Last year, police surveillance startup Flock Safety hired the mayor of a California city with over 200,000 residents to promote its products. But the mayor, Ulises Cabrera of Moreno Valley, now claims Flock wrongfully terminated him, partly because he refused to use his position as mayor to benefit Flock, according to a lawsuit Cabrera filed against Flock in November 2024.
Backed by Andreessen Horowitz, Flock has grown to a $3.5 billion valuation thanks to its sales of license plate recognition technology across the U.S. (It also recently expanded into drones.) But the lawsuit raises concerns about the influence of private companies on elected officials.
Flock categorically denies all of Cabrera’s allegations and says its hire of a sitting mayor complies with California’s conflict-of-interest regulations. Cabrera didn’t respond to a request for comment from TechCrunch as of press time.
The lawsuit, first reported on by surveillance industry publication IPVM, states that Cabrera worked as a Community Engagement Manager for Flock from February to June 2024. Cabrera has been mayor of Moreno Valley since 2022, although the position is part-time, according to local newspaper Press-Enterprise.
A Flock job posting for this position says it comes with a salary of $100,000 – $140,000 plus additional stock options. It is intended to “guide law enforcement customers” through the public procurement process “in collaboration with the Sales team,” the job description states. During his time at Flock, Moreno gave presentations promoting Flock’s technology to at least two city council meetings well outside his jurisdiction, one in Whitewater, Kansas and another in Mammoth Lakes, California, according to public meeting notes.
But around two weeks after Cabrera began working for Flock, a Flock employee allegedly requested that Cabrera “use his position as Mayor of Moreno Valley to benefit the company,” Cabrera’s suit reads. Concerned about the ethical and legal implications, Cabrera claims he forwarded the request to his legal counsel while copying the Flock employee, who allegedly began “exhibiting retaliatory behavior” immediately afterwards. Cabrera’s suit does not go into further detail about what kind of request Flock allegedly made for him.
“Disturbing to see claims that this company would pressure staff to unethically misuse a government position,” Albert Fox Cahn, founder and executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, tells TechCrunch. “This adds to the growing body of evidence that American surveillance is fueled by a broken revolving door between industry and government.”
Flock says it confirmed with outside counsel that employing a sitting mayor is legal under California conflict of interest regulations and that it trained Cabrera on them. The law bars public officials from making decisions based on their own financial interests, including as employees in private companies. But it doesn’t prohibit them from taking private sector jobs.
While campaigning for re-election, which he won in November 2024, Cabrera touted on his campaign website his earlier vote to fund a citywide Flock system in Moreno Valley (before he started working at Flock), but he didn’t disclose on the website that he ended up working for Flock afterwards while serving as mayor. His LinkedIn currently doesn’t mention Flock, either.
Cabrera also claims he suffered retaliation for raising concerns that Flock was significantly underreporting the number of surveillance cameras installed in Carmel-by-the-Sea while working on a project there. Last February, a separate Forbes investigation found that Flock camera installations broke laws in at least five states, including by installing cameras without getting proper permits from authorities. Flock told Forbes that the company “operates to the best of our abilities within the bounds of the law.”
Cabrera also claims the Flock employee sexually harassed him by rubbing his leg against his at a conference and disclosing upcoming parental leave. Flock says it categorically denies all of Cabrera’s allegations.
This lawsuit marks the latest episode in Flock’s recent legal troubles. In April, a civil rights organization sued Flock, arguing that the company’s widespread surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment. In September, the Texas Department of Public Safety sent Flock a cease and desist, claiming it did not have the proper license to operate in private homes and businesses.
