Congress talks tough on Flock cameras, but no bill would ban them outright

As of this week, no bill in Congress would ban Flock Safety’s automated license plate readers outright, even as a bipartisan chorus of lawmakers, most of them Republicans, has spent the past several months introducing or promising legislation to rein in the technology.

The proposals so far would restrict how federal agencies buy, access or fund automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems, including Flock’s cameras. None would prohibit the cameras themselves.

Republican Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett introduced the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act in July, which would bar federal agencies from purchasing, deploying, operating or accessing automated surveillance systems that “identify, track, or record individuals,” including Flock cameras, facial recognition and biometric tools. The bill would also block state and local governments from using federal funds for the same systems and require improperly obtained data to be purged within 30 days.

Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Lauren Boebert of Colorado introduced the Surveillance Accountability Act in April, which would require federal and local agencies to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before conducting surveillance on Americans, including through ALPRs and facial recognition. Mr. Massie has separately said he plans to introduce legislation withholding federal funding from municipalities and police departments that use Flock and other ALPR systems, though that bill has not yet been filed.

Republican Reps. Keith Self of Texas, Eli Crane of Arizona and Andrew Clyde of Georgia introduced the Protecting Rights in Video and Equipment Acquired Discovery (PRIVACY) Act — H.R. 9716 — in July, which would require federal law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing or querying covered surveillance data collected by state and local systems, including ALPRs. The bill would generally limit federal law enforcement’s retention of data obtained under the bill to 30 days, with extensions allowed for cause or for data tied to an active prosecution; it does not impose a retention limit on the underlying state or local database. The bill would also bar the use of federal funds to purchase or install the listed surveillance technologies, subject to several exceptions.

Republican Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna posted on X in July that she was drafting legislation to ban Flock cameras, but her office has not said when a bill will be introduced.

Republican Indiana Rep. Marlin Stutzman said he is working with colleagues on legislation to restrict Flock cameras after a Flock alert led an officer to follow him to his home over an expired vehicle registration in early August. Mr. Stutzman called the technology “invasive” and said it amounts to “too big government,” though he has not yet introduced a bill.

None of the current proposals would ban ALPR technology nationwide. Flock, for its part, has urged Congress to pursue oversight rather than a ban. “We believe public safety, privacy, and Fourth Amendment rights can and must coexist,” a company spokesperson said, adding that more than 40 courts have found that using license plate readers in public spaces does not require a warrant.

Advertisement Advertisement

Errors and abuse fuel the pushback

The legislative push follows a wave of reporting on Flock’s errors and misuse. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-interest law firm, has documented more than 40 cases, on a running tally it continues to update, of officers allegedly using ALPR systems to track romantic partners, exes or people they met in public. In one, a former Milwaukee officer used the department’s Flock network to track a woman he was dating and her ex-partner nearly 180 times over two months before resigning; his conduct surfaced only after the victims looked up their own license plates on a public audit-log website.

Errors have also swept up innocent drivers. In Wisconsin, Brookfield police held a woman at gunpoint on Interstate 94 in early August after a Flock camera flagged her car in a Milwaukee homicide investigation — an alert Milwaukee police later said should have been deleted days earlier.

Separately, Democratic Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden and Democratic Illinois Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi called on the Federal Trade Commission in November to investigate Flock over its cybersecurity practices, citing reports that at least 35 customer accounts had login credentials stolen and traded on Russian cybercrime forums. Neither lawmaker has introduced legislation addressing the issue.

Flock’s political spending has grown alongside the scrutiny. The company spent $920,000 on federal lobbying in 2025, according to OpenSecrets figures cited in press accounts, and has continued lobbying into 2026. Separately, individuals who identified Flock Safety as their employer in federal campaign finance filings — not the company itself, which as a corporation cannot contribute directly to candidates — have made personal political contributions, according to OpenSecrets. Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley donated to Health Jobs Justice, a Democratic leadership PAC aligned with Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff, in 2024. Mr. Ossoff, whose state is home to Flock’s headquarters, has not commented publicly on Flock cameras or ALPRs; his office did not respond to a request for comment. He did join a 2022 inquiry into the FBI’s facial recognition practices.

Advertisement Advertisement

A history of federal surveillance abuse

Skeptics of expanding federal access to ALPR data point to a documented history of the government misusing surveillance authority it already has. Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty in 2020 to altering an email used to renew a FISA warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

More broadly, the FBI misused its Section 702 surveillance database roughly 278,000 times between 2020 and early 2021, according to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion unsealed in May 2023. The database was used to search for Jan. 6 Capitol riot suspects, Black Lives Matter-era protest arrestees and, in one case, more than 19,000 donors to a single congressional campaign; an FBI analyst ran 23,132 separate queries tied to Jan. 6 alone.

That history has shaped the current fight over Section 702 itself. In June, 19 House Republicans — including Mr. Burchett, Mr. Massie, Ms. Boebert, Mr. Self, Mr. Clyde and Mr. Crane — voted with Democrats against a short-term extension of Section 702 because it lacked a warrant requirement, helping sink the measure. Seven Senate Republicans separately voted against a procedural motion to advance a 702 extension for the same reason.

Advertisement Advertisement

President Trump weighed in on Flock cameras for the first time on Monday, telling a reporter the technology has “pros and cons” and that his administration is studying the issue, with an answer expected “over the next couple of weeks.”

This article was constructed with the assistance of artificial intelligence and published by a member of The Washington Times' AI News Desk team. The contents of this report are based solely on The Washington Times' original reporting, wire services, and/or other sources cited within the report. For more information, please read our AI policy or contact Steve Fink, Director of Artificial Intelligence, at sfink@washingtontimes.com

The Washington Times AI Ethics Newsroom Committee can be reached at aispotlight@washingtontimes.com.