Nine bills target license plate cameras as bipartisan pressure mounts
Lawmakers from both parties have introduced legislation to restrict Flock Safety's network, following a federal ruling that found its use violated the Fourth Amendment.
By Ethan Cook ·
Nine legislative proposals now exist on Capitol Hill to restrict or ban automated license plate readers, marking a rare instance of unified political action against a specific surveillance technology. The bills range from requiring search warrants for data queries to outright prohibitions on federal purchases of the systems. This legislative push follows a year-long investigation into the technology and a September Senate hearing where witnesses detailed its scope.
The central target is Flock Safety, the largest provider of license plate reader technology to law enforcement. The company reports that more than 120,000 cameras are installed across 49 states. More than 6,000 agencies are connected to its data-sharing network. This connectivity allows a small local department to search data captured by devices in distant jurisdictions. Conversely, their data is often queried by thousands of other departments nationwide.
Representative Greg Steube of Florida, a Republican who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, filed his proposal, the FLAFO Act, on September 24. His bill would generally bar federal agencies from accessing networked license plate reader systems without a warrant. Exceptions exist for emergencies such as terrorism or missing persons. The bill also ties Justice Department funding for state and local agencies to similar rules. Other active bills include the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act by Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee and the Ban Flock Act by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
The legislative momentum is driven by concerns over oversight and potential abuse. Critics point to instances where officers used the system for personal or retaliatory searches. Despite Flock Safety’s implementation of audit tools, the number of officers fired or arrested for such misuse has continued to grow. Currently, no national regulatory framework governs the technology. Rules vary by agency and jurisdiction, creating a patchwork of local policies.
In October, a federal judge ruled that an Oklahoma officer’s warrantless use of Flock’s technology was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The judge described the system as a large-scale dragnet surveillance tool. The ruling highlighted the constitutional tension between using the data to solve crimes and protecting citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Flock Safety maintains that its technology is a public safety tool and supports legislation that includes privacy and transparency guardrails.
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat, has urged communities to take local action to limit camera use. He stated that people are tired of having their privacy rights compromised. Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia, where Flock Safety is headquartered, described the issue as bipartisan because it involves safety from both crime and harassment. Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri called it a nonpartisan citizens issue. The pending bills reflect these varying views, with some favoring federal mandates and others emphasizing local control.
The bills propose different mechanisms for accountability. The ALPR Accountability Act of 2026, introduced by Representative Pat Harrigan of North Carolina, requires deletion of records within one day and bans the indexing of expressive attributes like bumper stickers. Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced the Flock-Off Act, which would cut off federal funds for license plate reader systems. These legislative efforts aim to establish clear boundaries for how law enforcement can utilize the interconnected network of cameras.
