ATLANTA — Flock is cutting its recommended default retention period for automated license plate reader data and will require law enforcement customers to use new safeguards designed to identify and prevent improper searches.
Law enforcement leaders across the country have strongly endorsed ALPRs as valuable crime-fighting tools. Marion 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.” Apache Junction Police Chief Michael Pooley called the technology a “force multiplier” that has allowed his department to “solve a lot of crime.” Chiefs and sheriffs have credited ALPRs with locating missing people, recovering stolen vehicles and identifying suspects in violent crimes throughout the country.
However, as the technology has expanded, community members have raised questions about how agencies retain and share ALPR data and monitor access to it. Several cities have ended or reconsidered their contracts over privacy, security and oversight concerns. Flock cameras have also become targets of vandalism.
CEO Garrett Langley announced the changes Aug. 13, presenting them as a response to those concerns.
“You’ve asked for stronger privacy, accountability, security and transparency. We’re listening, and today our CEO Garrett Langley is sharing the changes we’re making to keep raising the standard for public safety technology,” the company said on Facebook.
The changes affect data retention, information sharing, user audits, account security and contract language. For officers and agency administrators, the changes will mean mandatory case codes, automatic lockouts tied to abnormal activity and more control over which offenses other agencies may investigate using their camera data.
Seven-day default retention period
Flock said it is reducing its recommended default retention period for ALPR data from 30 days to seven.
The company said its analysis found that officers conduct more than 90% of searches without a complete license plate number within a week. Those searches allow officers to look for a vehicle using a partial plate or details such as its make, color, body style or distinctive features. Flock cited the finding as evidence that a seven-day window would preserve the data used in most investigations while reducing how long other plate records remain in the system.
Existing customers will keep the retention periods already approved in their jurisdictions, and communities may continue to select a different period.
For investigations that extend beyond seven days, Flock plans to introduce Evidence Mode in the coming weeks. The feature will allow detectives to preserve specific ALPR records connected to an active investigation instead of having them automatically deleted. It will be free for customers that adopt the seven-day recommendation.
Evidence Mode would require investigators to identify and preserve a relevant record before the retention period expires.
During an April hearing on proposed California ALPR legislation, the California Police Chiefs Association opposed even a 30-day limit, noting that sexual assaults, domestic violence, human trafficking and organized theft are not always reported immediately.
Case codes, audits and automatic lockouts will become mandatory
Flock will require all law enforcement customers to activate its Audit Assistance feature by the end of 2026. The tool analyzes user activity and flags unusual searches for review by an agency administrator.
The feature has been optional since April. Langley said more than one-third of customers have adopted it and that recent reviews were associated with the arrests of several officers accused of misusing the system.
Flock will also introduce proactive lockouts. A user whose activity meets the company’s criteria for abnormal behavior will automatically lose access until an administrator reviews the account.
“The goal is to intervene before misuse becomes recurring or widespread,” Langley stated.
Officers will be required to enter a case code for every search by the end of the year. Agencies may bypass the requirement during an emergency, but those searches will automatically be flagged for administrative review.
“Abuse of Flock technology, at any level, is unacceptable,” Langley wrote in the announcement.
Contract, security and transparency changes
Flock will publish a plain-language explanation of its contract the week of Aug. 17 after acknowledging that its wording had created confusion about data ownership. The company said customers own the information collected by their cameras and control how it is shared.
Multifactor authentication became mandatory for all Flock accounts in August. The company also hired cybersecurity firm Bishop Fox to review its products and plans to publish a summary of the findings and its remediation work in September. A new vulnerability disclosure program will give researchers a formal way to report security flaws.
Flock said more than 1,500 agencies have activated published Transparency Portals showing their policies, retention periods, sharing partners and search activity.
Flock responds to concerns about ALPR accuracy
Addressing a recent wrongful traffic stop involving an automotive journalist, Langley said officers must verify an ALPR alert before taking enforcement action.
“No stop should ever rest on an unverified alert standing alone,” he wrote.
Flock noted that its system compares both the plate number and issuing state with hot-list records, assigns a confidence score to each read and filters out low-confidence matches before sending an alert. The company reported fewer than nine human-reported errors for every 1 million alerts.
Flock also said its technology assists officers with more than 1 million crimes each year. Langley said the system detected more than 1,000 missing people and more than 20,000 stolen vehicles in July 2026 alone.
Automated license plate readers have become important investigative tools for police. As lawmakers consider additional guardrails governing their use, could new restrictions make it harder for agencies to solve crimes and protect the public? Share your opinion below.
Police1 readers respond:
- I have been saying this for years; if we don’t restrict the manner in which we use ALPR’s, the courts are going to do it for us. Do you want the Ninth Circuit writing the precedent? Remember, we didn’t need warrants for phones not too many years ago, but the courts caught up. Unfortunately, the laws and regulations are several years behind the technology. The argument from law enforcement administration is that we are taking pictures in public places. We all know that’s okay. The issue lies in the fact that we take that photo, attach a location, and store it. Then we give our officers easy access to the data. Look at the number of officers and support staff arrested and/or fired this month alone for misuse of the information. It’s absurd and indicates the need to restrict the information. Furthermore, it gives the public more reason to be concerned. ALPR’s are the greatest investigative breakthrough since DNA analysis, so let’s not get lost in our arrogance and lose it. We should access the information in cases of exigent circumstance (ie., endangered person, forcible felony), court order, or warrant. It should be treated like other forms of digital evidence. I’ve been laughed at for my opinion for several years, but now the pendulum seems to be swinging that direction. If you’re a decision maker, get out in front of it.
- Public acceptance will likely increase if transparency is improved, checks and balances are established, and, in California, compliance with state laws governing sharing protocols is clearly understood by policymakers, departments, and the public.
- The additional safekeeping of the access and dissemination policies are not restricting the resource and it’s capabilities, I do not see this handicapping public safety. This is a safeguard in reaction to the increased media hype of the misuse of the system.
NOT a fan. First huge issue is that it is a private company and can be hacked and or used by any other entity, country or business. Local LE has no control over this private company. Also, it’s another subscription model instead of selling the system to the users. With facial recognition, audio recording AND not even needing a plate, combined with being on every street, every parking lot, ect..."you can’t get a breath of fresh air without it knowing.” I don’t and I won’t use it.
