With Flock Safety operating one of the largest networks of automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) are becoming more common across the United States as part of surveillance infrastructure. As a result of their rapid expansion, privacy advocates have expressed concern that such systems may create detailed records of vehicle movements in communities across the nation.
How Flock Cameras Work
While traffic enforcement cameras usually focus on specific violations, Flock cameras photograph passing vehicles and translate the images into searchable records. License plates, locations, times, make, model, color and body type can all be included in records, along with distinguishing features such as bumper stickers or visible damage that can assist investigators in finding a particular vehicle or based on broader descriptions.
Watchlists are also available for cars associated with stolen vehicles, missing people, or criminal investigations, triggering alerts in the event that a potential match is detected. It is possible for participating law enforcement agencies to search the data of other agencies, depending on how their networks are configured.
Why Police Departments Use Flock Cameras
A flock camera is a compact device that captures passing vehicles and records information such as license plate numbers, vehicle make and model, color, and location. Throughout the course of the investigation, data will be stored in a searchable system that will allow participating law enforcement agencies and other authorized organizations to access the system, potentially enabling the tracking of individual vehicle movements.
The company claims that its technology does not utilize facial recognition and that customers can manage access to collected data through controls. However, given the extent to which its network is deployed, concerns have been raised about the manner in which vehicle data is shared, retained, and utilized. Approximately 120,000 cameras are now deployed across 49 states in the company's system, which is deployed by police departments, businesses, schools and homeowner associations in more than 6,000 communities.
With the capabilities of the technology, more than just a license plate can be captured, as the records may include distinctive vehicle characteristics such as bumper stickers, dents, and other visible features. With the proliferation of surveillance cameras along public roads as well as private properties, questions regarding data access, civil liberties, and data privacy are becoming increasingly difficult to separate from the broader discussion surrounding public safety technology.
Why Flock Cameras Are Controversial
It is not just about a single camera recording the movement of a vehicle that is of concern, but the network surrounding it at large. By using a large number of cameras, investigators may be able to reconstruct patterns of movement involving individuals who are not suspected of committing crimes by repeating recordings of the same vehicle at various times and locations.
The use of vehicle-location data has also been criticized by privacy advocates, who have noted that it may reveal visits to sensitive areas, such as health facilities, protest sites, and churches. Searches based on historic ALPR records are still subject to legal uncertainty, including when warrants are required. Flock rejects the characterization that its system constitutes mass surveillance, however.
Data Sharing Raises Additional Concerns
In addition to bringing Flock into the debate about immigration enforcement, data sharing has brought Flock into the public eye. According to a 2025 review of search logs, there were more than 4,000 Flock searches conducted by local and state police at the request of federal authorities, including searches that may have been related to immigration enforcement.
An investigation conducted in 2026 revealed that outside police departments searched school cameras.
It has been contested that the federal government has direct access to Flock's cameras, claiming it does not have a contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and does not have the right to access its data or cameras directly.
Unauthorized Access and Personal Misuse
In addition to allegations of misuse, there have been 28 documented cases in which officers are alleged to have abused license plate reader systems to monitor spouses, former spouses, colleagues, or romantic interests.
Another instance occurred in July 2026 when North Carolina authorities arrested a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer who was accused of conducting an unauthorized license plate search for a non-law enforcement purpose using Flock and the state criminal justice database.
Flock Cameras Can Also Produce False Alerts
If surveillance data is inaccurate, it can also pose problems. During June 2026, a driver in Minnesota was stopped by Flock alerts triggered by license plates that were similar to license plates reported stolen in another state. According to Flock, license plate translations are sometimes incomplete or inaccurate, which can result in negative consequences when automated alerts are used to influence police conduct.
Communities Push Back Against Flock Surveillance
Over 80 municipalities have reported terminating or refusing to renew their Flock agreements, while Washington has imposed restrictions on how license plate data can be collected, searched, and shared as a result of the debate.
Opposition to the technology has gone beyond policy debates. There have been at least 33 incidents in which Flock cameras have been damaged or destroyed, including cases where cameras have been painted, blocked, cut down, or burned in 23 states.
