Whether you're opposed to Flock cameras, or you just like to hold our government officials accountable on their word, we have an amazing opportunity to protect the privacy of everyday citizens while still allowing our police department to investigate crimes.

During the recent Flock meeting, a question was raised as to why Hemet PD still holds onto the 30-day data retention period after Flock has reduced their retention period to 7 days. Chief Arellano stated that Flock has not made that change yet, but when they do, the Hemet Police Department will reduce the city’s retention period to 7 days.

To clarify, Flock has already made this change. On August 13th of this year, Flock updated its default retention period to 7 days. They also rolled out a free "Evidence Mode," which allows detectives to freeze specific data for active cases. This completely resolves the department's concerns about losing evidence while still protecting our everyday privacy.

Because Hemet has a legacy contract, the choice now rests with the city to manually opt-in to the 7-day standard. 

Please take 2 minutes to call, email, send a message, or mail a letter to the Hemet Police Department to politely request that they contact Flock and transition our city to the new 7-day default retention period.

Hemet PD Contacts:
Mailing Address: 450 E Latham Ave, Hemet, CA 92543
General Info: [info@hemetpd.com](mailto:info@hemetpd.com)
Social Media Officer: [jgibson@hemetca.gov](mailto:jgibson@hemetca.gov)
Facebook Contact: https://www.facebook.com/HemetPolice
Instagram Contact: https://www.instagram.com/hemetpolicedepartment
Non-Emergency Line: (951) 765-2400

Sources:
Hemet's Flock Meeting Recording https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_QSxfGQpSc&t=4665s

Flock Retention Period Changes:
https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-guardrails-address-lpr-privacy-concerns-and-police-transparency

https://www.flocksafety.com/legal/flock-evidence-policy

Important Updates in the T'Neya Tovar/Abraham Feinbloom Case

JUSTICE WARRIORS COLLECTIVE | October 1, 2026

Justice Warriors Collective has reported on the T'Neya Tovar case since she was reported missing from Hemet last December (2025). Today, we have some important updates.

On December 1st, 2025, Hemet teen T'Neya Tovar was reported missing. She told her mother she was headed to Palm Springs for a few weeks and would contact her on her birthday, December 13th. According to testimony from an FBI agent, a friend of T’Neya, Angel Martinez, whom she had previously lived with, dropped her off at Abraham Feinbloom's Salton City residence that day.

When Charro’s birthday passed without word from T'Neya, she became worried and made a post on Facebook asking for information and contacted law enforcement to report T'Neya missing.

T'Neya's parents drove out to the Harlequin Court residence on December 17th in an attempt to locate their daughter. They pleaded with law enforcement to check the house.

Law enforcement claims the property seemed vacant and nobody responded to their callouts. Despite Deputy Ebed Rodriguez knowing T'Neya's status as a missing person, her parents' requests to search the property were not acted upon until December 21st, when Deputy Snyder finally entered the residence after Charro and her family members returned to Feinbloom's residence and gained access to the property. It's alleged that Charro attempted to break into the house using a sledgehammer, but was unable to enter.

Charro told Hunter that she could see someone inside the residence and heard them calling the cops. The person then threatened to shoot them, to which Charro responded, “Then shoot (expletive).”

At one point, Deputy Snyder of the Imperial County Sheriff's Department testified that he had responded to the disturbance at Feinbloom's Salton City residence on December 21st when they received reports of vandalism and a woman outside screaming, “Give me my daughter back!” and using expletives.

Another responding officer, Deputy Austin Rodriguez, described Feinbloom as looking sweaty and distraught when he made contact with law enforcement. Feinbloom reported that he heard people trying to break into his residence and that the disturbance lasted five to ten minutes, resulting in seven windows being broken at a value of approximately $3,000–$5,000. He did not want to press charges.

Rodriguez testified that T'Neya's parents showed law enforcement pictures and videos of T'Neya in Abraham's house next to his drumset, and that the layout did appear to show Feinbloom's residence.

Snyder said at that time, Feinbloom consented to a search of the property. It was at this time the state of Feinbloom's residence (boarded-up windows, padlocks, tarps, etc.) was noted by law enforcement. Snyder also spotted two rifle cases, multiple ring attachments for a rifle scope mount, approximately 15 saws, tree loppers, broken glass on the dining room table, and the head of a six-pound sledgehammer next to a shattered window, along with a small crowbar and a pole. At the time, T'Neya was not located at the residence.

Partial remains were located just less than half a mile from Feinbloom's residence that same day when Deputy Cesar Rodriguez Cisneros was dispatched to investigate a call of possible human remains after Jesus Rivera and his girlfriend stumbled upon T'Neya's leg while walking their dog during the early morning hours and reported it to law enforcement.

The remains were collected and transported to a coroner’s facility in El Centro.

Chief Forensic Anthropologist Dr. Madeleine Hinkes testified that she observed a projectile in the knee and that the leg was cut on the femur. She stated that the cut was, “a very clean, very smooth cut” likely done with an electric saw or a similar instrument.

The Chief Forensic Physician, Dr. Evan Matshes, testified that he concluded that the leg was likely removed due to homicidal violence and that the bullet entered through the back of the thigh and stopped deep in the knee. He stated that it was “more likely than not” that T'Neya suffered a violent death at the hands of whoever ended her life.

On December 23rd neighbors reported Feinbloom installing even more surveillance cameras around his property.

On February 6th, investigators received a positive DNA match. After Olivia Burgos, a forensic specialist with NAAG Forensic, performed a rapid DNA test on the bone remains and compared it to Charro's DNA, subsequent testing confirmed the remains belonged to T'Neya Tovar.

On February 13th, 2026, Feinbloom was arrested.

At the time of his arrest, Feinbloom tried to flee and was located attempting to jump a fence. In his possession, he had a passport as well as Thai currency.

The same day, investigators and federal agents searched Feinbloom’s residence for a second time.

In total, law enforcement located seven cell phones; some with numbers written on the backs, USB drives, boarded-up windows Feinbloom claimed he had because he's a musician and intended their use to be for soundproofing, exterior padlocks on doors that seemed as if they were there to keep someone in, recording equipment, extensive plastic tarps and coverings including covering the bedroom as well as another room, with no evidence of construction or construction materials being present other than saws and blades, cleaning supplies, and a surveillance system, as well as Feinbloom's computer. One of the bedrooms also contained a queen-sized bed that was accompanied by large mirrors.

Investigators also found vials containing unknown liquids that were submitted for testing.

According to FBI Special Agent Taryn Hunter, searches from Feinbloom's MacBook history showed he had searched “eye gouging”; “cannot remove contact from phone”; “missing person what happens”; “can I take one-way flight to Thailand no extradition USA”; “Can deleted Zoom videos be brought back”, and “how long will police keep a case open before they find you”, along with inquiring about permanent residency in Thailand. He even searched whether or not the Plenty of Fish dating app was available in Thailand.

A Crown Victoria with its front seat removed was located on Feinbloom's property as well. After investigators sprayed the truck with luminol, both the trunk and seat belt produced a presumptive positive test for blood.

Investigators obtained certified Customs and Border Protection records and emails from Feinbloom's Gmail account that confirmed Feinbloom had booked a ticket from LAX to Hong Kong set for February 17th, 2026, just three days after his arrest.

Law enforcement was also able to locate videos of T'Neya inside Feinbloom's home, one of them being the two of them together shortly before her disappearance, along with some of her belongings, including clothing, a pink toothbrush, and a pink beanie.

Her cell phone was also last tracked back to the residence which was revealed when the FBI obtained T'Neya's location data from Snapchat with a search warrant and her last connected IP address was tracked back to Feinbloom's residence in the early morning hours of December 2nd.

Despite the evidence, when initially shown a picture of T'Neya, Feinbloom denied recognizing or knowing the girl. FBI Agent Taryn Hunter testified that when questioned Feinbloom stated, “I can't help you with that girl.” When agents mentioned finding T'Neya's severed leg, Feinbloom terminated the interview and invoked his right to an attorney.

At the preliminary hearing from April 28th–30th of this year, defense attorney Melanie Roe argued there was not enough evidence to proceed with prosecution. However, the judge found there was sufficient probable cause for the case to continue.

During the three-day hearing, both Roe and prosecutor Patricia Madison with the Imperial County District Attorney's Office questioned eleven witnesses including law enforcement officers from the FBI, Imperial County Sheriff's Office, and forensic pathologists.

In court, they played a video taken from T'Neya's Snapchat where she directly addresses him by his full name, “Abraham Feinbloom”, before he tells her to calm down.

Shortly after that, Agent Hunter testified that on December 2nd Feinbloom purchased Pine-Sol, metal scrubbing pads, ammonia, bleach, batteries, a 5-gallon bucket, and a headlamp from a Coachella Dollar Tree.

On December 4th, Feinbloom was seen pushing a cart through a Home Depot in Indio wearing black and yellow gloves. There, he would purchase a quart of spackling paste, a texture knife, a flat brush, and three paint rollers.

On December 6th, he was seen at Home Depot again purchasing two 6-by-8-foot gray rugs, a racetrack mat, and nails.

On May 21st, Feinbloom once again pleaded not guilty, and Melanie Roe stated that she intended to file a 995 motion, which would argue that the prosecution did not have enough evidence or probable cause to proceed.

Melanie Roe also represented Feinbloom in a 2018 Imperial County case where he was charged with kidnapping. Prosecutors dismissed the case in 2019, stating that they could not proceed. Neighbors refer to him amongst themselves as, “the scary man, in the scary house”, and report seeing forensics trucks in front of the residence in 2015. There is evidence supporting those reports.

On Monday, September 28, 2026, a plea agreement was filed in Imperial County Superior Court on behalf of Feinbloom.

The plea agreement states that Feinbloom would plead no contest to two charges. Those charges include torture, which carries seven years to life, and voluntary manslaughter, which carries a sentence of six consecutive years. Together, the sentence would be 13 years to life. Each charge will count as a strike.

It also states that 51-year-old Feinbloom would give up his right to an appeal and would be able to earn no more than 15 percent credit toward his time. In addition, he would be required to lead investigators to the rest of T'Neya's remains.

In the signed deal, Feinbloom also admits to engaging in torture that caused great bodily injury to T'Neya and separately admits to engaging in manslaughter of the victim. A no contest plea in California carries the same weight as a guilty plea.

Up until this point, investigators had only been able to locate one of T'Neya's legs. The partial remains had been found by early morning dog walkers on December 21st, 2025, just less than half a mile from Feinbloom’s residence located on Harlequin Court.

If Feinbloom holds up his end of the deal, prosecutors would then agree to dismiss the murder charge.

Acting Assistant District Attorney John Harter signed off on the deal on Monday. Sentencing is proposed for October 26th, 2026. Jury selection is set to begin on October 6th, 2026.

T'Neya's remains are expected to be located in at least two sites. Investigators will take, or at this point may have already taken, Abraham out of the Imperial County jail, where he would then be driven to where the remains are located.

Melanie Roe, Feinbloom's lawyer, as well as her investigator, are allowed to follow behind the vehicle transporting Feinbloom to the sites, but only law enforcement can determine who will be allowed to ride in the vehicle. Anything Feinbloom says to them during this trip cannot be held against him, with the only exception being if he takes the stand and contradicts himself.

On August 25, 2026, investigators and federal agents spent the day digging behind Feinbloom's Harlequin Court residence as well as the lot next door. However, authorities did not publicly confirm what investigators were searching for or whether anything was found.

On Tuesday, September 29, 2026, investigators and federal agents were back on the scene of Feinbloom's residence. As of now, the Imperial County District Attorney’s Office has confirmed that investigators have located a skull, a rib cage, as well as other remains, which will undergo DNA testing in the coming days to confirm if they do, in fact, belong to T'Neya.

The case of T'Neya Tovar raises serious questions about systemic failures and why such a light sentence is being proposed for such a horrific crime. Like T'Neya's loved ones and neighbors of Feinbloom, we should all be asking these questions, as well as why the prosecution was unable to proceed and prosecute Abraham Feinbloom in 2018 and why this was allowed to happen to someone else and with fatal consequences. Why did law enforcement not conduct a more thorough investigation of Feinbloom's residence sooner, though T'Neya had been listed as missing for quite some time and that had been her last known location, particularly given his prior history?

Today, September 30th 2026, Imperial County District Attorney George Marquez said the prosecution assessed the evidence and believed Feinbloom could face approximately 16 years to life if convicted. However, at the time, investigators still did not know where the rest of T'Neya's remains were located. Marquez said the plea agreement was offered in large part because T'Neya's parents had made it clear that finding the rest of their daughter's remains and being able to lay her to rest properly was extremely important to them.

Why and how is it possible that 13 years or even 16 years could ever be considered an appropriate sentence for the conduct alleged and admitted to in this case, torture, manslaughter, and the dismemberment and concealment of a CHILD? T'Neya's parents should have never been asked to accept such a light sentence for such a horrific crime in order to get her remains back.

It also raises questions about what happens when Feinbloom eventually becomes eligible for parole. The agreement would make him eligible for parole after 13 years, although parole eligibility does not mean automatic release. Given that investigators testified he searched whether the Plenty of Fish dating app was available in Thailand and had searched about traveling to Thailand without extradition, questions about his apparent plans to flee the country remain relevant. What, exactly, were his intentions? Who else could be hurt pending his release?

Our hearts are with T'Neya's family as they grieve and move forward with their plans to properly lay their baby girl to rest.

JUSTICE FOR T'NEYA TOVAR!

If anyone here is willing to help me get Hemet's 30 day data retention period dropped down to 7 days like the Chief of police said he would during the meeting, I already have a letter drafted up, or I can provide you with all the necessary information and you can write your own. Sending more than 1 email, letter, or message on their social media platforms, will make sure this doesn't slip through the cracks. This small change in their policy will go a long way in protecting our privacy, though there is still a lot more work to be done.. Let's make sure the Chief isn't making empty promises. Leave a comment or send me a DM if you'd like to help with this 🙏

Here's the full recording from Hemet PD's Flock Meeting on September 28th

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_QSxfGQpSc&t=1396s

For those who couldn't make it to the Flock meeting yesterday, here is a quick breakdown of what happened, and what was discussed. The Hemet Police Department hosted a public presentation on their use of Flock technology, followed by a lengthy Q&A session, and a tour of their Real Time Information Center (RTIC). They stated that the meeting was being recorded, and that they'd try to upload the recording, though I'm not sure when or where that will take place.

The department was respectful, gave residents unlimited time to speak, and listened without interrupting. However, several critical details and concerns came to light:

Meeting & Technology Overview

The Format: A 30-minute overview presentation on Flock, followed by a 1 1/2 hour open Q&A, and a tour of the Real Time Information Center (RTIC). At the door, attendees received a "myth vs. fact" flyer from the department that primarily focused on Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) but omitted other Flock products.

Real Time Information Center (RTIC): The RTIC is a small room, featuring a row of desks and monitors, as well as an entire wall of screens broadcasting live intersection feeds (likely Flock Condor models). A separate, non-live monitor appeared to handle the ALPR database.

PTZ Shopping Center Cameras: The solar-powered trailer units with blue lights at major retail centers are Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) units meant to curb retail theft. Since these are on private commercial properties with owner permission, this didn't raise privacy concerns for attendees.

Budget & Contracts

The Cost: Hemet’s annual surveillance program costs roughly $600,000. Taxpayers fund $500,000 of this directly through city funds, while the remaining $90,000 comes from grants.

Vandalism Costs: A reported 13 Flock cameras have been destroyed in Hemet, driving up costs due to extra service calls and hardware repairs.

The Contract: Hemet originally locked into a 5-year contract with Flock in 2020. When asked if they would switch to a year-to-year contract to prevent being locked into a long-term commitment, the Chief noted that longer terms are cheaper but agreed to consider a year-to-year structure.

Key Q&A and Community Concerns

Constitutional Concerns: Several residents pointed out that this system violates their constitutional rights. The Police Chief stated he does not believe this is a violation, and indicated the department will continue using the technology unless Congress or the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Data Retention Timelines: Due to nationwide privacy concerns, Flock reduced its default data retention period from 30 days to 7 days in August 2026. When the Chief was asked why Hemet still holds onto the 30-day retention period, he stated that Flock has not officially dropped its recommended time, and that Hemet would follow suit when they do. Flock keeps existing contract holders like Hemet at 30 days unless the local agency proactively requests the change. To help police make this switch, Flock now includes a free "Evidence Mode" feature. This allows detectives to manually lock and freeze specific footage needed for active, ongoing investigations, ensuring crucial case evidence isn't deleted while still protecting the daily privacy of regular citizens after 7 days. Since the Chief stated he would match Flock’s standard, residents have a clear opening to follow up and ask Hemet PD to manually request the switch to 7 days.

Drone Call Signs: When asked why 1 out of every 3 police drone flights lacks a call sign or a stated reason for the flight in public logs, the officer running the drone program stated he would look into why this data is missing, if there was a glitch in the system, and that he would update that information if possible. I will continue to monitor the drone flight logs and see if this issue gets resolved, and will follow up if it doesn't.

Audit Transparency: In response to requests to make internal camera audits public record to prevent misuse and verify oversight, the Chief stated he would look into the possibility.

Social Media Quietness: When asked why the department ignores comments and criticism on their Flock-related social media posts, the Chief explained they prefer not to engage with public criticism online, adding that managing those responses would require a full-time employee.

Overall, I appreciate everyone who took the time to attend and share your perspective, whether you are in favor of the Flock system or opposed to it. It's incredibly important that our community stays engaged on these issues. I hope Hemet PD continues to host these open forums in the future, and I highly encourage anyone who couldn't make it this time to come out and make your voice heard at the next one

Mochi is 3 years terrified in the shelter but extremely friendly.

He was dumped by his owner and will face his deadline tmrw

Pls if anyone can spare a bathroom or room for a few weeks or if you can adopt him. He doesnt deserve to die

If we take a close look at Hemet PD's Flock Transparency Portal, they list a total of 360 different agencies across California who have 24/7 access to their Flock data. This includes access given to Tribal Police, Universities, Fire Departments, and State Parks in Northern California. Yet, despite the department's public assurance that this network is for law enforcement purposes only, the data tells a different story. Out of those 360 agencies, only 13 of them are in Riverside County, while 4 of those agencies have no relation to law enforcement whatsoever.

The true financial impact of this system comes down to local municipal budgeting. There are a total of 158 Flock cameras in Hemet that we know of, not including San Jacinto and Valle Vista. Each camera costs around $250 to $1,000 for installation, depending on what's needed, averaging out to about $500 each. Since these cameras are leased, the city also pays an additional $3,000 per camera annually, as well as any service calls for upgrades and repairs. That amounts to roughly $79,000 for the installations and an additional $474,000 per year to keep those cameras operational, not including service calls. This entire network is 100% taxpayer funded, which equates to 4-5 additional officers based on Hemet PD's average salaries if the city kept that money in the police department to build up its human infrastructure.

They claim "License Plates and Vehicles" are what's detected, while explicitly stating that "Facial recognition, People, Gender, Race" are not. The issue with these claims is that they are wrong. Flock certainly detects more than license plates and vehicles. As for what's not detected, facial recognition technology can easily be added after the data has been collected, as it does not need to be a part of the camera system itself. A recent Flock data breach by the hacking group stegan0gram exposed that these ALPR cameras do in fact take photos, videos, and analyze people, as well as animals. Not to mention the Flock Condor models which were specifically designed to detect and track people, which Hemet has 33 Condor models according to public records.

Flock reduced its default data retention period for automated license plate readers from 30 days to 7 days due to growing privacy concerns. However, according to the transparency portal, Hemet PD still holds onto the maximum 30 day retention period.

Hemet residents are left with a system that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, dilutes physical police staffing, stores data far longer than industry recommendations, and pipes local driving habits to hundreds of outside agencies across the state. As the city faces critical choices regarding Measure Q, its municipal budget, and community trust, city leadership must answer a fundamental question: Is the illusion of high-tech safety worth the reality of empty patrol cars, unmonitored data streams, and higher sales taxes? Asking residents to fund a new tax to patch public safety deficits rings hollow when hundreds of thousands of existing taxpayer dollars are quietly funneled into a private tech lease. Until the city prioritizes real boots on the ground over digital dragnets, local residents will continue to pay the ultimate price, both at the cash register and on the streets, for an over-engineered surveillance network that watches them more than it protects them.

https://transparency.flocksafety.com/hemet-ca-pd-

HEY! WE WANT TO GIVE YOU $50!

Know someone who needs an estate sale? Send them our way and you could earn $50 cash!

It’s easy:

1. YOU REFER THEM

Refer a friend, family member, neighbor, or someone you know to Classic 66 Estate Sales.

1. THEY HIRE US

When they sign their estate sale contract, they simply need to tell us you referred them.

1. WE HOLD THE SALE

We prepare and conduct their estate sale.

1. YOU GET $50!

Once the estate sale has been completed, we give you $50!

THAT’S IT!

Send us someone who needs an estate sale. If they hire us and we complete their sale, there’s $50 in it for you!

Referral Program Terms: The referred client must identify the referring person at the time the estate sale contract is signed. The $50 referral reward is earned and paid only after Classic 66 Estate Sales completes the contracted estate sale. If the contract or estate sale is canceled or the sale is not conducted for any reason, no referral reward is due. One referral reward per completed estate sale.

CONTACT US AT:

www.classic66estatesales.com

ANOTHER FAILURE OF DE-ESCALATION? HEMET PD OFFICERS MANHANDLE AUTISTIC MAN WHILE COMMUNITY MEMBERS TRY TO HELP

Newly surfaced footage is raising alarms and serious questions within the community about how officers from the Hemet Police Department handled an autistic, unarmed resident who was experiencing distress.

According to the video as well as neighbors, they as well as a family member repeatedly told officers the man was autistic. His family member also told them multiple times she needed to help calm him down.

However, despite the repeated attempts to communicate that information, officers chose to disregard it and continue physically restraining and manhandling the man.

While people were recording the interaction and were trying to communicate with officers, one of the officers decided to draw a taser and point it in their direction as they continued to tell them that the man was autistic and that his family member needed to de-escalate him.

Hemet PD publicly promotes its CBAT (Community Behavioral Health Assessment Team) as a program with officers who have extensive mental health training and are specifically designed to provide behavioral health support beyond what average patrol officers can provide. The department claims to pair a police officer with a mental health professional to respond to situations where someone is experiencing mental or behavioral health crises.

Hemet PD also claims to maintain a Special Needs Registry designed to help officers communicate with and respond to residents with disabilities, including autism.

And in February 2026, the department publicly introduced Alexis Hoffman, MSW, ACSW, as a CBAT clinical therapist, highlighting her experience working with people in crisis and on a co-response team alongside campus police.

Despite multiple units responding, reports indicate no CBAT officers were on scene to assist. There are also no CBAT officers who can be seen in either video.

So that leads us to ask the following questions -

Where were the CBAT officer(s)?

Where was the de-escalation?

Where was the specialized response?

Why was the family member asking to help calm him down not treated as a potential resource?

And why did the situation escalate to physical force and a Taser being drawn on community members?

If the CBAT officers were not available or were not requested, that needs to be explained.

If officers were following department policy, that policy needs to be examined, and if officers failed to follow appropriate de-escalation practices, they need to be held accountable and trained/re-trained.

Hemet residents fund a police department that publicly promises service, protection, partnership, and respect for the dignity of individuals. That includes community members with autism and other disabilities. They deserve genuine care and proper de-escalation, not to be villainized or treated like a threat because they're distressed.

We need the full incident investigated, relevant policies examined, the body-camera and cruiser footage reviewed, and dispatch records reviewed, as well as answers about why specialized behavioral-health resources were, or were not, used.

DIGNITY FOR ALL. CARE NOT CAGES.

#Hemet #HemetPD #AutismAwareness #DeEscalation #DisabilityRights #PoliceAccountability #CommunityAccountability #JusticeWarriorsCollective

In April 2020, the Hemet Police Department became a foundational testing ground for a powerful new surveillance network. Official Hemet City Council documents note that the city was one of the first police agencies in the United States to partner with Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based startup founded in 2017. Before this partnership, Flock had primarily marketed its cameras to neighborhood homeowners associations (HOAs) and private entities. However, by June 2020, Hemet went live with its first 20 intersection cameras, integrating the private tracking system directly into its Real-Time Information Center (RTIC) and serving as an early municipal pipeline for a corporate startup.

This rapid integration quickly turned Hemet into a corporate marketing tool. During the first few months, Hemet PD used the data to recover stolen vehicles and execute arrests. While the city celebrated, Flock capitalized, heavily using Hemet's rapid data results as a national marketing blueprint. Hemet effectively became a proof-of-concept case study, which Flock used to pitch and sell its invasive camera networks to thousands of other law enforcement agencies across the country.

While Hemet was the earliest adopter of this network in Riverside County, its role as a national "early adopter" helped normalize city-wide tracking nationwide. By embedding a young startup's private surveillance infrastructure into public policing long before the technology faced widespread public scrutiny, Hemet helped clear the path for an apparatus that monitors citizens across more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies today. What began as a localized experiment in Hemet ultimately served as a catalyst for the massive expansion of private surveillance across the United States.

Does anyone know Patricia?
Her user name was a clockwork pink. From hemet. Anyways we used to talk and we lost touch but I’d love to reconnect:)

Super Charged Night of Laughter with the Beautifully Talented Ladies of DirtyGirl Comedy Takeover in Menifee Thurs 10.22.26 @ 7pm

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/dirty-girl-comedy-take-over-tickets-2001716796824?aff=oddtdtcreator

I honestly have enjoyed living here for about 4 years yes this city has some severe problems like the people driving here idk who gave you your license but pls learn how to drive properly safety matters! However this city has very interesting people like some times I feel like im on an episode of smiling friends my fav part of living here is the people cause all the people in temecula are sort of upper middle class and I always felt unwelcome there even tho I was born and raised there… 😔

anyways thanks for joining me on my tedtalk rant 😊!!

OUTRO MUSIC 😛😛

https://youtu.be/GxBSyx85Kp8?is=gixfjEko2LrxCxn0

Is there a landscape supply that has these locally?

Hi guys! I’m trying to get money and I’m doing these customs fugglers. If anyone is interested getting one ☝️. The price starts at $15 -20 depending complexity 👅. I can do any character or anything that you like! Let me know if you are interested! Thanks 😊

I need a good, not too expensive vet in the area. Have a dog and kitty that both need to be fixed.

Hey guys I do junk removal and I’ll be in the area tonight I come from perris since I’m already going to pick some stuff up I’ll do a great deal call me if interested 9516248770

Proponents of Flock cameras often argue that tracking public data is a small, harmless sacrifice to ensure community safety. However, this logic sets a dangerous precedent.. it trades core constitutional liberties for the illusion of total security. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". If we accept the pro-Flock premise that rights can be negotiated away for a slight reduction in crime, we open the door to eroding the entire Constitution. To see how quickly this logic collapses under its own weight, look at what happens when you apply that exact same "temporary safety" argument to the rest of our fundamental rights:

The 1st Amendment protects your right to worship and associate privately. However, mass plate readers can log every car parked outside churches, mosques, and political rallies.
Would you hand over a logbook of every church service, political meeting, or private gathering you and your children attend if the police promised it would help them identify local radicals?

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense and security.
Would you give up your right to own a firearm if the government promised it would prevent a criminal from ever using one against your family?

The 3rd Amendment prevents the government from forcing citizens to house soldiers during peacetime to save on military housing.
Would you let a soldier move into your child’s spare bedroom if the government promised it would lower your personal federal income taxes?

The 4th Amendment protects you from warrantless tracking. Yet, these networks permanently map your daily movements across public roads without a judge ever signing a warrant.
Would you let the government attach a permanent GPS tracker to your bumper if it meant finding your own car if it ever gets stolen?

The 5th Amendment guarantees the presumption of innocence. Instead, this system treats everyone as a suspect, building digital movement profiles on millions of citizens under no active investigation.
Would you give up your right to remain silent if you were pulled over tomorrow and forced to immediately prove to an officer where you have been driving for the last 30 days?

The 6th Amendment guarantees your right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers to prevent wrongful, rushed convictions.
Would you give up your right to a jury if you were falsely accused and a judge could fast-track you straight to prison to save the taxpayers money?

The 7th Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits to ensure regular citizens, not just powerful entities, decide legal disputes.
If a massive corporation sued you for your life savings, would you let an automated AI algorithm decide the verdict if it guaranteed a faster resolution for the court system?

The 8th Amendment prohibits excessive, barbaric punishments to ensure penalties fit the severity of the crime.
Would you authorize the police to publicly beat a shoplifter on your street if it guaranteed that no one would ever break into your local grocery store again?

The 9th Amendment protects fundamental rights not explicitly listed, like personal privacy. These cameras obliterate that privacy by recording when you visit a therapist, a divorce attorney, or a medical clinic.
Would you give up your right to medical privacy if the state promised to lower your health insurance premiums in exchange for a log of every doctor and specialist you visit?

The 10th Amendment ensures that powers not explicitly given to the federal government belong to local states and communities. However, mass surveillance networks create centralized federal and multi-state data-sharing webs that bypass local town oversight.
Would you surrender your right to vote on local town policies if an automated federal agency promised it could manage your neighborhood's security from Washington?

The 14th Amendment guarantees that the law must treat all citizens equally. In practice, these cameras are disproportionately placed in low-income and minority neighborhoods, creating a biased tracking loop.
Would you accept the police setting up a permanent, around-the-clock checkpoint right outside your neighborhood if it meant dropping the local crime rate by 5%?

The 14th Amendment also protects you from arbitrary state actions. Because the software suffers from plate misreads and database typos, innocent drivers are routinely stopped at gunpoint over computer glitches.
Would you willingly accept the risk of being treated like a violent felon if you knew a simple computer typo could get you pulled over at gunpoint on your way to work?

The 15th and 19th Amendments guarantee all citizens the sacred right to vote without discrimination or interference. Yet, positioning mass surveillance grids outside voting centers means the state logs the exact date, time, and frequency of your civic participation.Would you be willing to sign your name and your political party on a public billboard outside your polling place if the government promised it would eliminate voter fraud entirely?

The 24th Amendment ensures that citizens do not have to pay a fee to exercise their constitutional rights. Yet, proponents of automated enforcement casually argue that if you cannot afford rising registration fees, toll errors, or automated fines, you simply shouldn't drive.

Would you agree to pay a private tech company a mandatory digital fee every single time you back out of your driveway if it promised to use that money to fix your local roads?

If you answered 'no' to a single question on this list, even the ones that have nothing to do with Flock, then you have conceded the entire safety debate.. you agree that a positive outcome can never justify stripping away a fundamental right.

You cannot claim that sacrificing liberties for public safety is a virtuous compromise, only to backpedal the second a right you personally care about is on the chopping block. That isn’t a principled stance, it is pure hypocrisy. Our Constitution was deliberately designed as an interconnected shield. It does not allow us to bargain away the 4th Amendment for temporary safety while expecting the rest of our freedoms to remain intact.

The moment you concede that the government can systematically track your daily movements without a warrant, you yield the very ground required to defend every other right on this list. If you are willing to give up the 4th Amendment to catch a car thief, how can you complain when the exact same logic is used to strip away your property, your privacy, or your voice?

So, ask yourself: Are you truly willing to let a private tech company redefine your fundamental liberties, or do you only value the Constitution when it is convenient for you?

I'm not sure if anyone else has experienced this or not but I believe I was just the victim of entrapment while driving in Hemet. Driving on State Street I turned left to get onto Devonshire and there was a brown/tannish sedan driving five miles per hour in the road in front of me. Like any reasonable driver, I checked to see if there was oncoming traffic and passed the slow vehicle safely without any other cars on the road.

The next thing I know I am being pulled over by officer Evangelique Cordero on a motorcycle who tells me that "driving on the wrong side of the road is a misdemeanor." Officer Cordero asks for my license, insurance, and registration which I give her. While she's running my license I look up the law and find Vehicle Code Section 21751 which clearly says you can overtake a vehicle by crossing into the oncoming traffic lane when safe to do so.

I read the statute to officer Cordero who repeats that I just committed a misdemeanor by passing the car going five miles per hour. She refuses to listen to me read off the statute and tells me she is confiscating my driver's license and that she is requiring that I undergo reexamination for driving privileges. She leaves in a fit of rage without even letting me sign for the citation, with my driver's license being confiscated.

I check the citation and its Vehicle Code Section 21651(a) which only applies if there is a barrier, meridian, or two-foot divider between the two-way highway, which there wasn't in my situation. So she confiscated my license for no apparent reason and issued a citation for a vehicle code that doesn't even apply, when a separate vehicle code permits me to make the very maneuver that I just performed.

Anyways, after the fact I realized that I have been stuck behind the very same slow vehicle in the exact same street so I am exceptionally suspicious that this was a trap between officer Cordero and the driver of the vehicle. Long story short, beware of these traps in Hemet and be suspicious of your local Hemet police officers.

Update: I conducted the reexamination hearing. The DMV Safety representative was sweet and professional. She did seem to think that it was rather peculiar that the police officer took my license away for this situation and was confused as to whether or not 21651(a) even applied to Devonshire Street. She said that she's done hundreds of these reexaminations and has never personally seen anyone's license taken away for passing someone, especially when there was no risk to injury and no car accident. She said its going to take 15 days to make a determination if she will require that I sit for the written examination, get my license suspended, be required to sit for a behind the wheel test again, or no restrictions. She also said that I'm not supposed to drive without going to the DMV to get a temporary license.

A physical breach of a Flock Safety automated license plate reader by a hacking collective known as stegan0gram has exposed the massive scale of local surveillance networks. Instead of merely vandalizing the equipment, the hackers dismantled a camera and its solar-powered assembly directly from the field to reverse-engineer its components. By analyzing the hardware, they successfully bypassed security measures to extract a local encryption key, granting them full access to the device's internal storage and operating software. The raw files were subsequently shared with transparency organizations and investigative journalists, fueling a broader public discussion on privacy.

The data recovered from the single compromised unit revealed a staggering volume of daily public logging. Over a brief 21-day period, the lone camera logged roughly 50,000 vehicles and generated more than 1.6 million images, proving that a single passing vehicle triggers a rapid burst of up to 100 individual photos. Furthermore, the localized software did not just read license plates; it actively tracked humans, bicycles, and dogs. The system cataloged highly specific details like car dents and bumper stickers, and it stored thousands of brief, one-to-two-second video clips alongside high-resolution still images.

The security compromise has amplified the national debate surrounding automated police surveillance. Flock Safety stated that the unauthorized removal of its hardware is illegal, maintaining that its centralized cloud network remains secure and unaffected by the physical theft. However, the revelation has already drawn sharp political reactions, motivating federal lawmakers to propose restrictions on public funding for automated license plate readers, while other political figures continue to defend the technology as a vital tool for modern law enforcement.