On Wednesday September 23, 2026, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism had a hearing, “Always Watching: Flock’s Nationwide AI Surveillance Network.” Flock Safety’s cameras primarily discussed in the hearing are automated license plate readers (ALPR) which continuously record movements of vehicles. The vast network of Flock cameras across the country along with artificial intelligence-enabled searches of data can enable the tracking of individuals without a warrant. During the hearing there was bipartisan agreement that such activities are in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that guardrails are needed on how law enforcement agencies can utilize such technologies.

While the hearing primarily focused on Flock Safety, Senators and witnesses pointed out that Flock is not the only provider of ALPR cameras on the market with competitors including Axon and Motorola Solutions. There are multiple providers of AI-enhanced ALPR technologies, so cancellations of contracts with Flock does not necessarily mean states and localities are not working with other companies. Furthermore, policy changes and guardrails from one provider such as limitations on data retention and access will not necessarily be translated to others without legislative intervention. Despite increasingly negative coverage and public and political backlash to the technology this year, there are still over a hundred thousand cameras across the country.

The ongoing discussion around Flock cameras is important for transportation agencies to consider as cameras placed on the right-of-way are permitted by state DOTs, can be conflated with automated enforcement cameras, have their own potential capabilities for transportation agencies, and bring up important questions about balancing individual privacy and roadway data collection in the age of artificial intelligence.

ALPR vs. Automated Traffic Enforcement

The first question of the hearing came from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MI) about the difference between AI-powered ALPRs and traditional license plate reading technology. Automatic license plate readers and automated enforcement cameras (traditional license plate readers) may be conflated or misunderstood to be the same technology but are fundamentally different. Traditional license plate readers such as red-light and speed cameras are triggered based on detection of a traffic safety violation. Automated enforcement cameras can also be utilized to enforce bus lanes, stop signs, and school bus stops. ALPRs are continuously gathering information, whether or not a violation has occurred.

Automated traffic enforcement technologies have been found to reduce speeding and crashes and also help to raise revenues. While 27 states have automated camera programs, there are eight states that ban speed or/and red-light automated enforcement. This traditional type of automated enforcement is not without political controversy and was removed as an eligible activity in the latest round of Safe Streets for All funding. Law enforcement and transportation agencies in favor of the use of automated enforcement should be aware of the potential for the public or lawmakers to equate automated enforcement with continuously recording technologies and may need to communicate with the public how information is recorded and used even for non-ALPR cameras.

Individual Privacy and Mass Surveillance Concerns

During the hearing, members focused on the possible Fourth Amendment violations of continuously filming cameras networked together with the ability to track and develop intimate patterns of life on individuals not suspected of a crime. Witnesses Alasdair Whitney and Chad Marlow emphasized how artificial intelligence is enabling the tracking of individuals through ALPR cameras and rapid reconstruction of an individual’s movements across billions of images. Sen. Hawley said this enables subscribers to develop patterns of life without a warrant. Sen. Hawley flagged that Flock applied for a patent for individual surveillance and that the technology is already able to separate individuals from vehicles in images.

He also noted that while the CEOs of major ALPR providers were invited to attend the hearing as witnesses, they declined to participate. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) joked that the CEOs were nervous to be on camera. Durbin called for a balancing of individual privacy and potential security benefits, such as creating guardrails to permit the usage of the technology to find missing people and cars.

Witnesses and members discussed potential negative uses of the technology by both authorized and unauthorized users. They referenced the misuse of data by those with authorized access to track former romantic partners, particularly women. Flock says the responsibility to govern searches is up to its consumers. Whitney raised concerns about this self-governance approach, citing officers labeling searches with value titles such as “search” and “lol.” Witness Lindsey Issacs shared her experience of being placed in solidarity confinement after an ALPR camera falsely identified her vehicle as being involved in a fatal crash.

Sen. Durbin raised concerns about companies potentially selling data to third parties, highlighting the potential value of data on individual movements for commercial enterprises and non-safety related activities. Alasdair Whitney raised concerns about data from cameras being used by gig workers overseas to train AI systems. Witness Benn Jordan described multiple vulnerabilities in Flock’s initial software and hardware, including data ending up on the Russian dark web, lack of end-to-end encryption, and low effort hacking enabling access to cameras with capabilities to zoom into individual phone screens.

Witnesses highlighted groups that could potentially be targeted on political grounds, including those seeking abortions, gun owners, members of religious groups, and immigrants. Witnesses also discussed that through a subpoena or even a phone call federal authorities can access Flock data. The current state-by-state patchwork of legislation around ALPR technologies creates variations in individual rights across borders and also leaves open the potential for federal misuse of the data. Sherriff Temple raised the concern that without regulations now, a sweeping judicial correction might come from the Supreme Court completely banning any use of ALPR technology, including positive uses highlighted by some members and witnesses.

Thus far, courts have been somewhat divided on the extent to which ALPR cameras constitute Fourth Amendment violations. According to the plain view theory, law enforcement is not necessarily in violation of the Fourth Amendment simply through observation of information already in plain view, such as license plates. However, in Carpenter v. United States, collection of cell-site location information was subject to Fourth Amendment protections since the Court determined that individuals could not voluntarily decide to turn over the intimate information detectable through CSLI. This ruling may be applicable to the mosaic of information involuntarily collected through ALPR networks.

Whitney called on Congress to require officers to obtain a warrant to search databases and to limit how long data is maintained, stating that this would not prevent the use of the technology to track missing people. Sherriff Ross Temple added that officers need a warrant to put a tracker on a physical vehicle and should therefore require warrants to utilize ALPR technologies with effectively the same capabilities. In addition to calling for guardrails for the storage and usage of data, witnesses called on Congress to restrict federal funding for ALPR. This approach would not stop states and localities from utilizing APRL technologies but rather would remove some incentive and funding.

Witness Chad Marlow did not support guardrails but rather advocated for an outright ban of the technology. He raised concerns about the chilling effect of mass surveillance systems on the general public’s rights and freedoms and said that the mass surveillance implications of ALPRs did not justify their marginal gains. He said continuously recording cameras are only shown to provide safety benefits in parking lots and mass transit and that the deployment of ALPR in Atlanta had no impact on case closure rates.

Ahead of the hearing, lawmakers sent letters to Flock calling for information on the handling of license plate data and raised concerns about potential collaboration with dashcam providers for rideshare vehicles. Lawmakers also sent letters to the Department of Justice, requesting information on the agency’s involvement in funding and oversight of ALPR systems. The letter from Senators Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and Katie Britt (R-AL) called for the DOJ to provide guidance to law enforcement agencies to prevent abuse of the technology.

Transportation Agencies as Permitters and Potential Consumers

State departments of transportation are a key part of the ALPR conversation, both as a permitting authority for camera infrastructure and as potential consumers. ALPRs placed in state DOT right-of-way’s require permits from state departments of transportation, which has placed state departments of transportation at the center of recent pausing or revocations of contracts with ALPR companies.

In late August, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a pause of automatic license plate leaders on state roads and a pause of state funding for Flock cameras. Accordingly, the Texas Department of Transportation paused their issuance of permits for the installation of ALPRs. TxDOT does not currently have access to Flock data, nor does it physically install the cameras. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis, required the Florida Department of Transportation to remove automated license plate readers from state highway rights of way.

Other states including Washington, New Mexico, Kentucky, and Connecticut have passed legislation this year seeking to build parameters on the usage of ALPRs and at the local level some agencies have cancelled their contracts. Vermont was an early adapter of ALPR regulation, limiting the storage time of data and reasons why the data can be accessed and has a ban taking place in July 2027.

Automatic license plate readers can be a form of physical infrastructure on roadways that state DOTs must also take into account for driver safety. Any new infrastructure on roadways has the potential to be a collision risk for drivers if not properly designed and assessed for safety. In July, the Guardian reported that many Flock cameras are placed on roadsides on metal rods that do not have breakaway plates, a safety feature that reduces impact if a vehicle were to collide into them.

Transportation agencies are also targeted consumers for the technology. Flock has advertised their technology not only as a tool for law enforcement but also as a tool for traffic analysis. According to Flock Safety’s website, their technology can be utilized by transportation agencies to augment existing data connection from mobility analytics, traffic sensors, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) platforms, by providing cities with “vehicle-level data collected minute by minute.” The webpage also advertises the ability of the cameras to fill in areas with traditionally thinner data such as low volume segments and the ability for network-wide visibility. The Washington law provides a carve out for transportation agencies to utilize ALPRs for real-time traffic information, for the processes of traffic modeling and studies, or enforcement of commercial vehicle systems.  Flock also advertises that ALPR could be utilized by transportation agencies to strengthen data in grant applications.

ALPR cameras could potentially be used for mileage-based pricing systems, given their ability to track vehicles across transportation networks and for sustained periods of time. However, concerns about privacy violations and general negative public sentiment towards APRL thus far would likely become a sticking point for VMT-fees or other forms of transportation enforcement based on ALPR cameras.

Transportation companies and agencies must be cognizant of how the data they are collecting protects individual privacy, especially as artificial intelligence makes personal identification and tracking easier. Transportation agencies must also keep in mind how the misuse of such technologies may contribute to a negative perception of other types of license plate readers or non-invasive data collection. Maintaining personal privacy and trust in data collection and usage will be important for agencies seeking to unlock the potential of artificial intelligence for transportation analysis and safety. Both companies and agencies should not assume that the public has consented to continuous, personally identifiable roadway data collection. Sen. Hawley criticized Flock for justifying their surveillance technology by comparing it to the giving up of personal data through internet and social media usage. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses agreed that privacy and safety should not be a tradeoff for individuals and emphasized the importance of the Fourth Amendment in the age of digital technology and artificial intelligence.