Councilmembers Chelsea Byers and John Erickson want to turn off every license plate camera in West Hollywood because the data might, theoretically, hypothetically, despite multiple technical safeguards, reach ICE. They have not asked a single public question about the $10 million they are paying an actual ICE contractor to walk West Hollywood’s streets.
Watch John Erickson GUSH over ICE contractor Allied Universal
On February 2, Councilmembers Chelsea Byers and John Erickson led a unanimous vote to review West Hollywood’s contract with Flock Group over concerns that 39 automated license plate cameras could somehow feed data to federal immigration enforcement. Flock responded that it does not work with ICE, that each customer owns 100% of its data, that it disabled its national lookup feature for California agencies, blocked out-of-state searches, and implemented automatic filters that flag and block immigration-related queries. California law already restricts ALPR data sharing with federal agencies.
Still. Byers and Erickson want the cameras reviewed. Maybe turned off. Better safe than sorry.
Meanwhile, every single day, more than 30 Allied Universal Security Ambassadors walk beats across six zones covering the entire city. They radio descriptions of individuals to the Sheriff’s station. They log every interaction into Allied Universal’s own corporate reporting software. The council pays them $10.1 million to do this.
Allied Universal is the largest private security company in North America. Its wholly owned subsidiary, G4S Secure Solutions, holds roughly $1 billion in Department of Homeland Security contracts and provides armed guards, vehicles, and personnel for transporting immigrants in ICE custody, including in the Los Angeles area.
Occupied West Hollywood has obtained the city’s executed contract and RFP. We’ve read the staff report. We’ve reviewed the procurement record. And we have some questions.
Did Chelsea Lee Byers ask…
…whether the company she voted to pay $10.1 million has active contracts with ICE?
No. She did not. The staff report listed Allied’s municipal and county government clients. It did not mention G4S Secure Solutions, Allied’s wholly owned subsidiary. It did not mention the $3.6 million ICE delivery order awarded to G4S for armed detention officer transportation in the “Los Angeles area of responsibility” awarded December 28, 2024, four months before West Hollywood issued the RFP. Nobody asked. Nobody looked.
…whether cameras are really more dangerous than people?
Flock’s cameras sit on poles. They read license plates. They have a software toggle that blocks federal access. They are governed by California law restricting ALPR data sharing with federal agencies. They cannot follow someone into a bar. They cannot describe what someone looks like. They cannot radio a synopsis of an individual to the Sheriff’s station.
Allied Universal’s Security Ambassadors can do all of those things. The city’s RFP requires them to. And unlike cameras, they are not covered by a single California statute restricting what they share, with whom, or when.
…whether Allied’s ambassadors are covered by California’s sanctuary law?
No. And they’re not. California’s Values Act (SB 54) restricts state and local law enforcement agencies from cooperating with immigration enforcement. The ILRC’s legal advisory confirms this applies only to government agencies, not private contractors. And the city’s own contract (Section 5) designates Allied as an independent contractor, explicitly not an agent of the city. The contract itself establishes the gap Byers says she’s worried about. She just established it for the wrong vendor.
Did John Erickson ask…
…whether ICE can subpoena Security Ambassador patrol data?
He did not. But yes, it can. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(d), ICE possesses administrative subpoena power, no judge required, to compel records from any person or company. Field Office Directors can sign them. Refusal is enforceable by federal court order. DHS recently subpoenaed Google, Meta, Reddit, and Discord for the identities of anonymous users who criticized ICE online. Those companies have no DHS contracts. Allied Universal has $59 million worth.
Flock’s cameras have technical safeguards against federal data access. The council’s contract with Allied Universal has zero.
…whether Allied Universal has any policy preventing its employees from cooperating with ICE?
He did not. Occupied West Hollywood checked Allied’s corporate governance disclosures, employment materials, and investor filings. We found no such policy. Under the private search doctrine (United States v. Jacobsen), if an ambassador sees something and voluntarily reports it to a federal agent, those observations are admissible in federal proceedings without a warrant, a subpoena, or a data-sharing agreement. No California law prohibits it. No city ordinance prohibits it. No clause in the 70-page contract prohibits it.
The cameras have a toggle. The ambassadors don’t.
…whether the 70-page contract contains the word “immigration”?
It does not.
…whether the RFP asked bidders about federal agency relationships?
It did not.
…whether other cities rejected this exact company for this exact reason five weeks before the contract went live?
Oakland did. In September 2025, the Oakland City Council declined to approve a $45 million Allied Universal contract after discovering the G4S-ICE connection. Oakland’s Sanctuary City Contracting and Investment Ordinance treats subsidiaries as extensions of the parent corporation. G4S = Allied = disqualified.
Erickson did not raise this before voting yes on August 18.
Did either of them ask…
…whether the company also makes ankle monitors marketed for “Illegal Immigration Control”?
Allied purchased Attenti in 2022, an electronic ankle monitoring company offering GPS tracking, geofencing, and facial recognition. Attenti explicitly lists “Illegal Immigration Control” as an application. Allied merged it with G4S Monitoring Technologies to form Allied Universal Electronic Monitoring Services.
West Hollywood is paying a company that makes ankle monitors for immigration enforcement to patrol its sanctuary city. Did either councilmember ask about this? No. They were busy with the cameras.
…whether any of this information was publicly available before the vote?
It was. All of it. The ACLU’s Solano v. ICE settlement barring G4S from making immigration arrests in Los Angeles had been public since July 2022, three years before the vote. The PESP detention tracker profiling Allied’s G4S ownership was published December 2024. In July 2025, one month before the council’s August 18 vote, both Jacobin and The Lever published investigations explicitly naming G4S as an Allied subsidiary holding $59 million in DHS contracts. A Google search would have surfaced it. Nobody Googled.
…whether West Hollywood’s confidentiality clause protects patrol data from ICE?
It doesn’t. Section 20 of the contract prevents Allied from sharing city data without consent. It says nothing about Allied’s own observational data, what ambassadors see, whom they engage, what descriptions they radio to dispatch. All interactions are logged in Allied’s own corporate reporting software. Not the city’s system. Allied retains it on Allied’s infrastructure. The clause protects the city’s data from Allied. It does not protect Allied’s data from ICE.
…whether the generic “comply with all applicable laws” clause helps or hurts them?
It hurts them. Section 9 requires Allied to comply with “all applicable federal, state, and local laws.” Allied also operates under the Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation, which requires cooperation with DHS investigations. FAR 52.203-13 requires “full cooperation” with government agencies. These are applicable federal laws. The clause the city presumably included for its own protection may actually require Allied to cooperate with the very agencies the council says it’s worried about.
WeHo’s Report Card
| Flock (Cameras) | Allied Universal (People) | |
|---|---|---|
| Active ICE contracts | None | $59 million |
| Subsidiary that transports ICE detainees | No | Yes (G4S) |
| Covered by California sanctuary law | Yes | No |
| Federal data access toggle | Disabled | None |
| Contract mentions immigration | Unknown | No |
| Can describe an individual to law enforcement | No | Yes, required to |
| Subject to ICE administrative subpoena | Yes (but data restricted by CA law) | Yes (no restrictions) |
| Rejected by Oakland over ICE ties | No | Yes |
| Council review requested | Yes | No |
| Annual cost to city | ~$500K | $10.1 million |
Chelsea Byers and John Erickson wanted to protect West Hollywood from ICE. They voted to review a camera vendor with no federal contracts, no ICE subsidiary, and multiple technical safeguards, while paying $10 million to a company that transports ICE detainees in the Los Angeles area, markets ankle monitors for immigration enforcement, and operates under federal regulations that incentivize cooperation with the very agency they say they’re afraid of.
They asked all the questions about the cameras. They asked none about the people.
Maybe they should start.
What planet do they live on with such ignorance and stupid stupidity and lack of integrity???!
Let’s vote them off the council and let’s get cameras in the city like Beverly Hills has which monitor and help that CITY deter crime and capture criminals that enact crime.
Why don’t they listen to their own sheriffs department, which have been pleading for cameras to help assist in their safety efforts for years now?
West Hollywood elected officials need to get their head out of his a**es and protect its citizens and stop this stupidity
Sincerely,
A 40 year long resident in the City of West Hollywood.