404 Media reveals police warning about Flock meetings despite no credible threats

California police were advised to watch for suspicious behavior at city council meetings about Flock surveillance, even though the intelligence bulletin acknowledged no specific, credible threats. Newly disclosed by 404 Media on October 21, the July warning listed emotional confrontations, media presence and large crowds among possible public-safety risks.

The Orange County Intelligence Assessment Center, a government fusion center, issued the bulletin to police in California. 404 Media’s Jason Koebler obtained it through a Freedom of Information Act request. The disclosure brings the center’s instructions into public view: officers were asked to review meetings for suspicious activity while the document also recognized Americans’ rights to assemble, speak and petition government.

A threat warning without a specific threat

The bulletin said city-hosted events, including council meetings, could appeal to extremists. But it also acknowledged there was no publicly available information indicating extremist involvement. Its warning described the possibility that a politically contentious event could attract isolated people promoting unrelated ideological causes—not identified extremist participation in these meetings.

The indicators officers were encouraged to notice ranged from unattended bags or packages to loitering, unusual questions or behavior, and what the bulletin called “excessive clothing.” The guidance thus covered both objects left behind and loosely described features of how people dressed or acted.

The center also linked its assessment to the Los Angeles Police Department’s decision to end its Flock contract. It argued that this high-profile example could encourage organizers, increase attendance and put more pressure on other councils to cancel their contracts. That was the bulletin’s forecast of political mobilization, rather than a description of a specific threat.

City-hosted events (i.e., city council meetings) may be viewed by extremists as a desirable target. Partners are encouraged to review for signs of suspicious activity.

Orange County Intelligence Assessment Center bulletin, quoted by 404 Media

Crowds and cameras enter the risk assessment

Much of the bulletin’s public-safety section concerned how a contentious meeting might unfold. It anticipated strong emotions around surveillance, privacy, immigration and public safety. Supporters of Flock’s camera program might also attend, it said, raising the potential for verbal conflict between people with opposing views.

Other entries addressed the logistics and visibility of public participation:

• Attendance: Crowds beyond chamber capacity could produce long lines, frustrated attendees, overflow areas and delays. A busy meeting could also cause traffic and parking congestion near City Hall.
• Media coverage: Local television, newspapers, livestreamers and independent journalists might attend because the issue had received regional attention.
• Online attention: Attendees might record or livestream interactions, allowing minor disputes to spread quickly and draw more public attention.

Disruption, violence and a rights safeguard

The document also listed possible disruptions: interrupting speakers, shouting from the audience, refusing to leave the podium after time limits, coordinated chanting and attempts to stop proceedings. Separately, it warned that heated disagreements could escalate into minor physical altercations before, during or after a meeting.

Its instruction on targeted threats was more specific. Credible threats, harassment or intimidation directed at elected officials, city staff, organizers or attendees should be treated as significant safety concerns and evaluated promptly. That passage included people organizing against surveillance among those whose safety warranted protection.

The bulletin ended by saying the center safeguards constitutional rights and reports on First Amendment-protected activities only for operational planning to protect demonstrators and the public. That stated safeguard sat alongside an assessment that included media attendance, recording and increased turnout—not just threats or violence—among potential public-safety concerns.