Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
Senators Bernie Sanders and Jeff Merkley and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are introducing legislation to sharply restrict the use of Flock Safety’s AI-powered license-plate-reader cameras, adding new momentum to a bipartisan congressional backlash over the growing surveillance network.
The Ban Flock Act would prohibit federal agencies from using automatic license plate readers or accessing data collected by them. It would also restrict federal funding for state and local governments that continue using the technology, effectively pressuring local agencies to impose similar limits. The bill would allow individuals and state attorneys general to sue over violations.
Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats, compared the technology to forcing Americans to wear ankle monitors and argued that Congress should act before nationwide vehicle-tracking networks become entrenched.
“The United States is moving toward a surveillance state,” Sanders said, arguing that private companies are giving governments the ability to track Americans’ movements on a massive scale.
Misuse allegations fuel backlash
The legislation follows a series of reports documenting alleged abuses of license-plate-reader systems.
A Washington Post investigation published in August found that at least 50 law enforcement officers had been accused or charged with using Flock cameras for unauthorized purposes, including tracking romantic partners, spouses and former partners.
Flock subsequently announced changes to its policies and safeguards. Five Indianapolis police officers were later charged with allegedly misusing access to the company’s camera network.
The incidents have intensified concerns about how easily officers can use surveillance databases to obtain information about people who are not suspected of crimes.
Flock operates more than 120,000 cameras across the United States, according to the company and lawmakers investigating the industry. The network can allow law enforcement agencies that use Flock to search camera data beyond their own jurisdictions.
Republicans are also pushing regulation
The congressional backlash is not limited to Democrats.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has launched an investigation into Flock and its competitors and chaired a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing last month focused on the technology’s privacy and national-security implications.
Hawley has announced the Stop Flock Abuse Act, which would establish federal safeguards governing the use of AI-powered surveillance cameras rather than imposing the broader restrictions sought by Sanders and his Democratic allies.
At the September hearing, senators from both parties expressed concerns about the collection and retention of location data. Executives from Flock, Axon, Motorola and Verkada declined invitations to testify.
The competing approaches underscore the emerging divide in Congress: whether the technology should be largely prohibited or allowed to continue under federal standards governing access, retention and accountability.
Flock says regulation is necessary
Flock has not opposed federal legislation outright.
In a letter to Hawley, Flock Chief Legal Officer Dan Haley said privacy protections should not depend on the judgment of a single company and said the company supports “clear, sensible legislation” governing the technology.
Flock has also said it has implemented additional safeguards following scrutiny over alleged misuse.
The company argues that its systems provide law enforcement with tools to locate stolen vehicles, identify suspects and investigate serious crimes. License-plate readers have been used in major criminal investigations, including efforts to identify suspects in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Some law enforcement officials therefore argue that restrictions must preserve legitimate investigative uses while preventing unauthorized searches.
Privacy versus public safety
The debate centers on a fundamental question: how much vehicle-location data should governments be able to collect and retain about people who have not been accused of wrongdoing?
Critics say automated license-plate readers can create detailed records of where Americans travel without requiring officers to obtain a warrant for each search.
Ross Teeple, the sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona, warned Congress that relying on private camera networks as a continuous dragnet could create an AI-driven surveillance system that tracks innocent Americans.
Other law enforcement officials have defended the technology, pointing to cases in which cameras helped locate suspects and recover stolen vehicles.
The competing arguments have helped produce an unusual political alignment, with lawmakers from both parties expressing concerns about the technology even as they disagree over how far federal restrictions should go.
Flock’s growing presence in Washington
The political fight comes as Flock and other surveillance companies have expanded their presence in Washington.
Flock spent about $430,000 on federal lobbying during the first half of 2026 and has hired additional lobbying firms, according to federal disclosure records. Its competitors, including Axon and Motorola Solutions, also maintain significant lobbying operations.
Flock CEO Garrett Langley has said the company expected state and local governments to impose stronger safeguards on optional features designed to prevent misuse.
But the growing number of reported abuses has increased pressure on lawmakers to establish uniform rules rather than leaving oversight primarily to individual police departments and municipalities.
The Ban Flock Act is unlikely to advance under the current Republican-controlled Congress. But its introduction, alongside Hawley’s regulatory proposal and growing state and local scrutiny, signals that Flock’s nationwide surveillance network has become a significant federal policy issue.
For lawmakers, the debate is no longer simply about whether license-plate readers help police solve crimes. It is increasingly about who controls the resulting data, how long it can be retained and how much surveillance Americans should face without knowing they are being tracked.
