Cities Abandon License Plate Readers Amid Immigration Surveillance Fears

Automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) have proliferated across the United States, with cameras capturing images of vehicles on roads and highways. Law enforcement agencies have embraced this technology, citing its effectiveness in solving crimes.

However, as immigration enforcement intensifies under the current administration, residents in various cities are pushing back against the use of these cameras. They express fears of mass surveillance and worry that local data could inadvertently support federal deportation efforts.

Grassroots movements have emerged, particularly targeting Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based company that supplies ALPRs to over 5,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide. While some municipalities have opted to retain their cameras for public safety reasons, a growing number have responded to community pressure by deactivating or canceling contracts.

Notable examples include liberal college towns like Flagstaff, Arizona; Cambridge, Massachusetts; Eugene, Oregon; and Santa Cruz, California. Since early 2025, at least 30 localities have either halted their use of Flock cameras or terminated contracts, with a significant uptick in activity occurring in the last three months.

"We're witnessing a surge in momentum," remarked Will Freeman, a Colorado activist opposing the cameras. He operates DeFlock.me, a crowdsourced platform mapping over 76,000 ALPRs nationwide. "I anticipate more cities will follow suit."

Police departments laud ALPRs for their role in recovering stolen vehicles and apprehending suspects. The technology has been instrumental in high-profile cases, such as locating a suspect linked to a shooting at Brown University.

Flock's AI-driven cameras not only capture license plates but also gather vehicle details like make, model, and color, which police can use for searches. The company maintains a national database accessible to law enforcement for tracking vehicles beyond local jurisdictions.

Debates surrounding Flock cameras often center on data access. Flock asserts that cities control their data-sharing settings. "Each Flock customer has sole authority over if, when, and with whom information is shared," the company stated in an email. Records are generated to indicate which agency initiated a search and its purpose.

Yet many city officials have discovered that their data was being shared more broadly than anticipated, including access by federal agencies like U.S. Border Patrol.

In response to community concerns, Hillsborough, North Carolina officials announced in October they would end their relationship with Flock after realizing the potential for data disclosure to any government entity based on vague language in their agreement.

Flagstaff Police Department also tightened its data-sharing protocols after residents raised alarms about Flock cameras. The department removed its data from both state and national lookup networks, opting instead to share it solely with two local agencies and reducing the data retention period from 30 days to 14.

"This technology has proven valuable," said Deputy Chief of Operations Collin Seay during a city council meeting discussing the future of Flagstaff's Flock cameras. However, public comments were dominated by residents voicing their concerns about surveillance.

"We oppose AI mass surveillance as the current federal administration weaponizes data," stated Flagstaff resident Michele James.

Another resident cited an analysis revealing that numerous police departments had searched Flock's network in connection with protests. Concerns were also raised about Texas sheriff's deputies searching for a woman who had undergone an abortion.

Flagstaff Mayor Becky Daggett expressed initial hope that enhanced safeguards would allow continued use of the cameras but ultimately recognized that community trust had eroded. "It became clear that this technology wouldn't be well-received," she said as the council voted to terminate their contract with Flock.

In Santa Cruz, council member Susie O'Hara grew increasingly uneasy about the city's eight Flock cameras last year. Local officials were alarmed to learn that their data had been shared with Flock's national network without their knowledge, violating state laws prohibiting such actions.

In August, Flock acknowledged a pilot program with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), despite earlier denials of federal contracts. CEO Garrett Langley later admitted to miscommunication regarding the company's relationship with federal agencies.

"Conflicting reports about our federal relationships have surfaced," Langley stated. "We communicated poorly and failed to establish distinct permissions for local compliance."

This admission frustrated O'Hara. "I was dissatisfied with a multibillion-dollar company jeopardizing our local data against our values," she remarked.

Concerns persisted regarding the potential misuse of city data for immigration enforcement. Although Flock claimed its pilot programs with CBP and Homeland Security Investigations had ended, audits revealed local police departments conducting searches for federal agencies using terms like "ICE" or "immigration."

O'Hara noted that audits indicated some California police departments were performing immigration-related searches, which she found troubling.

In October, Flock announced it had implemented keyword filters to block searches related to civil immigration or reproductive healthcare where prohibited by state law. They also introduced a dropdown menu requiring police to select an "offense type" before conducting searches.

O'Hara remained skeptical of these measures, fearing that officers could still select more acceptable options while conducting immigration-related searches.

A pivotal moment for O'Hara occurred on January 7 when Renee Macklin Good was killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. This incident solidified her belief that Santa Cruz should distance itself from any surveillance tied to federal enforcement actions. "The chaos in Minneapolis gave me goosebumps," she recalled. "It was clear we should not be part of this system."

On January 13, the Santa Cruz city council voted to end its contract with Flock less than two years after it began.

Flock maintains that new partnerships with law enforcement agencies continue to outpace those ending agreements.

Langley has criticized activists opposing Flock technology, labeling DeFlock as "terroristic" in a September interview. He did not respond to inquiries regarding this characterization.

Freeman countered Langley's remarks: "We simply created a website to map these cameras and advocate against mass surveillance legally and respectfully."

The following month, Langley informed Flock customers that his company faced a "coordinated attack" from activist groups aiming to defund police and undermine public safety.

This characterization did not resonate well with Staunton Police Chief Jim Williams, who responded by emphasizing that local citizens raising concerns about potential surveillance were exercising democracy in action.

The exchange was included in a Staunton news release announcing the city's decision to end its contract with Flock.