Bipartisan backlash to ALPRs grows as two high-profile bills are introduced

Two bills introduced in Congress over the past three days underscore how the mounting bipartisan backlash to artificial intelligence-powered automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras has reached a tipping point, with Flock and other ALPR companies increasingly facing political risks. 

On Wednesday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced the Stop Flock Abuse Act to bolster safeguards for AI-enabled cameras and protect people’s constitutional rights. 

Sens. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY), introduced a broader bill Friday, proposing to block the federal government from using ALPR cameras and prevent states deploying them from receiving federal funding. It also would let Americans sue the federal government if their rights are violated by deployment of ALPRs, according to a press release.

“Going to the doctor? Flock knows,” Sanders said in a statement. “Dropping your kid off at school? Flock is tracking you. Flock is always watching. We cannot allow America to become a surveillance state where a handful of AI oligarchs profit by giving the government the power to track our every movement.”

In addition to signaling the striking bipartisan nature of the accelerating outcry over the cameras, the proposed bills would apply to all ALPR camera companies, including Motorola and Axon. 

Privacy and civil liberties activists have long worried that the intensifying public uproar over Flock — which has maintained a higher public profile than its competitors — has left companies with very similar practices off the hook. In recent weeks, some police departments have ended their contracts with Flock only to sign on with a second ALPR company.

“What seems to make these networks unique is not just the sheer number of cameras; it's the fact that they're all linked together, empowered and searchable by AI,” Hawley said at a hearing last week where members on both sides of the aisle expressed alarm about the technology. 

“The Constitution of the United States is just as valuable and valid and applicable today as it was almost 250 years ago,” he said. “That includes the right to be innocent until proven guilty… [and] the right to personal privacy, control of your own data and information that is protected in our Bill of Rights.” 

Observers believe legislation cracking down on ALPR cameras has a real chance of succeeding. 

Grassroots organizers in both red and blue states have mounted highly visible campaigns decrying the cameras. They have highlighted the threats posed by mass surveillance, abuse by officers who use them for stalking and police who have arrested innocent people with license plates or car models similar to those belonging to criminal suspects.

It’s unclear whether congressional leaders will make time for votes on ALPR-related bills in the lame-duck session after the elections. But the issue is certain to surface on Capitol Hill again next year.

‘I’m not backing down’

Hawley’s hearing last week featured Floridian Lindsey Isaacs, who was arrested and jailed for 13 days due to data from an AI-powered Flock Safety automated license plate reader that was wrong. Her car was the same model as a car whose occupants were suspected of a crime that occurred a few miles away.

Isaacs spent much of the hearing in tears, noting that she was held for more than three days in solitary confinement.

On September 23, cybersecurity researcher Joshua Michael published a surveillance map showing about 300,000 Flock-safety connected devices nationwide and more than 170,000 Flock cameras in use. Flock has consistently said it deploys only 120,000 cameras. Hawley cited Michael’s work in the hearing, highlighting the vast surveillance apparatus Flock has built.

In November 2025, Michael said, he found Flock's website exposing an access token that could be used without logging in. The token allegedly let him query a Flock geographic information system from which he pulled location data.

Flock has allegedly filed a trademark infringement complaint against Michael, who said in a Thursday Instagram post that the company also sent him a cease-and-desist letter threatening litigation. A reporter friend informed Michael that Flock sent its customers an email calling him a malicious actor and advising that it had notified law enforcement, he said. 

“I’m not backing down,” he said in the Instagram post.

‘A very good sign’

A spokesperson for Flock did not respond to a request for comment.

Hawley’s legislation is less comprehensive than the House Democrats’ bill, but it still represents a tough stance from a  Republican who has traditionally been friendly to law enforcement.

It would prohibit ALPR companies and local governments from selling or sharing data with nongovernmental third parties, shield driver data from public records requests and block third-party vendors from accessing it.

It also proposes instituting a written approval process for officers seeking to use the powerful technology before they can make a search and routine supervisor audits to monitor red flags. The legislation additionally would require data to be encrypted and mandate that retention periods be cut off at 10 days; Flock now allows departments to keep data for 30 days in many cases.

The bill also would block ALPR companies from outfitting the cameras with facial recognition technology.

Privacy advocates said Hawey’s bill wouldn’t go far enough.

“It is a very good sign that leaders from both political parties are sponsoring bills to confront the dangers of AI-driven ALPRs and the mass surveillance they engage in,” said Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel at the ACLU..  

“The critical next step will be Congress coalescing around a single bill that keeps people safe from ALPRs, and the only way to fully do that is with a ban.”

In recent days, some police officers and prosecutors have spoken out against Flock, questioning whether its searches are constitutional. 

On September 23, five Indianapolis police officers were arrested for allegedly making dozens and sometimes hundreds of Flock searches tracking personal contacts. Similar improper police searches have been documented dozens of times in states nationwide.

On Thursday, the Washington Post revealed that officials in St. Lucie County, Florida discovered 14 Flock cameras they were not aware of and had not issued permits for. It is not the first instance of Flock placing or maintaining cameras without authorization. The company has a commercial interest in collecting as much data as possible to make its national database useful for customers.