the public. In a town our size any preventable traffic-related death is high profile and deeply destructive to our residents’ sense of security. We need to remain open to new ways that assist our police in doing their job: protecting our residents.

We do NOT use the flawed FLOCK system that L.A. uses. Instead, we utilize a trusted combination of Motorola Solutions and Vigilant Solutions.

As a former reserve police officer, I have supported the installation of automated license plate readers (ALPR’s) in our patrol vehicles and light poles at our major intersections from day one. I still do. 

These ALPR’s have resulted in numerous arrests of criminals for stolen vehicles, felony warrants, possession of weapons, drugs, theft of US mail from Manhattan Beach residents along with machinery to create false credit cards.

Per MBPD Policy 462, “the purpose of utilizing ALPR technology is to capture and store digital license plate data and images while recognizing the established privacy rights of the public”.  Any data collected is deleted after one year unless it has become, or it is reasonable to believe it will become, evidence in a criminal or civil action or is subject to a discovery request." I am not aware of any reports of abuse or criticism with the current policies and do not see a need to change them.

In addition, “ALPR data” was utilized in both of the Pasha Jewelry store “smash and grab” robberies. Due to outstanding detective work from MBPD, seven individuals responsible for these robberies were arrested in 2023. 

As for the question regarding the use of other “integrated private security cameras” that can offer digital data to the police, I support this option as it remains purely voluntary.

Yes, as we have all witnessed, speeding on Sepulveda “remains” a serious problem, but I am not convinced that automated ticketing via “speed cameras” pilot program will have the desired or any noticeable effect.

Over the past five years, there have been four fatalities on Sepulveda. Notably, on November 23, 2021 a four-vehicle crash resulted in three deaths; In December 2024, a pedestrian, Michael Kawasaki was killed; January 2025, Ford Savela was killed by a speeding driver and in May 2025, Bruan Levi was killed by a DUI driver.

Automated ticketing does not stop a driver under the influence or a driver speeding at 100 miles per hour.

The answer is taking immediate action to better protect both pedestrians and drivers that consists of two parts:

1 – begin a “set enforcement team” (motor officers) along Sepulveda especially late at night and early mornings.  Similar to DUI enforcement, it will send a strong message that we take speeding seriously.

2 – install bright LED lighting / street lamps (solar or hard wired) over every “dip” or “low road surface” along Sepulveda from the 100 block to Marine Avenue. This is the area on Sepulveda where these four fatalities occurred. 

At Marine Avenue, I would also suggest a FLASHING LED SIGN that informs drivers to SLOW DOWN as the road dips just after the intersection. 

It is past time for the city to become proactive, stop relying on Cal Trans to implement any traffic calming measures and take immediate action to stop any further fatalities on Sepulveda.