Editor’s note: This article is part of ALPRs in Focus, a Police1 editorial series examining how agencies use automated license plate reader technology, the investigative value it can provide, and current concerns surrounding privacy, data access, retention and misuse.
Automated license plate readers are not new to policing. Law enforcement agencies have used them for decades to capture license plate data, helping investigators locate missing people, recover stolen vehicles and identify vehicles connected to crimes.
But over the past several months, the technology has been pushed to the forefront of a national debate over privacy, police access and the collection of vehicle location data. Residents have packed public meetings to demand cameras be removed. Cities have canceled contracts, state officials have ordered reviews, and members of Congress from both parties have proposed limits on how ALPR systems are funded and accessed. Cameras have also been cut down, spray-painted and set on fire.
Police leaders continue to defend ALPRs as critical investigative tools, with some describing them as among the most consequential crime-solving technologies introduced in a generation. Opponents see a sprawling surveillance network capable of tracking where drivers go, often without their knowledge.
Flock — one of the largest ALPR providers — has been at the center of much of the controversy because of the size and reach of its network, but the debate extends to ALPR technology as a whole. In communities that have considered replacing Flock, residents have raised questions about how long vehicle location data is kept, who can search it, and whether changing vendors changes the underlying surveillance.
With lawmakers considering new restrictions and communities reconsidering contracts, agencies that keep ALPRs are increasingly being asked to answer questions such as: Who can search the data? How long should it be kept? Who can it be shared with? And what happens when an employee misuses it?
Governors, attorneys general and Congress call for guardrails
The concerns are drawing responses from elected officials across the political spectrum.
Calls for clearer rules are also coming from within the ALPR industry, where some providers have started advocating for standards that would apply regardless of which company supplies the cameras.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis called the growing use of Flock cameras and other ALPRs “out of control” and said state lawmakers should establish protections for Floridians.
“I’m all about having law enforcement have tools to be able to hold criminals accountable,” DeSantis said. “But I don’t want to have this become a surveillance state.”
DeSantis said he did not support eliminating the technology but wanted limits on the collection, retention and use of data involving people who are not suspected of crimes.
Following those comments, the Florida Department of Transportation suspended current and future approvals for ALPRs on state-maintained roads and gave local agencies 30 days to remove cameras already in place.
The order drew pushback from Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner, who said he would pursue legislation to restore local control over the roads. Meiner said ALPRs have helped police track fleeing suspects, recover guns and arrest violent offenders.
Despite the state funding pause, Dallas officials are pushing to preserve the city’s Flock network. All but three City Council members opposed a proposal to eliminate $1.5 million in city funding for the cameras during a nonbinding vote.
Dallas police defended the technology as an important investigative tool, telling council members it had helped solve 14 murder cases this year. The department plans to keep more than 300 cameras, even as it deactivates 321 others that had relied on state grant funding.
In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered state agencies to pause funding for Flock cameras.
Abbott described the funding pause as part of a broader effort to rein in the cameras’ use across the state.
“They’re going to be required to be used responsibly if they’re used at all,” he said.
In Arizona, Attorney General Kris Mayes announced a statewide review of Flock and other license plate reader systems. Her office will examine how agencies use the cameras, who has access to the data, and whether the systems raise privacy or constitutional concerns.
“Arizonans are rightfully concerned about the documented examples of the misuse of this technology as well as how it affects their privacy rights,” Mayes said in a written statement. “I share those concerns. We need a statewide approach to this issue.”
At the federal level, U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has opened an investigation into Flock’s national network and the safeguards used to protect vehicle data. In an Aug. 26 letter to Flock CEO Garrett Langley, Hawley asked Langley for information about data-sharing practices, audits and reported misuse by law enforcement users.
Three House proposals would go further by limiting federal funding and access.
An amendment introduced in May by U.S. Reps. Scott Perry, R-Pa., and Jesús “Chuy” García, D-Ill., would prohibit recipients of federal highway funding from using automated license plate readers for anything other than toll collection.
Because many state and local governments receive federal funding through Title 23, the restriction could force agencies to remove ALPR systems or limit how they are used.
A second proposal, the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act, was introduced in July by U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn.
The bill would prohibit federal agencies from purchasing, deploying, operating, accessing, or contracting for automated systems that identify or track people through ALPRs, facial recognition, biometric identification, or other technology used for persistent surveillance. It would also prevent state and local governments from using federal funds to purchase those systems.
The bill specifically identifies Flock cameras as one example of the systems it would cover.
A third bipartisan House bill, the “Flock-Off Act,” would prohibit federal money from being used to purchase, operate or support ALPRs and biometric camera systems.
The proposal would not prevent agencies from operating locally funded ALPR systems. It includes exceptions for certain cameras used near the U.S. border and systems used solely for toll collection.
The conversation around ALPRs has also reached the White House. President Donald Trump, who said in August that his administration was studying the use of Flock cameras, voiced support for them during a Sept. 13 exchange with reporters aboard Air Force One.
Asked whether he would back the cameras because law enforcement agencies say they help, Trump responded, “I sort of like them because of that. Because of law enforcement.”
“Some people don’t. They think it’s an infringement,” Trump added. “But I like them.”
Trump did not announce a federal policy or say whether the administration had completed its review.
Rekor Systems, an ALPR provider, called for a national industry standard on ALPR technology. The proposal suggests law enforcement agencies shouldrequireplates thatdon’tmatch an authorized list — like NCIC records or Amber Alerts — to be encrypted rather than left searchable, with access limited to a valid warrant.
“We should stop arguing over whether ALPR should exist and establish clear rules for how it must operate,” Rekor CEO Robert Berman said.
Police defend ALPR results as contract cancellations spread
Law enforcement leaders across the country say ALPRs give investigators visibility that can shorten the time it takes to locate a suspect or vehicle.
Marion (Ohio) Police Chief Jay McDonald called Flock “the biggest crime-fighting tool of my career” and warned that losing it would be “a serious blow to public safety.” In Georgia, Statesboro Interim Police Chief Jared Akins called the technology a “game-changing tool.” St. Johns County, Florida, Sheriff Rob Hardwick put the concern more bluntly: “I do not want to be that community that cannot solve crime.”
Recent cases show why some agencies believe the technology has proved its worth.
In April, the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office in Florida used its Flock system to verify the location of a fugitive accused of threatening to carry out a mass shooting at a Louisiana festival.
Deputies arrested Christopher Gillum at a Destin hotel and recovered a handgun and approximately 200 rounds of ammunition, according to the sheriff’s office.
“This disturbing case highlights how technology like Flock and strong partnerships between agencies can help prevent potential violence and bring wanted fugitives into custody safely before a tragedy could occur,” Sheriff Eric Aden said.
A Police Executive Research Forum after-action assessment of the Brown University mass shooting that killed two students found that Flock data played a key role in identifying the shooter.
After investigators developed a description of a gray Nissan with Florida plates, a Flock search narrowed thousands of possible vehicles to two within minutes. Investigators ruled out one using surveillance footage and timeline analysis, then traced the remaining vehicle to a Boston rental agency, helping them identify the shooter.
PERF called the LPR data “indispensable” but noted that officers treated the results as investigative leads and corroborated them before taking action. The report recommended that Providence maintain its LPR systems while continuing to enforce its existing controls over access and accountability.
Even as police leaders point to those investigative successes, a growing number of communities are reconsidering their ALPR contracts.
More than 90 cities had moved to cancel or reject Flock systems as of Aug. 26, The Hill reported, citing the anti-surveillance group DeFlock. The figure includes different outcomes, from contracts that were terminated or allowed to expire to proposed systems that were rejected.
The pullback has reached both small towns and major cities.
In Saranac Lake, New York, a village of fewer than 5,000 people, residents filled the village board room and packed the hallway before trustees voted 4-1 to terminate a $72,000 Flock contract. The board also prohibited future agreements with the company, according to NCPR.
The Los Angeles Police Department allowed its three-year agreement for 138 Flock cameras to expire in July, citing concerns about privacy and data ownership. LAPD continues to use ALPR technology from Motorola Solutions andAxon, and remained in discussions with Flock over revised contract terms.
Tempe, Arizona, shut off all 33 of its Flock cameras and said it would end the contract without seeking a replacement. Mayor Corey Woods acknowledged that the cameras had helped officers but said the risk of misuse was too great.
“We have to be able to provide public safety in a way that maintains the trust of our community,” Woods said. “For Tempe, that means taking these cameras down.”
Pinal County Sheriff Ross Teeple, who had previously supported Flock, announced that the county would not renew its contract when it expires in September. Teeple raised Fourth Amendment concerns about searches that could be used to build records of residents’ movements.
He acknowledged that the cameras had assisted with AMBER Alerts, Silver Alerts and anti-smuggling operations, but said residents’ concerns had changed his position.
“We are governed by the consent of the governed,” Teeple told KTAR.
New Mexico has also seen a series of departures. Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he was canceling three Flock contracts, including an agreement covering five ALPR cameras. The city of Grants announced separately that it would terminate its contract, saying the benefits did not sufficiently align with the cost or the city’s approach to public safety.
Allen said he had lost confidence in the company’s data protections and was concerned about outside agencies using New Mexico data for purposes his office would not support. He plans to look for another vendor.
“I’m not looking at getting rid of the technology as a whole,” Allen said, according to KUNM. “It’s the vendor I have a problem with. It’s a very useful, powerful tool, but it needs to have guardrails and be used correctly.”
In Texas, the Pflugerville City Council unanimously voted not to renew its Flock agreement and shut off 28 cameras. The decision followed the discovery that outside organizations had conducted nearly 1.6million searches of Pflugerville camera data over six months, KVUE reported.
Records showed 459 outside organizations had searched the data.
Mayor Doug Weiss said the decision came down to maintaining both public safety and public trust. The city is now developing a data-governance policy for surveillance technology.
Other agencies are keeping ALPR technology but changing vendors.
Denver replaced 111 Flock cameras with 50 Axon readers after months of discussion about privacy and data sharing. Police Chief Ron Thomas described the move as a compromise that would allow investigators to continue using ALPR technology while reducing the city’s surveillance footprint.
“We understood the privacy and protection concerns with Flock, and so all of those have been satisfied with this new Axon contract,” Thomas told Denver7.
Boston is turning to Motorola Solutions for LPR technology, while Schenectady, New York, recently installed 14 fixed Axon Outpost cameras.
The new Axon readers join six Genetec systems and four readers from NDI Recognition Systems already used in Schenectady. Police said the cameras will support criminal investigations and efforts to locate stolen vehicles and missing people, the Times Union reported.
Salina, Kansas, is also using multiple ALPR vendors. The department received a $150,000 federal grant to purchase 22 Leonardo cameras after previously installing 22 Flock cameras.
Misuse cases put agency oversight under scrutiny
A series of internal investigations has intensified questions about who may search ALPR databases and how closely those searches are monitored.
A national USA Today review published Aug. 28 found that at least 19 police and sheriff’s office employees in five states had been arrested, fired, placed on administrative leave, or investigated during the previous two months over potentially improper or illegal Flock searches.
Reporters analyzed more than 75 million searches spanning 3and a half years and involving users from more than 6,300 agencies. The analysis identified 240 users whose frequent or persistent searches stood out. USA Today contacted agencies employing 67 of those users, and about half confirmed or opened investigations.
A Washington Post investigation found at least 50 law enforcement officers across the country had been charged with or accused of misusing ALPR systems.
Demands for transparency have also led to new publicly accessible tools. Have I Been Flocked? compiles Flock audit logs obtained through public records requests and allows drivers to check whether their plate appeared in a known search. The database is incomplete and does not show whether a vehicle was photographed by a camera.
In Lufkin, Texas, Officer Zachary Anthony Klein was indicted on 100 felony counts of misuse of official information.
Publicly obtained records showed Klein conducted approximately 45,318 searches over210 days. One license plate was searched 3,470 times over the course of a year.
A second Lufkin officer was placed on administrative leave, and Police Chief Travis Brazil suspended the department’s use of Flock. The department is conducting an internal investigation, and Brazil asked the Texas Rangers to conduct an independent review.
Other investigations have found similarly extensive use of the system.
An Ohio dispatcher resigned after investigators found more than 20,000 unauthorized ALPR searches. A Colleton County, South Carolina, lieutenant was fired after an audit found approximately 2,700 unauthorized searches on himself and other deputies.
Agencies have responded to those cases in different ways.
Kenosha County, Wisconsin, kept its Flock system after a former deputy allegedly used it to track a coworker, but implemented additional safeguards.
The sheriff’s office expanded auditing authority so any sworn supervisor can review searches, began requiring a legitimate law enforcement reason and case number for each search and cut its retention period from 30 days to seven. All sworn personnel were also required to complete additional training.
“Flock Safety technology is an important public safety tool, and its use is limited to legitimate law enforcement purposes,” Sheriff David Zoerner said. “Any misuse of that system is unacceptable.”
In response to the privacy concerns, Flock announced changes to its platform in early August, including a recommended seven-day retention period, mandatory case codes, automated reviews of unusual search activity and account lockouts pending administrative review.
The company said customers own the information collected by their cameras and control how it is shared. Existing customers may retain longer storage periods approved by their communities.
Flock has also noted that the documented cases represent a small share of its approximately 140,000 active users. Privacy advocates argue that the cases remain significant because they expose how vehicle location data can be used for personal surveillance without adequate oversight.
ALPR cameras become targets of vandalism
As opposition has grown, ALPR cameras have been cut down, spray-painted, burned and otherwise damaged.
The vandalism has also affected active investigations.
Houston Police Chief Noe Diaz said three cameras near the reported attempted kidnapping of a third-grade student had been cut down before investigators could use them to identify the suspect’s vehicle.
Police were searching for a man accused of trying to lure the student into a red sedan near Memorial Elementary School. Diaz said the missing cameras left investigators unable to track the vehicle.
“We’re kind of hindered by that, but we’re still working on it,” Diaz told residents during a community meeting.
In Chester County, South Carolina, three 19-year-olds were arrested after investigators said they cut down a Flock camera pole and struck its battery pack with a hammer until it exploded and caught fire. The sheriff’s office estimated more than $5,000 in damage.
The three teens were charged with criminal conspiracy and malicious injury to personal property, WBTV reported.
In Florida, the Oviedo Police Department responded to repeated vandalism by installing 3D-printed decoy cameras.
Officers arrested a man accused of cutting down one of the decoys with pruning shears.
In Luray, Virginia, a search for someone accused of destroying Flock cameras escalated into a pursuit and exchange of gunfire.
Police received the first report at about 10:15 p.m. that a camera was on fire. Additional cameras were damaged, prompting officers and deputies to monitor those that remained.
A Page County sheriff’s deputy spotted a man allegedly damaging another camera and attempted a traffic stop. Police said the suspect fled, then stopped during the pursuit and opened fire with a rifle, striking the deputy’s vehicle multiple times.
The suspect later surrendered and was charged with attempted aggravated murder, a firearms offense and damaging critical infrastructure. No one was injured.
“Vehicles can be replaced, the cameras can be replaced, but the human lives can’t,” Interim Luray Police Chief Lonnie Foster told WHSV.
Sheriff changes tone after viral defense of Flock
The vandalism has also forced some law enforcement leaders to publicly defend how their agencies use the cameras.
Lumpkin County, Georgia, Sheriff Stacy Jarrard initially released a strongly worded video after someone destroyed a Flock camera near a park. The sheriff’s office offered a $1,000 reward for information.
Jarrard said the camera had been installed to help alert authorities when registered sex offenders entered the park.
“I hope you’re happy with this. It was to keep our kids safe,” he said in the original Facebook video.
The video received more than 30,000 comments, many questioning the system’s privacy protections and how the data could be accessed.
Jarrard later softened his tone, saying he had listened to people who respectfully explained their concerns. He did not end the county’s use of Flock but said Georgia lawmakers should consider statewide policies, training and other safeguards.
“Where does the data go? Who has control of the data?” Jarrard said. “I’m being told what happens with the data, but we need more safeguards in motion.”
He said the issue extended beyond one company as law enforcement continues adopting new technology.
“Do we just dismiss this camera system, or do we implement measures in it that makes it where more people can trust it?” he asked.
Why many agencies are keeping ALPRs
Despite the cancellations and criticism, many law enforcement leaders say ALPRs remain valuable investigative tools.
Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper is among the law enforcement leaders pushing back on calls to abandon the technology. Speaking after a recent homicide, he pointed to how quickly the system helped deputies locate a vehicle without requiring personnel to search roadway by roadway.
Witnesses helped deputies identify the suspect’s vehicle, and Cooper said an ALPR alert located it traveling on Highway 50.
“Seven minutes after the call came in, we got a Flock hit on the suspect’s vehicle,” Cooper said. “It helped us solve the murder today.”
Cooper said his department does not have the personnel to search every roadway for a vehicle or continually monitor drivers from behind a computer.
“I don’t have the resources or the manpower. We don’t have it,” Cooper said.
He described ALPRs as one tool among many used during an investigation. Cooper also pushed back on political arguments surrounding the technology, saying his focus is on criminal investigations.
“I care about catching bad guys, criminals,” Cooper said. “That’s our job.”
In a separate video statement, Cooper disputed claims that ALPR data is used to target people based on their political beliefs, religion, reproductive health decisions or immigration status.
“LPR data has helped save many lives and solve crimes. You don’t throw it out,” Cooper said.
Fort Worth Police Chief Eddie Garcia pointed to how the city’s Flock cameras have assisted in more than 2,200 arrests since 2020.
Garcia told WFAA that officers who use the system are also subject to oversight. The department is reviewing its Flock policy and auditing practices to ensure safeguards are in place and identify potential violations.
“I’ve been in law enforcement for over 34 years. I’ve been through the dark ages of law enforcement,” said Chief Garcia. “This is an invaluable tool that brings justice to our victims. It assists my officers, and it is helping reduce violent crime not only in the city of Fort Worth, but nationally.”
In Austin, a neighboring agency’s ALPR system also became part of the city’s debate over the technology after three suspects allegedly fired shots at 12 locations, injuring four people in May.
Austin had turned off its Flock network in 2025. The nearby Manor Police Department used its system to identify the suspects’ vehicles, leading Austin Mayor Kirk Watson and Police Chief Lisa Davis to call for reconsideration of ALPRs.
“Probably having license plate readers would have been helpful under these circumstances,” Watson said.“When we are trying to reach balance and perspective, we need to take all of that into account.”
St. Johns County, Florida, Sheriff Rob Hardwick has been a defender of the technology. His office has used license plate readers from Flock and other providers since 2017.
Hardwick said ALPR technology helped his agency solve a Silver Leaf homicide within 27 minutes and identify suspects in a double murder within seven hours.
He also pointed to an investigation involving an 11-year-old girl. Investigators entered a description of a small silver car with front-end damage into the system, which helped them identify a man Hardwick said was later sentenced to two life terms for sexually abusing children.
Hardwick said his agency limits data sharing to surrounding counties and the FBI and has found no misuse of its ALPR systems since 2017.
Other chiefs defending ALPRs have emphasized the restrictions their departments place on searches and data sharing.
St. Petersburg Police Chief Anthony Holloway said his department’s 50 cameras have helped locate missing people, recover stolen vehicles and investigate crimes. In one recent case, investigators used Flock data to follow a vehicle and arrest a suspect in the fatal shooting of a city employee.
“We’re not monitoring people. We’re monitoring incidents,” Holloway told FOX 13.
In New Mexico, the Albuquerque Police Department offered a similar defense of ALPRs even as nearby agencies cut ties with Flock.
APD uses Genetec and said plate readers had helped reduce auto theft by more than 50% and contributed to 14 solved homicide cases in 2026.
There is no single direction for ALPR use in law enforcement.
The debate is not really over whether ALPRs work. Almost no one disputes that they do. Even some communities that have canceled contracts acknowledge that the cameras have helped solve homicides, locate missing children and identify fugitives. The real variable is trust: in the vendor, in the audit process, in whoever controls who gets to search.
Some agencies are ending contracts after that trust broke down. Others are switching vendors or adding tighter controls to try to rebuild it. Many are keeping their systems as-is, pointing to cases in which plate readers helped identify suspects, locate missing people or solve violent crimes.
But some opponents are not asking for stronger safeguards. They object to creating a searchable record of where people drive at all. That opposition has surfaced in packed public meetings and votes to reject the cameras, while others have expressed it by cutting down, burning or shooting at the equipment.
That split reflects two different kinds of disagreement. One is over how to balance crime-solving value against privacy risk — retention limits, audit logs, case codes — and it’s the one industry groups, sheriffs and lawmakers are already converging toward, however slowly. The other is a disagreement over the premise itself: whether a searchable record of where people drive should exist regardless of the safeguards attached, a position no vendor policy can resolve.
