Officials across party lines are dismantling the growing network of AI-powered cameras that track American drivers — and the pushback is accelerating.
Automated license plate readers (ALPRs) scan the plates of passing cars and store the data in massive databases. Pushback against this technology — specifically cameras from vendor Flock Safety — has united Republicans and Democrats who call it warrantless mass surveillance.
Law enforcement warns that restricting the cameras would cripple their ability to solve crimes. But legislators in Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Congress aren’t backing down.
“THE GROWING OPPOSITION FROM LOCAL CITY COUNCILS TO CONGRESS AND STATE LEGISLATURES IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY STANDING UP AGAINST MASS SURVEILLANCE.”
Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott blocked state agencies from spending money on the cameras on Aug. 27. Florida’s Department of Transportation went further — revoking permits for the devices on state highways on Aug. 31 and ordering them removed within 30 days.
A total of 201 local communities have canceled or refused to renew ALPR contracts since the start of 2025, according to the Institute for Justice’s cancellation tracker.
“The growing opposition from local city councils to Congress and state legislatures is the direct result of communities across the country standing up against mass surveillance,” Rindala Alajaji, Associate Director of State Affairs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
She added that opposition to these cameras “crosses every political line because people recognize that turning our streets into a warrantless tracking grid violates fundamental civil liberties.”
Among the latest jurisdictions to reject the cameras: Knox County, Tennessee, where local officials unanimously voted to remove them on Aug. 31.
“The big issue is that when these cameras are deployed in large numbers … [they] can determine your movements based on this network of cameras,” Mayor Glenn Jacobs said in an August interview with the DCNF, prior to his county’s removal of its Flock cameras.
Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Revolt
In Pennsylvania, lawmakers have introduced at least nine bills to restrict or ban the cameras — most of them in a matter of weeks.
“These tools can serve legitimate law enforcement purposes, but Pennsylvanians should not have to choose between public safety and their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable government surveillance,” Republican Pennsylvania state Rep. David Rowe, chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, told the DCNF. “We can—and should—protect both.”
Rowe, along with Republican Pennsylvania state Rep. Josh Bashline, announced a two-bill package to place “guardrails” on ALPR cameras. One of the bills would establish a local moratorium on the use of ALPR cameras.
The most recent legislation proposed in the state’s senate, sponsored by Democratic state Sens. Nick Pisciotto and Patty Kim, would enforce oversight, accountability for bad actors, and protect personal data.
This bill would act as a companion to a bipartisan House package led by Democratic Rep. Tarik Khan that would set rules for who can access ALPR data and create civil penalties for misuse.
Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said Flock cameras are “not something in the public interest.”
California’s Failed Guardrails
Legislators in California have failed multiple times to pass legal guardrails for ALPR cameras since 2022.
The most recent attempt involved Democratic state Sen. Sabrina Cervantes’s bill, SB 1013, which called for specific safeguards on the technology. The bill was removed from the assembly floor on the final day of the legislative session by Democratic Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry — and a vote never took place.
“It’s unfortunate that Senate Bill 1013 did not get the chance to be voted on before the deadline passed, but I look forward to continuing to fight for the privacy rights of Californians next year,” Cervantes told the DCNF.
“We need to take action to protect Californians’ personal information when it comes to license plate cameras,” Aguiar-Curry told the DCNF. She said the holdup was a normal procedural move, and the bill was supposed to be voted on later that day.
“My motion to pause, where I stated we would, ‘come back to the measure later,’ had nothing to do with my personal position on the bill,” Aguiar-Curry told the DCNF. “I do support the policy in SB 1013 and am hopeful the bill is reintroduced in the next legislative session.”
Defenders of the cameras in California say privacy concerns are overblown and warn that stripping the tool away would cost law enforcement its most effective means of solving crimes.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, serves in the same jurisdiction as Cervantes and supports ALPR technology. His sheriffs’ association is among the groups opposed to Cervantes’ ALPR bill.
“I WOULD NEVER EMPLOY THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY IF IT WAS EVEN REMOTELY VIOLATING SOMEBODY’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND IT’S NOWHERE CLOSE.”
“I am probably one of the biggest proponents of ALPRs. Yeah, I would never employ this type of technology if it was even remotely violating somebody’s constitutional rights, and it’s nowhere close,” Bianco, a former Republican candidate for California governor, told the DCNF.
He argued that claims against these cameras are the result of the Left’s “love affair with criminals.”
“[T]his is a massive negative campaign that was created by a very pro-left, pro-criminal agenda that is that has spent a decade removing tools that work in arresting and prosecuting criminals,” the sheriff told the DCNF.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police backs Bianco’s stance on the technology. The group said in an Aug. 20 press release that it “strongly supports the lawful, ethical, transparent, and accountable use” of ALPR technology when it advances public safety objectives.
The IACP added that these cameras can identify vehicles associated with violent crimes, locate missing and vulnerable community members, and locate stolen property, when used “properly.”
“[E]very single argument for the opposition of these cameras is based on emotion [and] has no factual basis whatsoever,” Bianco claimed. “None. It’s like, well, what if? What if? What if? What if the sky fell tomorrow and we all blew up and died? No one would care anymore.”
Bianco’s solution is legal repercussions for officers who abuse the technology. “[M]akes it life in prison if a law enforcement officer does that. I’ll be all for it,” he told the DCNF.
Congress Joins the Fight
At the federal level, Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Eric Burlison of Missouri introduced the Flock-Off Act, which would bar federal funds for buying or operating ALPRs and give recipients 180 days to shut existing systems down.
“The federal government shouldn’t provide ‘security’ grants to cities and police departments that have gone beyond the pale and turned their communities into a version of 1984,” Massie stated in a Sept. 2 press release.
“Public pushback has hit a fever pitch because of a toxic mix of heightened awareness and corporate tone-deafness,” James Czerniawski, head of emerging technology policy for Consumer Choice Center, told the DCNF. “People are genuinely concerned about being trapped in a dragnet of constant government surveillance.”
Republican Texas Rep. Keith Self has separately pushed the PRIVACY Act, which would require federal agencies to obtain a warrant prior to using ALPR data.
Flock, which has received the majority of public criticism for this technology, defended its cameras.
“Flock’s technology is an important public safety tool for law enforcement agencies across America, helping officers solve serious crimes and find missing people,” a Flock spokesperson told the DCNF. “We support thoughtful, bipartisan legislation that puts strong privacy, transparency, and accountability guardrails in place while preserving law enforcement’s ability to use technology responsibly to keep people safe.”
Critics argue the problem extends well beyond any single company.
“Flock gets the spotlight because they are a market leader, but the underlying issue isn’t tied to just one ALPR company; it’s the business model itself,” Czerniawski told the DCNF. “Any ALPR company building mass-tracking infrastructure faces the same fundamental questions and critiques.”
While Flock Safety is the largest ALPR vendor in the U.S., police departments also partner with Axon, Motorola Solutions’ Vigilant unit, and Rekor for these services, according to the ACLU.
None of the other major vendors are any better, said Alex Marthews, national chair of Restore the Fourth. “Though Flock Safety is a bad actor in the ALPR space, that doesn’t mean that Axon or Vigilant/Motorola or other providers is better from a privacy perspective,” Marthews told the DCNF, adding that “the whole business model of ALPR firms rests on profiting off of violating your privacy.”
